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?
I would personally like to keep the discussion civil and productive, but I am offended by the dishonesty and none too subtle attempts to hijack any rational discussion of an Amendment V convention with irrelevanies, historic distortions, alarmism and other subterfuges. If folks would desist in this, the discussion would be of far more benefit to all.
Look, your posts are so comtrived, so essentially dishonest, and clearly designed to discourage patriots from regaining control of our levialan state that i can’t help but wonder about your true purpose in poting here.
It’s one thing to have concerns about an ArticleV convention. Some concers are legi. But to stubbornly mischaracterize it as a “con-con” after having been corrected on this point several times reveals something else at work beyond good faith concerns. I suspect that you are wrking at cross purpose. What’s the alternative explanation?
Your insulting remarks are not civil, and the second method expressed in Article V has been referred to as a constitutional convention for generations!
JWK
"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli
If you have a gut reaction that calling a constitutional convention under Article V is a dangerous idea, you may want to learn about those who are behind the idea. See: Exposing the Convention of the States (COS)as an Article V Constitutional Convention … and Who’s Behind It All, including Soros & Levin
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,'
responded Franklin.
As long as you insist on not opening yourself up to learning, you will remain ignorant. In fact, the admission of ignorance is the first step on the road of learning. I really do urge you to take that step; your heart is obviously in the right place. You simply don’t have a grasp of the facts.
The link you posted is to a scurrilous, libelous, website that you should be ashamed to associate yourself with.
George Soros behind the move to an Article V convention of the States?
Get a grip.
Ignorance is not made into wisdom by the passage of time.
We feel that this CON CON is a CON and must be stopped..
So do constitutional experts JBS, NHCCS and TAC.
Soros is working FULL TIME to make a ‘new constitution’ by 2020 including such ‘rights’ as housing, job, and Obamacare.
There is nothing scurrilous about the JBS as they are constitutional experts.
You are absolutely right.. why are neocons ignoring this?
Funny but the guy in this photo with the tree of liberty sign is AGAINST a con con... LOL He’s from NH... and he agrees with the tea party here.
Thanks for the info. Not to stir the pot but the impetus via an AVCC to give the people more laws in order to control the government may be commendable but this country is where it is today because the people have foolishly believed what those in government have sold/told them. I guess we can thank the obozo because it’s finally come down to the Fool Me Once scenario. Laws are only words if they are not enforced and selectively enforcing laws is the problem. Not applying the rule of law equally in and of itself in most instances is an illegal act which has become the norm in DC. Some may even call that tyranny. Not to preach but any American patriot knows what the fix to government tyranny is and it exists in the intent and free exercise of the 2nd amendment (ref Patrick Henry’s pro 2nd argument). God willing, this Republic will remain standing as He intended.
Convention of States project__ short on facts, big on propaganda!
Let us look at some of the deceptive propaganda put out by the Convention of States project [COS].
COS writes:
"Here are the facts:
1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject.
2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero."
The truth is, Article V is very clear that when a convention is called, it is for the specific purpose of “proposing Amendments” [that’s plural] see Article V! Additionally, the Convention of 1787 was called for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The Delegates to the Convention were not authorized to draw up an entirely new Constitution which in fact they decided to do. And after doing so, the Convention decided to also ignore the Articles of Confederation's requirement that a unanimous consent be obtained to alter the Articles. They changed that requirement to an approval by a mere nine states to put into effect the new government and new Constitution they created.
Seems to me the COS project has a very real problem listing “the facts”, in addition to their pure speculation that the number of states needed to approve the Convention’s doings, if one were called, would be 38 and not changed by the Delegates as happened during the Convention of 1787.
The COS project continues:
3. Improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. The Supreme Court has held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it changed the rules of the process in midstream. See, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) CSG’s Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation—the last major Article V case in U.S. history.
What the COS glosses over here is, we are not talking about the Supreme Court of 1981. We are talking about our current tyrannical Supreme Court which recently held Obamacare is constitutional, indicating Congress has been vested with a power to enter the States and dictate the people’s medical and health care decisions and choices, which has never been approved by an appropriate amendment to our Constitution.
Finally, the COS writes:
4. There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway convention. Many opponents of a convention of the states make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an illegal runaway convention. Such an argument was invented by the enemies of the Constitution and is unsupported by historical fact. (See “Was the Constitution Illegally Adopted?” by Michael Farris
Illegal runaway convention, historically false allegation?
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 and to make them adequate to the exigencies of the Union. There was no call to draw up an entirely new government and new constitution. 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”. The States did not authorize drawing up an entirely new Constitution and new government during the convention. These are the historical facts! Was it “illegal” or a “runaway convention”? Those questions are irrelevant and are straw man arguments intentionally referenced to distract the reader from the historical facts and what actually happened during the convention of 1787. It is a stupid debating trick commonly used by dishonorable people when the facts do not fit their agenda!
JWK
"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli
Similarly, the early progressives of the last century trashed the character of the framers. It smoothed the way for the 16th and 17th amendments.
At least the Left is consistent. Rather than debate ideas, their first impulse is to trash the character and motives of opponents.
When challenged on your distortions, inaacuracies, and outrageous allegations, what do you do?
Double down on the distortions, inaccuracies and outrageous allegations!
This is not debate, it is pure soapboxing. Shame on you.
If left wing kooks could have eliminated the 2nd amendment BY AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION they would have done it a LONG time ago.
What part of MUST BE RATIFIED BY 38 STATES do you not understand?
If you think the left has the numbers to ratify an amendment in 38 states then the war has already been lost. That being said I can assure you they don't, or we would have been a communist country a long time ago. The left has packed the courts with their ilk for this very reason. THEY DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS TO PASS THEIR AGENDA BY ANY LEGITIMATE MEANS.
the 16th amendment was NEVER legally ratified so it's not really the law, right??
Perhaps you don’t read very well but no one here, to the best of my knowledge, disputed that our existing constitution requires three fourths of the several States to effectuate any alteration to our Constitution. However, what is contended is, will that requirement be honored? The only precedent we have is what took place in 1787 during the framing and ratification process of our existing Constitution.
The historical facts are, the Convention of 1787 was called for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The Delegates to the Convention were not authorized to draw up an entirely new Constitution which in fact they decided to do. And after doing so, the Convention decided to also ignore the Articles of Confederation's requirement that a unanimous consent be obtained to alter the Articles. They changed that requirement to an approval by a mere nine states to put into effect the new government and new Constitution they created.
So, instead of insulting posters, address the historical facts which tell us the three fourths requirement may be a pipe dream if a convention is called!
Another important question is, how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Will it be by a rule of apportionment in which our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size? And if they do, could they not steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire United States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed for ratification?
The fact is, there is a compelling argument to be made that the above mentioned pinko progressive states would indeed be entitled to a representation at the convention in proportion to their population size! Does our Constitution not set a new rule by which representation shall be by the rule of apportionment which overruled the Articles of Confederation’s equal representation rule? And who will get to decide this question if raised after a convention is called by Congress? Would it not be our existing tyrannical Supreme Court?
These and other important questions must be answered. But one thing seems certain, a convention cannot be controlled once it is convened! Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, regarding another convention: “ have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
JWK
"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli
At the Convention of States Project's website, and under their Frequently Asked Questions the first question presented and then answered is:
Why Do We Want to Call a Convention of States?
“Washington, D.C., is broken. The federal government is spending this country into the ground, seizing power from the states and taking liberty from the people. It’s time American citizens took a stand and made a legitimate effort to curb the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason insisted that the States be given the power to amend the Constitution to curb abuses by Washington, D.C. The Founders gave us the solution for today. It is time to use their solution.”
The problem is indeed identified by the Convention of States project. Our federal government is usurping power not granted and trampling upon the inalienable rights of the American People. A recent example being the passage of Obamacare by Congress and the Supreme Court engaging in judicial tyranny when upholding Congress’ legislative tyranny, not to mention the president’s willful usurping legislative power and imposing his own version of Obamacare upon the people.
And to curb this assault upon the People’s constitutionally limited system of government, the Convention of States project comes to the people’s rescue and suggests they forgo rising up and demanding an adherence to their written Constitution. The Convention of States project’s solution is to take the people out of the equation and find their remedy in our corrupted state governments, our tyrannical Supreme Court and a despotic Congress. Are these not the actors who would be in total charge of a convention should one be called? Would calling a convention under Article V not give them the “legal opportunity” to make constitutional the tyranny which is now rained down upon the people?
One must ask, who would actually attend a convention should one be called? Would it not be the very snakes who now cause our sufferings? Could James Madison be right, and that an election into the convention " 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...?
Let us take a look at what has already happened in New Hampshire in 1984 when a convention was called to amend its state constitution.
During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery!
The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a public office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”
Now, let us take a look at who is behind the calling of a constitutional convention. See: Exposing the Convention of the States (COS) as an Article V Constitutional Convention … and Who’s Behind It All, including Soros & Levin
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
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.
