ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS: AN INTERVIEW WITH CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS AND DR. EDWIN VIERRA, A.B., A.M., Ph.D., J.D.

ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS: AN INTERVIEW WITH CATHERINE AUSTIN ...

With all the talk about constitutional conventions, secession, and so on we've been hearing, I suggested recently to Catherine Austin Fitts that there was need for a review of the dangers of taking this step, and accordingly she conducted the following interview with jurisprudence scholar and attorney Dr. Edwin Vierra. The basic point: why call a constitutional convention if you're not following the current one? The answer may surprise you:

https://solari.com/blog/special-solari-report-american-suicide-proposals-for-constitutional-amendments-convention-with-dr-edwin-vieira-jr/

10 thoughts on “ ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS: AN INTERVIEW WITH CATHERINE AUSTIN ...”

  1. The new updated version will be digitized
    so it can change as dictated the markets*
    The new version will be an updated
    Orwellian Animal Farm of equality**.

    *markets tied to LIBOR and other fixed markets
    ** except in territories where those are more equal.

  2. Your Constitution is not broken. It is simply not observed nor enforced.

    Although parts of your Constitution are a muddle, the process of amending it is certainly the only method to be employed. To my eyes there are a few amendments that need to be amended or deleted.

    And certainly, although I view it from abroad, there is a need for a Constitutional amendment allowing a citizen to choose their own form of health care, maintenance, and treatment … an idea not heeded by your Founders when it was wisely proposed. Without such an amendment the pharameceutical-medical cabal will continue to reign and ruin human lives in the USA and beyond.

  3. There is also the question of which Constitution to enforce: the one known as the Constitution for the united States of America, or its replacement, the Constitution of the United States of America. The first Constitution included the 13th amendment, first ratified in 1810, known as the “Title of Nobility” amendment; it stipulated that no one with a title of nobility bestowed by a foreign monarch–including the title administered by the British Accreditation Regency known as “Esquire”–from serving in any branch of the federal government. (The so-called War of 1812 was actually an invasion by British forces who succeeded in burning the National Archives–with its records of the States’ ratification of this 13th amendment–to the ground.)

    The later Constitution serves as the charter for the (privately-owned, for-profit) corporation which does business as The United States of America, from the international city-state known as Washington, D. C.

    ….or, so I have read.

    1. Here! Here! Keep it coming Phil. Your post is something rarely known or spoken about. And what about the “Red Amendment”? Nice to see folks out there who are still privy to the hidden history of USSA,INC.

  4. If we were playing on neutral ground, I could see tweaking the Constitution around the edges to bring it into the 21st Century. However, in this corrupt environment, a Constitutional Convention would be letting the fox into the henhouse. Truly suicidal for the nation, and particularly for the 99%…

  5. With the excuses we have for leadership today the idea of a constitutional convention is truly chilling. I don’t even want to imagine what they would cook up for a replacement for our present constitution.

      1. It seems we are all following the piper right to the edge where we crash down. It’s been years in the making, economic, drought and wars where our world’s elites have been guiding civilization. We can’t look outward for answers, we can only look inward to solve our problems. It’s us who need to change.

Comments are closed.