A Foreign Spectator’s View of the Constitution

As colonists, we were proud to be English subjects, the freest people in the world. Our revolution was against Crown corruption of a wonderful system that was seeping from England into her North American colonies which threatened our rights as Englishmen.

As American patriots shake their heads in disbelief at the possible return of a thoroughly corrupt, felonious, treasonous Hillary Clinton to the White House, I recently happened upon a 1787 piece which extolled the anti-corruption features of the Constitution.

Just four days after the close of the Federal Convention, and over a month before Alexander Hamilton published the first number of The Federalist, the newspaper Independent Gazetteer printed a letter from a Nicholas Collin.

Whereas today, we immediately associate rights and liberty with the Bill of Rights, Collin viewed the Constitution’s enumerated powers and design of government as supportive of liberty and hostile to executive branch corruption. As opposed to our recent experience under Great Britain in which George III used every contrivance to sway colonial legislatures through his “multitude of new offices,” and “swarms of officers,” the very paucity of offices in the Constitution’s expected treasury, foreign, and civil departments would serve to minimize the opportunity for employment of men who could always be counted on to support the president’s policies.

A perhaps unavoidable defect in the English constitution, which many regarded as a strength, was the Crown’s power to appoint elected members of the House of Commons to offices in the government. The power was not unlimited, but there were typically enough of these placeholders to influence the content of Parliamentary statutes. Collin lauded not only the prohibition of employment in executive branch agencies by sitting congressmen and senators, (Article I § 6) the Constitution prohibited post-congressional employment of men to offices that congress created while these men sat in congress. As a further precaution, (and one which is ignored today) no previous member of congress could be appointed to an executive branch position for which the salary had increased while the member served in congress! By this, congressmen would not be inclined to collude with the president to secure favorable votes in exchange for post congressional employment.

Outside of sensitive matters requiring secrecy, Article I § 5 promoted open government in the form of a public journal which recorded congressional proceedings and members’ votes. Sunshine is always the best antidote to legislative corruption.

The design of America’s upper house, the senate, sought to avoid anything resembling the English Crown’s corruption of the House of Lords and executive councils of her recent colonies. Through rotation of a third of its members every two years, Collin could not foresee any significant and dangerous collusion between the senate and president.

Electoral College. No other matter, how to come up with a chief executive, occupied more time in debate at the Federal Convention. The overriding concern was to eliminate the possibility of electing a demagogue, an agent of a foreign country, or a man pre-bought through collusion with congress. No presidential elector may be a member of congress or one who holds a federal office. Congress was to determine the nationwide day in which the states chose electors, and the day in which the electors voted. The noble intent of this method was to select a man unencumbered with political debts, a true statesman of nationwide standing for president.

While many of our Framers shared the traits of the statesmen they hoped to find in the presidential office, most were also experienced politicians well-versed in the self-serving shenanigans and corruption of republican government. Some 230 years later, most of their safeguards to minimize corruption and secure free government have been either dissolved by scotus, ignored through disuse, or overcome by imaginative forms of corruption they could not foresee.

From the Framers’ Constitution, it is clear they knew that avarice and ambition, man’s tendency to abuse power for personal enrichment is active in all governments at all times. By comparison, lady liberty is somnolent. If never awakened, she will eventually die in her sleep. If the despicable corruption of our ruling institutions, a corruption personified in Hillary Clinton, is to be reversed, it must come from us, the sovereign people.

Through Article V, the sovereign American people can regularly nudge lady liberty awake, and together they can take stock of the health and condition of free government.

Source:
Collin, Nicholas. A Foreign Spectator XXV - Teaching American History. 21 September 1787. Internet. 5 May 2016.

The real problem with a Conventino of States” is WHO will “chose” (WHO choses the ones who chose to be chosen!) the ones voting, talking and deciding.

We see hundreds of examples of RINO’s and GROPe establishment-icons bending the delegate rules and rules of order at every report of GOP local, county, and state conventions and committee selections to “get a better” candidate - since THEY do not like the person chosen by the people this year. So, will the GROPe ignore a COS, fight a COS, or try to bend the COS to what THEY want Washington to become?

The REPEAL of Prohibition should be a more dangerous sign than Prohibition itself: If ANY Amendment can be repealed, then ANY inconvenient Amendment (like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, ot 10th) CAN BE REPEALED when the government (er, establishment) decides it wants it repealed.

The news media, once they decide they can dominant ANY news cycle about the COS, and once the liberals decide THEY can dominate the COS bureaucracy regardless of the intent of the original COS signatures and promoters, the COS internal delegates and insiders and establishment WILL begin re-writing each article and each amendment that the liberal socialists do not like.

And it only takes a few blue states to dominate the rest: We have lost 47% of the country.

“I addressed your concerns in a previous post:”

The article at your link fails to address the problem in a variety of ways which ultimately make the otherwise great Article V Convention an inappropriate and unwise approach to the misgovernment we now face. In principle the Article V convention is a badly needed means of restoring the rule of law and original basis of the Republic. In practice, however, the very basis for the importance of the Article V Convention has become corrupted by the nature of the party politics, the intentional political indoctrination of the electorate while they are impressed into government schools and government educational doctrine, the prevailing political ignorance of the electorate, and the corrupt control of the electorate’s sources of news and information. In order for the electorate to be capable of restoring uncorrupt and capable government by means of an Article V Convention, the prevailing political corruption among the electorate needs to be reversed and minimized to a point where the majority of the electorate is no longer indoctrinated into corrupt political party practices and misbeliefs. A precondition to the Article V Convention may be the recapture of the Fourth Estate news media, the educational establishment by local government, the law schools, and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). One of the principal reasons for the political problems that exist today is an immoral, corrupt, and ignorant electorate with the power of vote rigged popular elections. Holding an Article V Convention does little to rectify those corrupt conditions, while it is entirely possible to reverse and reform the corrupt educational and media systems without the Article V Convention in which the existing Constitution and Bill of Rights could be virtually abolished contrary to the original intent.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.