Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: A message from Bill Still

Posted 6 years ago on Nov. 27, 2011, 5:57 p.m. EST by nickhowdy (1104)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by billwalker (4) 6 years ago

Mr. Sill is incorrect in his statement regarding an Article V Convention. First of all the anti-convention movement which he terms "mature" is, in fact, based on a pack of lies all of which have been disproved by public record. A reading of the FAQ section of the www.foavc.org website will back this up. From producing a phoney letter supposedly written by a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to lying about how many applications have been submitted this so-called "mature" movement is nothing more than a bunch of paranoid mostly right wing nuts who have scared everyone into believing a convention is a threat but when pressed to provide proof suddenly disappear. Now watch what happens to Mr. Sill.

Mr. Sill, I say your assertion that Congress would declare itself a ratification body is totally bogus. Why would they do that, or more importantly why haven't they already done it? Remember they have the power to propose amendments themselves Mr. Sill. So logically, if you are correct, on at least one or more occasion it follows they would do this in order to get what they want ratified passed rather than relying on the states and an uncertain future. Yet, despite all there is not one public record, not one bit of proof Congress has even ever considered such an action. Pure bogus statement on the part of Mr. Sill.

Go to FOAVC, read the over 700 applications from 49 states and learn the truth for yourself. And tell Mr. Sill that he needs to start being accurate on such an important issue.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 6 years ago

That's right, the hardcore radicals are at the heart of OWS! Join Ron Lawl and vote against the alien lizard people from outer space who are taking over the world! We will crush the Rothschilds global banking conspiracy by deregulating all banks! That'll show those reptilian bastards!

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 6 years ago

I see it another way...Crony Capitalists vs. Marxists..But people who don't want either will go for a rational approach....Hard Core radicals are on both sides..

OWS is fine, there is enough of everything here..

"We will crush the Rothschilds global banking conspiracy by deregulating all banks!" - But they've already been deregulated and that was the problem.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 6 years ago

Hard Core radicals are on both sides..

True, there is a radical element within OWS. But when I look at things like the 99% Declaration I don't see any calls to take over the means of production or anything like that. It seems to be more of an affectation than anything else. I think most of the radicals are younger members, they're idealistic and enthusiastic. It seems to me they are participating, but not in the driver's seat so to speak.

"We will crush the Rothschilds global banking conspiracy by deregulating all banks!" - But they've already been deregulated and that was the problem.

I know. I was being facetious. The statement contradicts itself, pure tongue-in-cheek.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 6 years ago

OK! Things are going to have to get very radical in order to fix this issue..We'll need all those elements..

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 6 years ago

As soon as i see individual liberty and freedom trampled (Like the current system) on I'm out of there..

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

Bill Still is one of the old-timers in this fight. Listen critically.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

I like Bill Still. Accountable to a point, which many would say is justified on political beliefs, but when the accountability to reason and law stops, what can we think relating to defense of the constitution. Mr. Still has solid thinking in the finance areas, but a bit committed to mainline politics otherwise for me to imagine a significant change with approaches he'll support. Article 5 of the US constitution I use for the reasoning that statement. Mr. Still is afraid of it and seems to misinterpret or accept misinterpretations of article V. The exchange.

Bill Stil Date: Sep 1, 2011 12:40 PM

Normally, you would be correct, but in fact, Congress could declare itself the ratification body and thereby bypass the states. This anti-Con-Con movement is very mature; has been rigorously vetted by very smart individuals over decades. You really need to appreciate this. Bill

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Chris Brown elanuslecurus@lycos.com wrote:

Hello Bill,
Thank you very much for that.  I had been looking for the last 6 months for more than a "drive by posting" of objections to an article v.  That was a full salvo, but it doesn't add up to defining a real threat from an article v by any means.  And my comments at the bottom to a few excerpts reasonably show why.  The notion of "opening up the constitution to massive change" just is not true because 3/4 of the states must agree in order for anything to change.  That took many conventions and years when the constitution was created.

There was more which justified the need for an article 5 convention, but I post this here to point out the language of article V.

on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,

Congress SHALL.

or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

MAY be proposed. NOTE: proposed.

Mr. Still never followed up on this matter.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 6 years ago

I am not looking for any one to lead or anyone to agree with me. So I don't bother writing people like Bill, it gets disappointing.. People seem to be interested in their idea alone..