Posted on 03/06/2021 3:28:34 PM PST by Jacquerie
Yes, the ends justify the means. Nothing but the ends can justify the means. Perhaps better put, the ends justify means proportioned to certain ends.
Being born in equality, we are all equally obliged to defend the rights given to us by God. It is for this purpose, the defense of rights, that men form government. Security in our rights is the end. Government is the means. Our Founders drew the following conclusion when government becomes disconnected from, or hostile to, its designed end.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”
The Founders found in revolution a just means toward an all-important end. What of proportion? Is the taking of lives, the violent removal of those opposed to, and abusive of, free government justified? Yes. From Natural Law, which is the Law of Reason, when government usurps its powers it is in a State of War with the civil society that created the government in the first place.
Still, while it is the right of society to use force, it doesn’t have to. Perhaps non-violent means can serve the desired end.
That is what Article V provides. While some may feel that a convention of the sovereign people’s delegates is dangerous, it in no way can compare to the uncertain violent outcome of revolution. This principle cannot be better shown than in a comparison between the American and French Revolutions. Where ours culminated in 1788 with a civil, decent and noble Constitution, the French merely exchanged one set of monsters for another.
So let’s say the sovereign people decide to handle the problem peacefully and their delegates subsequently meet in convention. Now what? What exactly should they correct? What can specifically be done to restore free government?
As others have pointed out, it will be pointless to merely reassert Constitutional clauses that have been violated for decades. For instance, if the convention concludes and the states ratify an amendment that repeats to congress that it and it alone may write laws (Article I § 1), then the convention was a worthless exercise. Repetition of existing clauses that support existing means to the desired end (free government) will soon be ignored just like those in the original.
At this point, I suggest the reader take a stroll through the Constitution, or at least through the Bill of Rights. How many clauses, Articles, and Amendments are in force?
In broad terms, only two sorts are actually in effect.
First, the hard or structural aspects of our government remain for all to see. For instance, we still have a congress, executive and judiciary. Elections are held every two years. Every state has two senators.
Second are the rights and powers vociferously defended by narrowly focused interest groups. For instance, the NRA and similar organizations stand ready to visit electoral hell on politicians opposed to the right of self-defense. Until recently, a vast private media pounced on restrictions to free speech. The American Bar association has historically defended the myriad aspects of a citizen’s right to a fair trial.
In contrast, nearly every “soft” structure, right, power or privilege that is not supported and defended at all costs has been practically excised from the Constitution. Enumerated powers are but a memory. The president and judiciary make laws in violation of Article I § 1, etc.
So, let’s get back to the hypothetical state amendments convention of the sovereign people.
What is to be the purpose of this convention, its end?
Within their state commissions, I hope the delegates are instructed toward securing the ends set forth in general terms in the Declaration (that of unalienable rights) and itemized in the preamble of the Constitution, to wit:
Toward those ends, I trust the delegates will be authorized to address structural amendments, meaning those which redefine our governing institutions.
First and foremost must be repeal of the 17th Amendment. History has shown that our government remained fairly well within the limits of enumerated and divided powers prior to 1913. A senate of the states ensured that wild democracy would not get out of hand. Until then, prior to 1913, and thanks to a senate of the states, the government of the United States served its desired ends per the Constitution. As an institution derived from a different source than the House of Representatives, a much smaller senate well-served it designed ends. It checked popular passions of the House of Representatives, and provided wise counsel to the president regarding treaties and appointments to high office.
Today, the senate is an institution whose foundation cannot support its designed ends. Popularly derived bodies have never been known for temperate introspection. It no longer checks the majoritarian desires of the House, and has become something of rubber-stamp to an executive branch that recognizes few limits to its powers.
Here is what an ideal Article V state amendments convention would do:
Reaffirm the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution as the goals, the desired ends of American government.
Determine the shortcomings of institutions which do not support these ends.
Redesign our governing institutions such that they serve to support the ends of government.
The American people are taxed enormously for government at all levels without much thought as to just what government is supposed to do. Isn’t it time to step back and reestablish the basic, uniting principles of the American republic?
Article V ping!
You don’t actually believe delegations from the red states could reach agreement with delegates from the blue states? If that could be achieved, there would be no reason for the convention.
Thanks for your work, Jacquerie.
I see a high priority in securing the ballot box. That obvious shortcoming is in our face right now. A lot of other good things would happen from that.
Definitely something to consider prior to an Article V for the defined purpose of an article V.
“Until recently, a vast private media pounced on restrictions to free speech.”
The most potent, frightening and malicious change in our polity in my lifetime!
I don’t see any problem with parallel tracks.
Work toward restoring the Framers’ separation of electors through repeal of the 17th, as well as election reform.
But the odds favor something like Nancy and Chuckie’s HB1, which will ensure rat congesses and presidencies for the foreseeable future, will pass.
BUMP for consideration.
Agree.
The most cancerous amendment by far is the income tax. It makes us all into little more than free range slaves and turns the District of Criminals into a huge pot of loot free for all. I suggest a balance budget amendment that keeps on whittling down Federal spending until the debt is gone and the income tax is no longer needed. (Then kill that tax!). Somehow America survived over a century without the Income Tax, about time we return to those days.
The problem as I see it is that the supreme court has failed in its duty to protect the constitution.
Instead it finds penumbras where none was intended, twists logic into a pretzel to find a tax, and refuses to use it's authority when it senses that it might be unpopular. The supreme cowards and the partisan stooges on the court, (you know who they are) have wrecked the constitution.
I might add the current junta needs to be swept clean. They are rigging the game to rule us forever. Toss them all out with an amendment that prevents them from ever holding office again. The French Revolution had all those guillotines for a reason.With Article V we can remove these corrupt swamp critters without the violence.
And, of course, the international nature of the media is directed against Senators- reinforcing the objections to the 17th amend.
Though I don’t see any way to take their elections from the “mob”.
There still is some of the Founders anti-democratic intentions for the Senate preserved even with their election as they still have state interests. The most notable example (though highly overblown) is Manchin.
It has been a slow process this gradual erosion of liberty. The first important injury was when the Court of Supreme Whim granted itself the power to be the last word on the law. Jefferson knew it was bad . It even led to Civil War and probably will again if America fails to use Article V this time around.
Article V is a tool of globalist deception. Don’t let ‘em fool you.
Yes, the ends justify the means.
So say the Democrats who happily stole an election just to get Trump out of office.
But hey! Let’s keep pushing this Article V COS stuff so we can kill the republic and replace it with a Parlimentary system. I am sure Nancy would love to become our first Prime Minister!
Absolutely... If we, as a people, lack the necessary stones to oversee and enforce voter laws now, what makes us think we would do any better at a Constitutional Convention...
We can't even get up enough steam to defend our own borders against foreigners.. Why would we think that we could do a better job against our fellow countrymen.??
Well, I'll confess, I think I can stand the foreigners a whole lot more then the commie left... :(
All public servants take oaths to protect the Constitution, congressmen and senators included.
What typically limited our pre-17th government wasn’t the public virtue of public servants. It was the separation of electors: popular election to the House and State legislature appointment to the senate.
I addressed that point in the article.
Finally, someone who knows about humans...
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.