Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $18,131
Woo hoo!! And the first 20% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by john de herrera

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Concerned Enough To Act

    07/30/2013 8:35:16 AM PDT · 1 of 5
    john de herrera
  • An Article V Convention

    04/03/2010 1:53:04 PM PDT · 24 of 29
    john de herrera to Kellis91789

    I just wanted to say to Kellis91789 and others on this thread who advocate for the Article V Convention, that you are great Americans! I don’t know what was put in the water to make others fear the very thing designed to deliver us from our corporate totalitarianism, but we are getting closer to prevaling.

    Please keep up the fight, as I myself will.

    To those who respond with the same knee-jerk criticism of the Article V Convention you endanger our freedoms. We are now at a point in American History where we’ll either coerce the call out of the Congress (by raising awareness to the point it spills off the blogs and into the mainstream), or we will die with a whimper.

    It’s convention or bust. That’s where we are.

    Thanks again to my fellow compatriots who advocate for the Article V Convention.


    03/21/2010 10:52:09 AM PDT · 10 of 13
    john de herrera to Publius

    the 1992 law is unconstitutional. you’d have to amend the constitution to allow for any regulation of the Article V Convention.

    for those afraid of a convention, you seem to forget that simply holding elections for delegates will open discussion that media/politicians do not want opened. that in and of itself will stop our slide into oblivion.

    the convention cannot open the constitution, only discussion about which way to go from here.

    there is an inevitable conclusion to what we’re experiencing. we either dust off the constitution and put it to work, or prepare for the worst.

  • Congress Defies Article V of the U.S. Constitution by Ignoring 748 (or more) Article V Applications

    03/08/2010 7:35:40 PM PST · 33 of 37
    john de herrera to Congressman Billybob

    the 1992 law is as unconstitutional as congress failing to carry out its obligation to issue the call. neither the congress nor the courts have any power to place any stricture on the applications for the Article V Convention whatsoever. those laws also fly in the face of supreme court rulings.

    the supreme court is as corrupt as the legislature and so in the 90s of course they put up a show of how benevolent they are in sorting out “the mess.”

    and if it’s law, how do you explain more than one state in the past two years attempting to pass resolutions recinding their past applications?

    in my opinion any american today arguing that state applications older than seven years is of no effect, is part of the problem and likely an insider hoping to perpetuate the charade.

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.”

    The convention clause of Article V is not without effect.

    Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “The government of the United States can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution.”

    No branch of government has the power to question the validity of a state application for the Article V Convention.

    Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842): “[The] Court may not construe the Constitution so as to defeat its obvious ends when another construction, equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect them.”

    To question the validity of a state’s application attempts to construe and defeat the obvious ends of the convention clause.

    Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855): “The departments of the government are legislative, executive and judicial. They are coordinate in degree to the extent of the powers delegated to each of them. Each, in the exercise of its powers, is independent of the other, but all, right-fully done by either, is binding upon the others. The constitution is supreme over all of them, because the people who ratified it have made it so; consequently, any thing which may be done unauthorized by it is unlawful.”

    The three branches of government are unauthorized to question the validity of a state application because the power to do so does not exist. In fact, according to Federalist 85, the saving grace of the Constitution is the prohibition of such a power. The validity/effect of each state application is based solely on its having been cast.

    Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580 (1880): “A constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.”

    To attempt to question the validity of a state application, either through its contemporaneousness or subject matter, is to attempt to defeat its purpose and allow the mischief at which it’s aimed to suppress.

    U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): “Where intention of words and phrases used in Constitution is clear, there is no room for construction [re-interpretation] and no excuse for interpolation.”

    Any attempt at construction or interpolation as to the validity of state applications runs counter to the intention of the words used in Article V.

    Ullmann v. U.S., 350 U.S. 422 (1956): “Nothing new can be put into the constitution except through the amendatory process, and nothing old can be taken out without the same process.”

    There’s nothing in the Constitution which places any stricture in any way whatsoever on the validity of state applications for a convention. If Anti-Conventionists wish to limit the validity/effect of a state’s application, they must propose such a law and then work to have that law ratified.

    Ullmann v. U.S., 350 U.S. 422 (1956): “As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion.”

    The constitutional guarantee to a national convention is currently suffering subordination. Based on the rule of law the Article V Convention is mandated, which means every Congress is in violation of the U.S. Constitution until the Article V Convention is convoked.

  • Congress Defies Article V of the U.S. Constitution by Ignoring 748 (or more) Article V Applications

    03/06/2010 4:11:07 AM PST · 27 of 37
    john de herrera to seeker7_dj

    to add, professor lawrence lessig out at harvard is also gearing up to build towards getting congress to issue the call:

  • “A Convention for Proposing Part of this Constitution”

    03/06/2010 4:11:07 AM PST · 90 of 115
    john de herrera to Publius

    oops, sorry. i was able to find your other thread from 2006, and was refreshed on the stance you and billybob take on the 1992 law. thinking this over, and based on many years of blogging and talking about this, perhaps holding the 1992 law up to the anti-conventionists is the best way to get a convention. i agree with you that perhaps at this point, just as a first time out, it’s better to calm fears, and allow the restraints. we agree, what’s more important now is that the kid learns how to ride the bike, if they need training wheels, so be it. let’s just get them on the bike first.

  • Congress Defies Article V of the U.S. Constitution by Ignoring 748 (or more) Article V Applications

    03/06/2010 1:35:43 AM PST · 26 of 37
    john de herrera to seeker7_dj

    right on seeker7_dj.

    it was bill walker, former state chief justice tom brennan and myself who flipped some e-mails around which resulted in the founding of foavc. this took place after walker and i got his federal suit to the supreme court. i was later voted out of foavc (long story), but continue to advocate for the Article V Convention.

    for those who parrot the same bogus arguments against dusting off the constitution and putting it to work for us here and now, you’re helping to seal our fate to the inevitable conclusion we face.

    what the anti-conventionists fear is already talking place. the supreme court is an open-ended “constitutional convention” hell-bent on enslaving humanity in the name of a legal fiction. in other words, it’s convention or bust.

    keep it up seeker7_dj. keep talking about it. i’ve been doing it for quite some time and will continue to.

    this is my current site: http//

  • “A Convention for Proposing Part of this Constitution”

    03/06/2010 1:35:43 AM PST · 89 of 115
    john de herrera to Publius

    hi there publius, i had some questions for you.

    i helped walker get his suit to the supreme court after the ninth circuit agreed with the district court ruling. i was also a founder with walker and former state chief justice thomas brennan of

    within the past year that group has done an audit of the congressional record to discover that there have been times where the required number of states have applied, and congress simply ignored:

    link to the entire database to date:

    my questions are:

    1) do you think there is a statute of limitation on that violation of the constitution?

    2) what if the 1992 law made by congress to limit a convention is unconstitutional?

    i agree will all your points, except you and billybob thinking that the congress, and the executive (vp in this case), and the courts can put their fingerprints on the people’s sovereign power to alter or abolish.

    3) is it possible that you and billybob are wrong about this, and that the Article V Convention has been and still is mandated and pending?

  • "A Convention for Proposing Part of This Constitution"

    05/14/2006 1:35:28 PM PDT · 42 of 43
    john de herrera to inquest

    it is unconstitutional for congress to attempt to limit in any way an article v convention.

    i would like to direct your attention to a federal suit dealing with the issue that this thread is concerned with,

    the site has links to the suit titled Walker v. Members of Congress (05-35023 U.S. Ninth Circuit Court). the evidence in this suit shows, based on the congressional record, that there are 567 state applications for a convention and congress via Laches is ignoring those applications and failing to carry out its constitutional obligation and issue the call to the states.

    as to the graphic above in this thread, i consider it not only a scare tactic, but invalid since, of the 120,000,000 votes cast in the last presidential election, roughly a third were cast on electronic voting machines, the source code of which was kept in the hands of private corporations; and exit polls, which for over a hundred years have been used to certify elections, were, for the first time ever, flipped. so much the red you see in that graphic is actually manufactured.

    for anyone interested please do visit the link as this suit is actually the only thing left that has any chance of reframing the political discourse, of altering Politics As Usual.