Posted on 01/23/2014 4:19:32 PM PST by JOHN W K
SEE: Reflections on the Mt. Vernon Assembly
By Michael Farris
"We are beginning to reach critical mass in our efforts to use Article V of the Constitution to rein in the power of the federal government. The Mount Vernon Assembly is one of the major steps in that effort."
Read Michael’s article and one immediately detects he has no intention to have a productive and respectful discussion on the issue by immediately demeaning his opponents, claiming they have” increased both the loudness and shrillness of their long-standing claims…”
Michael continues: ”Here is why their arguments are doomed to fail: 1. They are based on faulty history. The original Constitution was not adopted as the result of a runaway convention. Their entire argument is premised on this fallacy. 2. They have to convince state legislators that we can't trust state legislators.
Faulty history? The truth is, the convention ignored the agreed upon purpose for which the convention of 1787 was called which was to revise the Article of Confederation to make them adequate to the exigencies of the Union. As a matter of historical fact three of the States [New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York] specifically expressed limiting the convention for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. They did not authorize drawing up an entirely new Constitution during the convention. And this is what is referred to as a “runaway convention”.
Getting back to the claim of “faulty history”, Michael’s assertion is immediately proved to be false by reading from The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 1] which documents the limitations to be followed by the Convention’s Delegates. New Hampshire’s being crystal clear on the purpose being for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. In the Year of our Lord 1787.
An Act for appointing Deputies from this State to the Convention proposed to be holden in the City of Philadelphia, in May, 1787, for the Purpose of revising the federal Constitution
By his Excellency, James Bowdoin, Esq., Governor of the Commonwealth of [L. S.]Massachusetts.
To the Hon. Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, and Culeb Strong, Esqrs., Greeting:
Whereas Congress did, on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1787, resolve, "That, in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union;" And whereas the General Court have constituted and appointed you their delegates, to attend and represent this commonwealth in the said proposed Convention, and have, by a resolution of theirs of the 10th of March last, requested me to commission you for that purpose;--
And so, the truth is, there was, what many call, a “runaway convention” which decided to draw up an entirely new Constitution and government, and it ignored the limitation of merely revising the Articles of Confederation as instructed.
Michael also claims opponents of a convention would ”have to convince state legislators that we can't trust state legislators.” That is not the argument Michael. The argument is, should “we the people” really trust state legislatures to convene a constitutional convention when every single one has working in concert with our federal government to undermine and subjugate the defined and limited powers granted to our federal government? Which state legislature has not accepted federal funds in return for imposing federal mandates upon the people within their states which are not within the defined and limited powers granted to Congress? How many states have state pensions which are unfunded and a ticking time bomb? Would state legislatures not welcome the federal government assuming these debts in return for additional powers being granted to our federal government? Let us not forget that part of adopting our existing constitution was made possible by having the federal government assume the various state Revolutionary War debt!
What is very scary about the call for a second constitutional convention is, there are a number of very, very dangerous and well-funded groups behind this call. And they refuse and/or avoid public events in which a spokesman of theirs is paired with an opponent for a spirited debate concerning the pros and cons, and very real dangers of calling a second constitutional convention. For example, Glenn Beck had State Senator David Long on today to sell the calling of a convention with no one knowledgeable to put his feet to the fire. And this seems to be the pattern being followed. The conservative opposition to calling a convention seems to be shut out of the debate, and this in itself is cause for alarm.
In any event, James Madison warned us about calling a convention under Article V as follows:
“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr”___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville
Do we really want to convene a convention to give those who now hold federal and state power the opportunity to make constitutional, that which is now un-constitutional? Do the countless miseries we now suffer spring from defects in our existing Constitution, or are each traceable to the lack of the America People rising up and demanding their existing Constitution and its legislative intent be strictly observed and enforced by those who hold federal and state power? And who would be in control of a convention should one be called? Would it not be the very snakes who now cause our sufferings?
JWK
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
An article V convention may sound like the answer but politics being filthy and corrupt, the first thing a Constitutional convention may well do is to eliminate the Second Amendment on the pretense of avoiding Revolutionary war # 2 or what ever other horror they float for that same purpose. That in and of itself may be the impetus that starts the very war it proposes to avoid.
I question their commitment to limiting the Convention of States to an actual ‘Convention of States’ rather than an actual Constitution convention.
They’re going to get co-opted and the real goal will be deflected.
I was on the V’th ping list. Haven’t gotten a ping in a while. Wonder if I was removed or if it was disbanded.
/johnny
And who is it exactly, who is proposing such a thing?
It's one thing to be against something in the abstract; I doubt if you would find a single person on this website, certainly not among the Article V proponents on this site or off, propounding the notion of "putting our Constitution up for grabs". In fact it is to PREVENT such depredations and to restore the Constitution to its proper functioning that such a convention is even under discussion.
I am not certain you fully understand what safeguards are being proposed. This is a law passed in IN dealing with control of the delegates and anything coming out of a state convention.
For instance the law
1) provides that the call by the general assembly for an Article V convention is withdrawn if all delegates and alternate delegates vote or attempt to vote outside the scope of the instructions given by the general assembly.
2) Provides that a delegate or alternate delegate who knowingly or intentionally votes or attempts to vote outside the scope of the instructions commits a Class D felony.
3) Establishes an advisory group to evaluate whether a delegate or an alternate delegate has acted outside the scope of instructions."
What more controls do you believe need to be in place for the states to retake control not of a runaway convention but of this runaway union?
bump
You really believe that states will ratify the elimination of the 2nd amendment?
Please study the issue and see that states control the content of a state convention not the DNC/RNC. Any suggested changes must be ratified in accordance with Article V.
They can’t just meet at Kansas City Marriott to write a new constitution and say live under it now.
That is propaganda put forward by those which prefer to keep their power by scaring the uninformed.
We have a government that has abandoned the Constitution. The way I look at it, if they totally screwed it up and instituted a tyrannical government, there is always the cartridge box.
Take a stroll through what used to be our beloved constitution, or even just the first ten amendments. How many are in force? Are any of the remaining not under attack?
Reform cannot emerge from Washington, from those who profit so well from a corrupted system. If restoration of republican freedom can come at all, it will be from the states and nowhere else.
Exactly. We have a lawless tyrannical government now.
JWK
.Constitutional Convention Call Redux - Who Is Behind It
JWK
agree, but how does one then explain the government’s enforcement of the 16th amendment since it was never verifiably ratified by enough states but is yet being enforced. This would never play but I would be more apt to trust a convention if there were no lawyers allowed or involved.
At best, they were historically misleading.
That is what the cartridge box is for.
Who is behind the push for a Con-Con call today? What is the Compact for America? Who is ALEC? Who was Henry Hazlitt and Rexford Tugwell? What new Constitution is waiting in the wings, written by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations? We will answer these questions in subsequent articles.
Answers: NO ONE of any consequence is calling for a "Con-Con". You are beating the wrong horse, on the wrong track in the wrong city. You're just wrong on each and every issue of consequence.
What is the "Compact for America"? Who knows and who cares? It has nothing to do with any effort I am aware of to convene an Article V Convention, nor would it ever.
Who is ALEC? Again, who knows and who cares? Waaay off the target.
Who was Henry Hazlitt and Rexford Tugwell? That's who WERE Henry Hazlitt and Rexford Tugwell, and anyway the question is not particularly relevant.
What new Constitution is waiting in the wings, written by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations? Jeez, from what sewer is this stuff dredged up? Utterly lame and ignorant, that what all this is.
An Article V convention is nothing more than the States exercising their powers under the US Constitution to propose amendments to the existing Constitution!
It still takes several States to approve the amendments for submission to the other States for approval.
the federal government has no power or authority over this convention and in the event 2/3 of the States vote to adopt the amendments, nothing the federal government can do about it!
The States can regulate what proposed amendments may be presented by either voting to approve them or not approving them.
This is not a run away convention or a convention to eliminate the existing Constitution, instead, Article V conventions were placed in the Constitution to provide the necessary power to the States whenever the federal government began operating as a dictator and refused to follow the limitations placed on it in the Constitution.
An Article V convention is called for by the individual States to submit proposed amendments to the existing Constitution to strengthen it from abuse by the federal government.
If you are so afraid of State power and the American people to reign in this out of control government by an Article V convention, then you simply do not understand how the process works. Purchase Mark Levin’s new book “The Liberty Amendments” and get educated before you shoot of your mouth on a public forum!
No one! The Convention of States and Article V Convention is not a "Constitutional Convention".
It is a grass roots effort to use the tools given us by the founders in order that we would preserve the republic and subsequently our own freedom.
I don't think you understand what the Convention of States movement is.
It also appears that the process laid out in Article V of the Constitution has escaped your scrutiny. Those that wish to ignore this firm element of our country's founding are deserving of the tyranny that is surely coming their way.
Because of the strong majority of States needed to ratify an amendment it is possible that liberals could possibly stop a conservative effort to pass an amendment such as term limits.
But for that same reason it is also dead certain that a liberal take over of the convention or subsequent passage of radical amendments is impossible.
The truth is; most amendments that might be put forth from conservative states would be measured and probably get a lot of independent support. One that I've heard being talked about is that any bills proposed in congress include the names of the people who actually wrote the bill. Another {I've heard] would mandate bills to be single issue propositions enumerated in the constitution.
I can imagine why these ideas would offend the beltway establishment and 'K' street money changers.
Do you even understand the difference between a States convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution and a constitutional convention where a new constitution is written to replace the existing constitution?
For God's sake, no one is proposing a NEW Constitution! Wake up!
JWK
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.