From a recent email: ------------------------ On September 15, 1787, two days before the end of the Constitutional Convention, the language creating an Article V Convention of States to propose amendments was voted on and unanimously added to our Constitution. Even Alexander Hamilton, famous for wanting a strong centralized government, voted with 100% of all delegates for this provision in the likely event of a future, tyrannical federal government. In keeping with the 10th Amendment, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Sates respectively, or to the people Thus, at a Convention, only the states legislators have authority to direct all Convention details. A state can even criminalize improper or unauthorized behavior of its delegate(s) at a Convention. In his book, Free to Choose, Milton Friedman recognized the states power to threaten Congress when he wrote, Adoption of amendments has the great virtue of being decentralized. Even the proposal of amendments can bypass congress... a proposed Convention has sown consternation in Washington precisely because it is the one device that can effectively bypass the Washington bureaucracy, wrote Friedman. Thomas Neale, in the Congressional Research Service reported that in the 70s, Vice President Walter Mondale, began a successful whisper campaign to stop groups from advocating for a Convention of states to amend. His strategy? Foment fear by suggesting that such an Article V convention would lead to a run-away convention that would produce a villainous takeover with the possible result being total repeal of our Constitution. And it worked. Fear grips many. Why the runaway Congress that we do have today is less of a threat than a runaway Convention seems illogical. Some cancer patients refuse tumor surgeries because their fear of unintended consequences exceeds their fear of certain death. In the unlikely event that a Convention resulted with, for example, a repeal of the 2nd amendment, is it not difficult to imagine no less than 13 states absolutely refusing to ratify? Isnt ratification the fail safe? In our example, repealing the 2nd amendment, not only could be disastrous but it could become ratified by as little as 50% +1 of the general population if the ratification process is also altered, some said. In both law and ordinary life, with a legitimate contract between parties, its terms may bear influence upon the terms of all future agreements but it cannot influence retroactively. For example, by agreement, a property covenant can restrict future owners but none in the past. Three-fourths of the states must ratify all changes to the Constitution including any change to the ratification process. Why would anyone think otherwise? It is, Im told, because the 1st Continental Congress of thirteen states had a ratified agreement called the Articles of Confederation and this document and its ratification process were overthrown at a meet and greet of delegates to improve the Articles. Because the two documents were equally important, so too might the same happen at a Convention of States, undoing our 225 year old Constitution for who knows what!? But lets ask, did both documents occupy the same position with the public and Congress? What was later called the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention began when the Continental Congress met in May, 1787. It has been said that the delegates of the 12 represented states--Rhode Island was a no-show-- were there to revise the Articles of Confederation only. But this not true. Ten of the states delegates had been authorized to do more than patch their flawed, weak document. Most delegates had come prepared for a larger purpose. On arrival, the delegates of honor appointed Washington as president of the Convention in a meeting closed to the public, with members bound to silence. It is now at this point that consistency requires us to believe that the Constitutional Convention did the unthinkable and ran away, became traitorous and abandoned its allegiances to the home states. But we cant have it both ways. Is it being said that honorable, good men were rebellious to the respective state of each and the result is our Constitution, the cherished document that we demand our government obey? Characterizing the Constitutional Convention as run-away and out-of-control can only serve the idea to fear and oppose a Convention of States because if these great men themselves can be duped into turning their first constitution on its head, how much greater the risk for our delegates, of arguably less proven stature? If Mason, Madison and Randolph behaved towards their states officials and citizens with such indifference, how much more in our day? Isnt that the point? Do you think that in 1781 the respective state legislators back home looked upon the original Con-Con as a bogus overthrow of the first founding document? If so, where in history and the headlines are these charges? We have minutes from the Con-Con, can we not locate historical documents to support the idea of a second rebellion to the new nation? These claims would be of no minor offense but would describe what was the start of another governmental overthrow, would they not? Would not the loyalists who hated Americas Framers have publicized such thuggish behavior? Show me the headlines, show me the claims of a runaway convention! While still in session in its NYC capitol, the Continental Congress possessed the power to advance or arrest the states ratification process of our Constitution. On September 28, 1787, eleven days after the adoption of the Constitution, making no recommendation to the people, the Continental Congress voluntarily submitted the Constitution to the several states for ratification. Is this the action of men who have just had it confirmed that their elected offices are being terminated as the result of a rogue takeover or is it an acceptance of the will of the people through their state legislatures and their legislatures’ delegates in Philadelphia? Three signers of the Constitution simultaneously were serving as elected members of the Continental Congress and sixteen signers of the Constitution had themselves also signed the ARTICLES. These men were all the countrys elders, acting with the nations authority and each who had signed the ARTICLES possessed a kind of authority that would naturally grant him a unique Framers position that today cannot exist. Men, acting not as a rebellious, runaway Congress but with states authority is evidenced in part by: 1. The Articles of Confederation were less a Constitution, more a treaty. A confederation typically starts as a treaty and is then replaced by a constitution. Drawing parallels to both is incorrect, especially because 2. The ARTICLES were only in effect from 1781-1787---6 total years. Our US Constitution has been ratified for over 220 years. 3. Under ARTICLES, all states retained their total sovereignty; they were not all homogenous pieces of a single nation but were 13 sovereign nations. The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783—during the governance of the ARTICLES, was an agreement on one hand, between King George III and thirteen sovereign, named nations on the other. 4. Under the ARTICLES, Congress was paralyzed. It could do nothing significant without nine states, and some legislation required all thirteen. 5. At their next Convention, James Madison angrily questioned whether the Articles of Confederation was a binding compact or even a viable government. 6. When a state produced only one member in attendance, its vote was not counted. If a states delegation were evenly divided, its vote could not be counted towards the nine-count requirement The colonists had had questionable loyalty to the ARTICLES for barely six years and most at that time felt them to be as successful as they were permanent. You and I have had the Constitution rule us for twenty generations and we have only seen radicals question its innate goodness. To suggest that delegates today at a Convention of States could claim to have overthrown the Constitution with little or no ratification is comparable to Madison writing our Constitution in place of the ARTICLES is to suggest that todays appointed delegates have been granted a universal, irrevocable power over the nation. Who would think that and who would consent to obey? Spoken or unspoken, the citizens today would all know that in the event of a Convention of States, authority will have been granted for specific amendments and nothing else. Could any state send a delegate with the authority and stature of a Madison, Adams or Mason? There are no more founding fathers, no Framers, only ordinary, appointed delegates with little and specific authority. Does anyone truly imagine at a runaway Convention of States if we repealed the 2nd amendment that any state governor or any federal agency could or would attempt or could be successful to enforce such an un-American idea, that the people would swallow hard and just say, Well, okay, if I must ? The missing element in the hypothetical scenario of a runaway Convention is that in the first, in 1787, authority was granted for the Constitution by the consent of the governed. Its unimaginable that consent would be granted for either a replacement Constitution or an altered ratification process. Were asked, What guarantee do I have that...? I answer, The same guarantee that you have now that Congress wont runaway. There was no run-away convention. If such a creature had existed and did exist again to successfully lower the threshold for ratification to 51%, does anyone really believe in such a case that there would not be sufficient states to arrest such an effort? To those who say, “If Congress today isn’t obeying the Constitution, why would you imagine that they’d be obedient to any Amendment that might be passed at a Convention?” Who is saying that? Are you? Do you daily lobby to change our laws and if so, why so, if it makes no difference? Dont call or Email your officials again if you believe they wont obey the law. Be consistent and lets all not make useless straw man arguments. The whole point is that we are not yet completely lawless. Once that happens then well be seeing violent rioting. We still have time, but not much. In our liberty movement, we claim to want obedience to the Constitution, lets do be consistent and recognize the value of it all including, Article V. I move that all patriots support a Convention of States to propose amendments. Sincerely, Lee Douglas
Posted on: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 02:44:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015