Public Virtue & Article V Opponents

The Golden Age of Virtue which Article V opponents attach to our early republics, never existed.

This isn’t to say the literature and political writings by gentry and revolutionary leaders of the day did not appeal to virtue. After Benjamin Franklin wrote, “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom,” he warned that without virtue, people are doomed to ever more oppressive masters. Similarly is John Adams’ famous, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”¹ We read these reminders, especially those of John Adams, on a regular basis at conservative websites and social media. They’re typically superimposed over John Adams’ image. It makes for evocative copy in this short-attention-span Facebook and Twitter era.

It is also the primary excuse for Article V opponents. Since, they say, virtue is an essential element in republican government, and modern society is horribly unvirtuous, they would keep We the People and States as far away from the Constitution as possible. It is an easy out, but it doesn’t stand up to history or scrutiny.

What is virtue? More pointedly, what did it mean and did it apply some 230 years ago? Is it applicable today?

The perception of virtue evolved over the millennia. To the Roman kingdom and republic, virtu’ was a manly trait that encompassed bravery, strength, fortitude and cunning. Virtu’ extended to defense of the nation. Christian virtues of wisdom, fortitude, temperance and justice form the foundation of character. To these, Christianity adds the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Christian virtue is the path to personal happiness.

A common element to both classic virtu’ and Christian virtue is that of self-sacrifice.

The framers lived in a Christian nation. A few were Deists but in the main those who attended the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia were Christians who shared the biblical understanding of man as a fallen being. Hence, they were designing a government not for perfect man but for fallen man, a man in need of redemption. They were dealing in this world for a this-worldly Constitution to compensate for the natural selfish tendency of man so they built in checks and balances and separation of powers. They built a limited government precisely because they knew that mankind lacked virtue.

It is ironic that those who oppose restoring the Constitution through the means provided in the Constitution, Article V, often do so for the reasons cited by the author, that allegedly only virtuous men can successfully operate a democracy. It is ironic because we no longer live in a believing Christian nation, in fact, we live in a nation dominated by progressive values which hold that man is not in need of redemption because he is perfectible, rather, he is in need only of education-which progressives are only too willing to provide.

Human nature has not changed since Benjamin Franklin advised the woman who inquired about the kind of government he and the framers were bequeathing: "a Republic Mdm. if you can keep it." Inherent in that comment is the understanding that humans are imperfect and liable to transgress to a point where they tear the Republic down.

The Constitution makes an inherent statement: the document is not entirely perfect, it is subject to amendment, Article V expressly provides for the Constitution to protect itself against the a modern godless society woefully lacking virtue.

The wishes of proponents of the COS solution notwithstanding, I stand against it, have had the distinct pleasure of voting against it, and believe it is virtuous to do so. If the Constitution needs fixing, I don’t see it and neither do the many opponents of COS who stand with me. The hearts of men is what needs fixing, and there is only One who has that power.

The COS solution is asking folks willing to vote for such, to ignore reality that literally nothing could go wrong. No one in their right mind can be that blind and ignorant, nor should they be when the Constitution of the United States of America is the subject.

The COS solution is asking folks willing to vote for such, to ignore reality that literally nothing could go wrong.

Folks willing to avail our Republic of the provisions in the Constitution to save the Constitution are asking those opposing who profess to be conservatives not to "ignore reality" nor to be "blind or ignorant" of the fact that the Constitution is being amended in practice "literally" every day.

As to something going wrong in such a convention, be advised that it only takes 13 legislative bodies from different states out of 99 legislative bodies to stop an ill advised proposed amendment. The arithmetic is clear, the danger is virtually nonexistent.

Clearly, the danger is not from a convention of the states, the danger is from doing nothing and letting the progressives who control the courts, the bureaucracy, and the House of Representatives amend the Constitution every day.

<>Clearly, the danger is not from a convention of the states, the danger is from doing nothing and letting the progressives who control the courts, the bureaucracy, and the House of Representatives amend the Constitution every day.<>

Unless he has no other option, only a foolish general will directly assault a well-fortified enemy position. Progressives in Washington DC, as you relate, hold the high ground. Reliance on voting alone is a failed tactic. It is a direct assault doomed to continued failure.

An Article V COS is a flanking movement that avoids our enemy’s strong points; it can smash them where they are weak. It is also as Constitutional and necessary as the remaining six articles. To deny We the People through our states the opportunity to excise the corruption, to alter a government destructive of its just ends, is a boldfaced rejection of our Declaration.

The arithmetic is clear, the danger is virtually nonexistent.

Your first sentence has made my case.

Sentence number two states one of the many organizations involved in the destruction of the Constitution. A particular organization Constitutionally directed to “Call” the Article V Convention, which anyone with a lick of sense is going to call a “Constitutional Convention. That same organization has proven itself by it’s apparent inability or unwillingness to make the call. Oh I guess one needs a minimum of 34 State for that to happen.

An additional organization with the same Progressive policies leading to the destruction of the Constitution as the Founders established it would be none other than the Supreme Court of the United States. They have by the abdication of the Congress become the other established Government force making law on an almost daily basis. A Congress doing their job should have come down on them like a loose load of bricks.

I will throw in today’s radical media, and it’s subsidiary the Democrat party, who, in the estimation of the ignorant, seem to be against a Convention, but will be present and accounted for in spades should the call be made. Not with the intention of winning the amendment battle, but shaming the nation for belief in the white man’s Constitution, and all of it’s error filled supreme law of the land.

We on the other hand know that the Constitution is not the problem, it is the heart of fallible man that leads Congress and other parts of our Government to lead us down the primrose path of progressive policies leading to our inevitable destruction as the land of the free and home of the brave.

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.