There are many false concepts that people have regarding the Constitution, its creation, and its effect on the United States and the people. I intend to address four of the more popular myths. Legal and historic authoritative references available by request.

The Constitution was created in a constitutional convention convened to revise the Articles of Confederation. It is said that the delegates exceeded their powers and scrapped the Art. Of Conf., created the Constitution, and forced it on the states to ratify, which was not what they were authorized to do.

The thirteen colonies decided, in a meeting of delegates in Philadelphia, 1774, that there were reasons to form an alliance between themselves that would set up rules and policies by which the states would interact with one another. Benjamin Franklin was tasked with authoring the rules, and in May of 1775, he presented his work, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, to delegates of the several colonies of New Hampshire, and the other colonies, in general Congress in Philadelphia.

There were thirteen articles of about four pages total, that addressed such subjects as the name of the new confederation, what states were included and for what purpose, how the articles would be carried out, the duties and power that the articles created for the confederation, who would pay for the cost of implementing the articles, certain restrictions that applied to all the states, how the articles were to be revised or ammended, etc.

The Articles were voted on and were unanimously adopted by those states that were represented. The name of the new confederation was "The United Colonies of North America."

Two years later, at the request of the delegates of several of the colonies, the Articles were revised to a) change the name of the confederation to "The United States of America", b) provide more detail to the thirteen articles as they saw necessary, and c) provide for the establishment of a navy and army. The extra details were considerable in their content and increased the document by more than twice its size, to nine or ten pages, depending on the formatting. Mr. Franklin, again, produced an effective, well written revision and the new articles were, again, passed unanimously by all states.

These articles, the conventions and delegates it required, and the work it accomplished with a navy, army, post office, etc., was the extent of the central government for the next nine years. During that time, new flaws and inadequacies were discovered in the articles and documented, not being due to any defficiency by Dr. Franklin in their creation. The shortcomings were in the nature of duties required by the articles, (army, navy, etc.) were billed to the states for payment, but there was no requirement for the states to pay. Also, some of the duties required, weights and measures, embassies, treaties with Indian nations, etc., required more authority for their implementation than was given to the Confederation by the Articles.

In early 1786, in congress assembled, the confederation delegates resolved that a new committee of delegates from the states would meet in Annapolis in September of that year to determine what revisions were needed to remedy the defects in the articles.

On September 11, delegates from only five states met in Annapolis. They elected a chairman, presented their credentials to each other, and then discussed the duties that would be proper under their circumstances. A committee was selected to prepare a letter of report to be made to the legislatures of those states having delegates in attendance.

In summary, the delegates refused to undertake the duties they had been sent to perform because the representation was so inadequate that no decision made could be approved as only five of the thirteen states sent delegates.

They did offer the opinion of those delegates who attended that a) this was a very important cause and the other states should be convinced to send delegates, b) that the revisions needed were to be extensive if they were to cure the defects, and c) that the full Congress should also receive a copy of this letter so they would know the extreme gravity of the situation.

In May, 1787, the Congress convened in Philadelphia to take up this matter. It was decided by the Congress that a full constitutional convention, separate from Congress, should be called and the matter of the remedy of defects in the Confederation be their sole purpose. The convention president was to be George Washington, and was convened immediately. In September of that year they produced their proposal for the remedies sought. It took the form of the Constitution of the United States, a new document, that was sent to all the states where a convention of delegates chosen by the legislatures would consider the ratification of the new document, and when nine of the thirteen states had approved it, it would be effective.

In June, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution making it the law of the land. In March, 1789, the first Congress under the new Constitution convened in New York. In April, George Washington became the first President of the United States.

There was no exceeding of authority by the Annapolis committee, or the convention that produced the Constitution. The Arts. Of Conf. had been created by the states, and the states had the right to revise or replace them as they saw necessary. Also, before the Constitution became law, the states had to vote on it and nine of the thirteen were needed to adopt it. They did, and it was. All legal, within the rights and authority of the creators, and no exeeding of authority was committed.

The most notable promoter of Myth No. One is the John Birch Society who opposes the call for an Art. Five Convention for proposing ammendments by delegates from the states. Only Congress has ever ammended the Constitution, but Art Five states that delegates from the states are allowed to ammend in a convention called by Congress when enough states apply for it. Congress has ignored all applications, over 600, ever submitted by the states.

That the Constitution was created for the purpose of defining and guaranteeing the rights of the People of the USA.

The Constitution is the document that created the federal government. It replaced the inadequate Articles of Confederation and established a complete central government.

The Constitution was written by a convention of delegates from twelve of the thirteen states, (Rhode Island never attended) and was a listing of powers granted to the fed. government by the states, a listing of specific prohibitions of power not granted, the rules of how the new government would be formed, how they would conduct their business as specified, the powers of authority where it would over rule state laws and where states would retain their authority, and a statement as to why the document was being created and by whom.

It was not written as a document to the people of the USA, did not ever specifically address the people directly, but was, instead, written BY the people for the purpose of forming a more perfect union of states than the Arts. Of Conf. had been.

So, the purpose was to form the federal government. In doing that, it specifically listed the seventeen jobs the new gov’t. was to do, what powers it was given to do those jobs, stated that any power not specifically granted by the states to the fed. gov’t. were to remain the power of the states, and that the states, being the creators of the new gov’t., were the ultimate authorities in the USA and the fed gov’t. was the servant of the states and the people.

In the listing of powers granted and those which were restricted under any circumstance, the rights of the people were defined and their violation or even revision by the fed. gov’t. was strictly prohibited. The new federal government was not allowed to have any authority over the rights of the people. PERIOD!! The fed govt’s relationship was with the state governments, in service to the people, and the states were to remain the ultimate authority, except where designated in the Constitution.

That the Constitution demands there be no interaction between churches and the government, in other words, a seperation of church and state.

The words, "seperation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution or in any legal document of the United States. The very idea of that phrase is not ever defined or implied. What is written about churches in the Cosnstitution is the prohibition of Congress to make ANY laws regarding religion or the establishment of religion.

It is illegal for the USA to have any law that has anything to do with religion. PERIOD. NO LAWS OF ANY KIND ABOUT RELIGION.

This prohibition is found in the first ammendment to the Constitution, and is just one of five rights in the first ammendment that Congress was prohibited from dealing with in any way. In other words, "Congress, you have your orders for your jobs and they do not include anything at all about these five rights. You have no authority where these matters are concerned."

In England, King Henry VIII established the Church of England, and demanded all British subjects be members thereof, and of no other church, including the Catholic Church. This was one reason some colonists left England, and they made it impossible for the new federal government to do the same in America.

But, nowhwere was there any law or suggestion that churches and religion could not influence or be officials of the federal government. In fact, John Adams said that the new government needed the wisdom and religious conviction of church members and even their ministers to influence the government in a good and Godly manner.

Religion MUST have a part in government. Government must NOT have any part in religion.

The people have a Constitutional right to privacy.

Nowhere in the Constitution or US legal documents is there a right to privacy. The only things in the Constitution that comes close are a) the Third Ammendment prohibition of the government to house soldiers in private homes and b) the Fourth Ammendment prohibition against search and seizure of homes or property without a warrant issued with probable cause by a judge.

Nowhere is there a specific, individually declared right of citizens to privacy. The right for people to be secure in their homes is implied, but against illegal searches or seizures of property. The government leaves it to the individual to provide for his own privacy, but does not guarantee him the right to that privacy. They, also, do not forbid privacy, so, they leave that subject alone, as they should all subjects except their expressed duties.

Glenn Flowers

I have dedicated my time on-line to finding a legal, non-violent way to force Congress to actually represent the will of the people who elected them. I concentrated specifically on the admonition in the Declaration of Independence that it was our duty to throw out an unjust government and re-establish it to suit our ideas of what government should be. I figured there had to be a process or law spelled out somewhere to provide the ability to perform such an act. The only obvious methods I found initially, were by voting for candidates that we agreed with and voting out incumbents, and by expressing our displeasure with them by writing or otherwise communicating with them.

After more searching, I have found the tool that was expressly meant to allow for a more direct and personal control of government written into the Constitution. It is Article Five of the Constitution, written by Alexander Hamilton and called the "Ammendment Article". It states…

This allows for states to have a say in what the Constitution is and to have a way to change it. Even though it says Congress shall call for a convention when 2/3rds of the state legislatures apply for it, the Congress has ignored 576 applications by all fifty states since the Constitution was ratified. All sorts of different reasons have been used by Congress, but the truth is they just don’t want to let anyone else, including the people, to have the power to ammend the Constitution. Eighteen lawsuits by different people, companies, politicians, etc., have been filed and all have been dismissed for one reason or another, or Congress has found a way to immunize themselves against the court decisions. In the most recent case in front of the Supreme Court of the United States, Walker v. the Members of Congress, 2006, the attorney for Congress, agreed to by all members, refused to reply to a writ specifying the reasons for the lawsuit, thereby affirming the writ as true, and constituting a confession of guilt by the defendants. The Court ruled that Walker had no standing to bring a suit against Congress but did not explain why. It also stated that the refusal to reply to the writ would be recorded and any future court that ruled in favor of a plaintiff could use the refusal as a sentencable action. In other words, every member of Congress plead guilty to two federal crimes. One being, that they failed to uphold and abide by the Constitution, and two, that they violated their Oath of Office by not enforcing the Constitution. The court dismissed the lawsuit but entered the non-response to the writ as offenses confessed into the record for future sentencing.

Congress came away believing they had won because the court dismissed the suit and they had not been thrown in jail. As a result, they are of the belief that only they can ammend the Constitution, and that they can ignore it anyway they see fit.

The court dismissed the suit because they found Walker was not entitled to file such a suit. I believe that ruling was because Walker was not a member of a state legislature and that is what Art. Five addresses. But, even though it dismissed the suit, it obviously agreed that the refusal to respond to the writ was an admission of criminal activity in that it entered it into the record.

Congress, in their false sense of superiority over the people, have, at every opportunity, have acted to limit or completely deny the voters the right to control their activities and our government. The only method for the people to remain the authority is to VOTE OUT EVERY INCUMBENT MEMBER OF CONGRESS and start new.

Let everyone of us, no matter how good we believe our elected officials are, no matter what party we belong to, have the will to do what was done in 1938, vote out the majority, if not the entirity, of Congress and vote in those who seek to do the right thing, that being, represent their constituents.

For more info on Article Five and the fight to force Congress to hold a convention go to the Friends of Article V Convention website…

http://www.foavc.org/

Glenn Flowers