Posted on 06/17/2016 1:43:04 AM PDT by Jacquerie
From the 1776 Maryland Declaration of Rights and the 1783 New Hampshire Bill of Rights we are reminded of the proper American attitude toward a government hostile to freedom:
In a recent post to her Eagle Forum website, the highly respected and admired Phyllis Schlafly unfortunately resorted to a lot of snark and little reason in her decades’ old opposition to an Article V convention of the states to reclaim free government.
Beginning with her title, “Failed Republicans Want to Rewrite the Constitution,” Mrs. Schlafly goes on to imply that since the former candidates Huckabee, Rubio, Jindal failed in their bids for the GOP presidential nomination, whatever they support must be a losing proposition too. Not only are they losers, but since they support what Schlafly derides as “something called the Convention of States,” they are con-artists as well. According to her, these three men and the snake-oil salesmen and volunteers at the Convention of States (COS) project intend to deceive the American people. Schlafly writes, “Theirs is the same old con, or con con.” No, Mrs. Schlafly, yours is a sleazy alliteration far beneath your intellect and standing. Your comment attacks the character of patriotic men and women determined to turn back the progressive tide overwhelming our nation.
Mrs. Schlafly eventually gets into a bit of substance when she explains that she opposes the COS recommended application, to “limit the authority and jurisdiction of the federal government,” on the grounds that our Constitution is “wonderful,” and how can new language improve a government designed by the “most brilliant political thinkers in American history?” Well, Mrs. Schlafly, it doesn’t take a reincarnated visiting French nobleman by the name of de Tocqueville to see that which is obvious: after almost 230 years, the Framers’ Constitution has been horribly corrupted. Instead of serving its stated purposes as per its Preamble ( . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty . . . ), various laws, executive precedents and many scotus decisions have transformed a once wonderful governing form into an instrument of usurpation that tramples our God-given unalienable rights on a daily basis.
The most brilliant thinkers in political history were not so conceited as to believe their design was perfection on earth. The existence of Article V is self-evident proof of their humility.
Next, Mrs. Schlafly displays a common misunderstanding of the hierarchy of law. The state convention process draws its independence from two sources: Natural Law and from Article V itself. A convention to recommend amendments to the supreme law of the land is simply above the government. It represents the natural law right of all societies to frame their compact of union. Government, as the servant, cannot supersede the master. Furthermore, the Framers created a stand-alone Article in recognition of the sovereign superiority of the amendment process, rather than detail an amending procedure in Article I and subject it to congressional control.
Alexander Hamilton, a man not known for his states-rights approach to republicanism, wrote in The Federalist #85 that once two-thirds of the states apply, nothing is left to the discretion of congress. Mrs. Schlafly believes congress has discretion to determine if, at all, it will call a convention.
From the simple custodial duty of congress to call a convention, Mrs. Schlafly reads further powers into Article V that just aren’t there. Contrary to the opinion of Mrs. Schlafly, should congress or scotus attempt to control state delegate selection, their voting power, number of delegates, rules of the convention and so forth, the states must let facts be submitted to a candid world that a state convention to propose amendments is the expression of the sovereign capacity of the people and is thus beyond the grasp of congress or scotus. The role of congress is limited by Article V to the duty of calling a convention and specifying the mode of ratification. To assert additional powers of government beyond those enumerated is the habit of Leftists, not conservatives.
Notice also in her column, Mrs. Schlafly deftly changed the word, ‘application’ in Article V to ‘petition.’ Our Framers were careful wordsmiths. The word petition is associated with underlings, with peasants who humbly ask their lord for relief. On the other hand, to apply is to put the recipient on notice. In the context of Article V, the component members of the American republic inform congress of their intent to consider amending the Constitution.
Let’s resort to first principles. Unalienable rights are just that. Neither congress, nor the president, nor the scotus can take away the Natural Rights of individuals or society. For instance, as individuals, we have the natural and God-given right to defend ourselves. The Second Amendment grants nothing. The 2A merely acknowledges a preexisting right. If Article V was absent from the Constitution, would we, the sovereign people, not have the right to amend our form of government? Of course we do! The Constitution is our creation. It belongs to us, and no institution has the authority to deny society of the right to set the limits of their government.
Next, Mrs. Schlafly equates the excruciatingly detailed calls of the democratic and republican party leaderships to their national conventions with what she believes congress may insist in its call to a state amendments convention! Need I explain the total absence of substantive equivalence between the two?
Perhaps as the ultimate, uncalled for and undignified slam at the persons of Huckabee, Rubio and Jindal, Mrs. Schlafly attributes their support for an Article V “circus” as somehow promoting their political future.
Mrs. Schlafly apparently equates an Article V convention with an actual and dangerous circus, the congress of the United States. While I debunked that equivalence in an earlier blog post directed at The John Birch Society, suffice to say here that states will send delegates with detailed commissions that provide for punishment should a delegate wander outside his authorized power. In other words, the states will not send schlubs off the streets and arm them with plenipotentiary power.
Considering the precarious condition of the remains of the American republic, why does Mrs. Schlafly assume the states will recommend amendments that will ensure its destruction?
I ask Mrs. Schlafly, what is her solution to the accelerating tyranny that is America 2016? I say that to recommend doing nothing beyond voting every two years is to condone Obamunism. Maryland and New Hampshire got it right: The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is indeed absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. What say you, Mrs. Schlafly?
We are the many; our oppressors are the few. Be proactive. Be a Re-Founder. Join Convention of States. Sign the COS Petition.
I respect Mrs. Schlafly, not so much this inane blogger.
The Constitution is just words on paper. If we can not get our gummint to abide this set of words how in the world do we think it will be restrained by a new set of words?
Later
There is NO need to change the Constitution. In fact in today’s area of commonly accepted notions of collectivism and fake social justice, changes would likely make the Constitution far worse.
Government today is usurping power through one route only - the printing of money, and massive debt. The ONLY actions that needs to be done is re-link the Dollar to gold, and end the Federal Reserve. Without the ability to manipulate the money supply, government will naturally be limited.
What about the 17th Amendment? In order to restore states' rights we need to take out the direct Eelection of U.S. Senators, and give that back to the states to election by state legislatures.
Article V IS WHAT THE FOUNDERS GAVE TO THE FUTURE.
Use it!
Very interesting discourse. Thanks for your work. How about a list of grievances from each Article V state and the solution to those grievances before the convention…that way many doubts are removed?
(Words…and even guns do not stop criminals…they’ll keep coming at you unless incarcerated or eliminated. Witness history, witness current events. Witness jihadis. Witness CONgre$$.)
Whatever it takes. Article V and/or other solutions BUMP!
(and don’t forget the ballot box)
C’mon November
I can’t bring myself to trust today’s Congress, or today’s society.
The Constitution is like a vintage car that needs some new plugs and a carburetor and tires. I should throw it out and commission someone (who? Mitch McC? Huck? Harry Reid?) to build me a brand new, all plastic vehicle, which I should test drive on a highway full of lawyers and illegal aliens? And if I don’t like the results I can bring back the old Constitution, if they let me...
Oh, but you say they’re just going to “restore” my vintage auto? No, the moment they remove the brakes (that’d be 2A), I’m off the road for good. I can’t roll without brakes, and the new improved version doesn’t come with any.
Once the old Constitution is on the table like a holiday turkey, it’s all over. Your new one won’t be accepted. But the idea of scrapping the old one will be accepted and firmly planted in the minds of all.
I used to agree with Levin on Article V. read Liberty Amendments, got involved somewhat in AZ. But I am now against it, and not because of Levin psychotic break over Trump, but because I know the elites would use it to advance the remainder of their goals.
You are so right with his response ! Senators are like Little Kings when not chosen by the state legislators, and we have a House that has not added to the number of representatives in years to adequately represent the Citizens. They can get away with anything because they represent so many people. When was the last time that the number of Representatives was increased to reflect the population ?
Levin was looking for a way to sell books.
I never understand the argument that this process can be taken over by the elites and used to implement bad things. Most of the states now have strong republican governments, and anything drafted must pass 3/4 of the states to be ratified.
The state politicians are closer to the people and have much less corruption because all of them have to live at home and are not in the DC whorehouse where lobbying is centrally controlled. So in effect, the states are our best representative government right now.
In an article V convention, the states would finally give the people a voice because we can simply bypass our corrupt congress and give them the finger. And any legislation would have to be common sense to be passed because you would have some states that would of course vote no on things. Term limits would be a safe and good amendment that would dismantle the corruption in DC. I would bet it would pass with even some more liberal states voting yes.
We won’t make abortion illegal or pass some of our dream legislation, but it would lay the foundation for us to reverse those things over time, especially if we implemented the ability to overturn nutty supreme court decisions.
Every June, the social justice warriors of scotus chip away at the civil society, which is the foundation of all free government.
John Locke described this situation as a state of war between the usurping government and the people they are supposed to serve. Locke is right.
So the question isn't whether or not the Constitution will be amended, but by whom?
No offense but I find that argument a tad disingenuous.
Article V activists propose to reset the Constitution, not tweak it a little, but overhaul the entire thing and give us a new constitution by the will of the people.
Well, I don’t trust the people. I don’t trust them to understand the Bill of Rights, much less vote on keeping it. The people don’t know from shinola about federalism or the US Constitution.
Those who say they are going to fix, amend, restore, reset the document and bring it into line with the will of the people — I don’t trust them.
The people are the problem. Not Obama, not the Constitution, not the ballot machines. The people. A century of indoctrination in schools and from the media, has diminished the people to a mindless horde of knaves and fools, moochers and cowards.
Bingo. What makes anybody think that they won’t ignore new wording in a Constitution, when they ignore the old wording in a Constitution with impunity?
And throwing this open to change everything is downright suicidal. And nobody has been able to prove to me this couldn’t possibly happen.
A few generations of leftist indoctrination in the public schools and academia has left most of the nation as mindless sheeple, really incapable of governing themselves anymore. That’s why they elected somebody like Obama. Twice.
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.