TEN REASONS TO OPPOSE AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION
1.) Article V will not address the root cause of the problem.
For over a century the federal and state governments have willfully defied our Constitution. It is absurd to believe this usurpation would cease by amending the very document they have habitually violated. The problem is not with our Constitution – but in our ignorance of its content, and indifference to its enforcement.
The Constitution and the federal government it established are creatures of the States and of the people. It is therefore the duty of the people to enforce their Constitution, and to constrain government to the enumerated powers defined in that covenant.
No process of amendment has the power to secure the people when they have forsaken wisdom and virtue. We abdicated our duty in favor of the welfare state. Abandonment of responsibility cannot be rectified through the amendment process or the drafting of a new constitution.
President James Garfield made clear the issue: “Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.”
2.) There is no precedent. It is unrealistic to suppose the structure, rules and limitations of a 21st century version would mirror those practices that governed the convention of 1787.
From the beginning there was ambiguity on the form an Article V convention would take. Expressing his concerns, in his ‘Notes from the 1787 Constitutional Convention’ (15 September 1787) James Madison wrote: “… difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, &c.” This uncertainty was never remedied. Madison was terrified of the possible results. In his letter (2 November 1788) to G.I. Turberville, he stated: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, … an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; ... would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, [who] might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.”
3.) States have no authority to select delegates. The process is solely the role of Congress, via two methods: Congress proposes amendments – this has governed the existing 27; or “The Congress … on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”
The ‘Necessary and Proper Clause’ (Article 1, Sec. 8) provides Congress the power to make laws to carry out ‘the call,’ as to the date and location of the convention, and the manner in which delegates shall be appointed. On 7 March 2014, the Congressional Research Service released a report to instruct Congress on Article V. The CRS confirmed Congress has exclusive authority over both methods. It may apportion delegates based on one vote per state, or on the Electoral College. Under the electoral form, California would receive 55 delegates, Nebraska five (In 1983, we came within two states of calling a convention. In its preparations, Congress voted to appropriate delegates by the electoral method). Congress could appoint delegates, or appoint themselves as delegates. Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to allow the States to select their own. Furthermore: “… The Congress, as well, clearly possesses the authority to set forth the necessary and attendant details of the convention.” – U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1984, re: S. 119
Perhaps most ironic is the realization that the very individuals we accuse of ignoring constraints on federal power and jurisdiction are likely the same individuals who will choose our delegates. Moreover, Congress has power to provide delegates immunity from arrest and prosecution.
4.) Incongruity of the proposition. The Constitution sets limits on the scope of federal power; so, on what basis do proponents of an Article V convention contend to “fix” that which already exists?
Since Woodrow Wilson, unconstitutional federal agencies have created a regulatory code whose reach extends government power far beyond the authority delegated by Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution.
What Article V advocates propose does not constrain this usurpation, but legitimizes abuses that already exist. Mark Levin proposes an Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy; however, the existing federal agencies – each a violation of Article 1, Sec. 1 – are not eliminated. He also proposes an Amendment to Limit Federal Spending, by creating a “balanced budget.” This would effectively replace the enumerated powers: rather than limit spending to what is authorized by the Constitution, Congress could raise taxes to meet expenditures – and, if a “national emergency” is declared, the language permits Congress to ignore the limit. Since1979 there have been, and presently remain, 30 such declarations.
Amendments to the Constitution were never about correcting federal usurpations. In Federalist No. 85, Hamilton asserts that amendments were meant to remedy defects; that amendments of errors, and useful alterations, would be suggested by experience; that the novelty and difficulty of what they were doing would require periodic revision; that useful amendments “will be applicable to the organization of the government, not the mass of its powers.” The remedy to federal usurpations is not a new constitution or new amendments; but rather it is our resistance to and nullification of unconstitutional laws.
5.) States have no control over the proceedings, nor may they dictate the wording of amendments.
When the Continental Congress called for a convention to be held in Philadelphia (21 February 1787) – “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation” – they lost control once the convention began. It was held in secrecy, the limitations set by Congress and 11 of the 13 states were ignored, and a new constitution written. The inherent authority of the delegates makes it impossible to prevent such occurrence.
In 1993 the U.S. House Judiciary Committee ruled: “If the State legislatures were permitted to propose the exact wording of an amendment and stipulate that the language not be altered, the convention would be deprived of this function and would become instead part of the ratification process.”
6.) Proponents cannot know how the convention would function.
The CRS stipulates “In the final analysis, the question ‘what sort of convention’ is not likely to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and the convention assembled.” This is reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi’s infamous Obamacare quote: “But we have to pass the bill, so that you can, uh, find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” We cannot know how the convention will operate, until we call for the convention – and, by that time, it’s out of our hands.
7.) The protections presumed through the ratification process are not without substantial risk.
Ratification of amendments to the Constitution are listed under Article V, and are under the power of Congress to choose: Ratification by three fourths of the legislatures of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof. The convention method would bypass state legislatures, and was used by Congress to pass the 21st Amendment (Repeal of the 18th Amendment – Prohibition).
Under Article VII there exists a third possibility: “The ratification of the conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution.” Via the precedent set by the 1787 convention, this method could be used to ratify a new constitution – and the delegates could also write a new ratification process.
8.) States are not victims of federal usurpation; but collaborators.
The States compromised their power when they ratified the 17th Amendment. Under the promise of eliminating corruption, the States acquiesced to having their federal senators elected by popular ballot, rather than upon the assent of their own legislatures. This act eviscerated the 10th Amendment. Today, most States have more than 1/3rd of their annual budget padded with federal dollars, with all the attached strings – and plenty of corruption.
9.) Delegates are sovereign representatives of the people; and, by the authority stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, they are vested with the inherent right of the people to alter or abolish their form of government.
Through an Article V convention, opportunists will spare no effort to “alter or abolish” our present form of government – one most unique in human history. We shall then no longer possess that bulwark which, up until our poor stewardship, had reliably thwarted the machinations of unscrupulous men. When enforced, our Constitution is capable to arrest such designs – yet, we now risk its existence, by possibly entrusting its care to those whom have long disparaged its precepts and desired its dissolution.
10.) We must distinguish between defects in a constitution, and a government’s refusal to obey the constitution.
That our Constitution is routinely violated by a lawless federal government does not make it any less the highest law of the land. Insofar as the Supreme Court has distorted its essential clauses (Interstate Commerce, General Welfare, Necessary and Proper) the Federalist Papers are sufficient to clearly and concisely define the Founders’ original intent.
In Federalist No. 16, Alexander Hamilton stated that “… [T]he people … [are] the natural guardians of the constitution.” I am thus compelled to repeat – The problem is not with our Constitution, but rather in our ignorance of its content and indifference to its enforcement.
With all that has gone heretofore to bring us to this point, are we so conceited that we should risk our liberties to those we dare suppose would do better than the esteemed men of 231 years past, who created that form of government most unique in all human history? Is there now among our contemporaries a Washington, a Jefferson, a Madison, a Hamilton, or a Jay? James Madison trembled when considering this proposition – so should each of you.
Bingo, bango, bongo, how right you are. It’s a fools errand to begin with. One has to accept the ridiculous idea that COS would have you believe, there is no possibility of anything going wrong in a day and age of Trannies, destruction of marriage, child sacrifice, one percent or less of the population ruling the conversation, a media owned by the democrat party or is it the other way around.
And State number 14 brought to u by the great state of UT. I have said it before, hope it holds true, they will never get to 34 States and one of the reasons is found in the body of the article. States do not make the call, Congress makes the call. COS in my opinion is not right especially at this point in our history.
“The only way, Nelson said, is invoking Article V of the Constitution, which allows two paths for amendments to the Constitution: through Congress, or through a special convention called by the states.” Wrong! One last point, you might also be a fool if you believe as COS believes, that the Constitution is the problem. It is and always has been we the people who are the problem.
We the progressive “people” through our State Governments ratified the 17th amendment taking away the reason for having Senators, formed a federal reserve, and began taxing residents of States without the permission of the States, oops looks like the States went along with that deception, and all in that historical year of 1913, but to reiterate, it’s the Constitution according to COS that is the problem needing the fix. BS
