Posted on 08/05/2021 12:04:20 PM PDT by Jacquerie
There is a parallel conservatism shared by the framing era Anti-Federalists and today’s Article V opponents. Conservatism in this sense is the tendency to hold on to what is known and to resist change.
We may take it for granted, but thirteen heterogeneous societies joining in common defense was not inevitable. By 1787, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists foresaw approaching dissolution of the union under the Articles of Confederation (AC). A decade of experience with state constitutions had revealed their defects and induced among many Americans an inclination toward change. Either the independent republics must join in a more perfect union, or eventually find security with a European power. The situation was favorable to a new constitution, but not necessarily to a national constitution.
Since 1781, Federalists, men who sought to enhance congressional tax and commerce powers under the AC, crafted a solution in 1787. The resulting Constitution was new, yet had enough similarity with recently ratified state constitutions to be viewed as having both radical and familiar features.
Central to Anti-Federalist opposition was the possible abuse of power. It was on this basis that Patrick Henry at the VA ratifying convention opposed the Constitution beginning with “We The People” and just about every clause thereafter.
Among the gloomy warnings:
• At a ratio of 1:30,000, the House of Reps would soon be inhabited only by wealthy men of an aristocratic nature who would abuse the “Times, Places, and Manner” clause of Article I to suspend elections and set themselves up as oligarchs.
• Joining together under the treaty clause, the senate and president would set up a dictatorship.
• Runaway slaves, debtors and assorted villains and miscreants would find refuge in the federal city.
Like today, both sides in 1787 held a dim view of human nature, knew that it must be kept in check, and feared that the people were too corrupt for republican government.
However, their approaches toward a solution could be viewed as mirror opposites. Anti-Federalists would deny power in order to prevent abuse of power, while Federalists shaped a complex government in which power was so divided, so chopped up that the concentration, if not abuse of power was all but impossible.
In their intransigence, conservative Anti-Federalists chose to remain with a form of union that didn’t serve its designed purposes, which from Article III of the AC were: “their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”
Perhaps, in retrospect, the AC could have worked as designed if it had been enforced or the states sent better men to congress. If only the states had obeyed the resolutions of congress per Article XIII: ”Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them.”
Yet, despite Article XIII, the states often did not comply with congressional resolutions.
Today, like the Anti-Federalists, Article V opponents also recognize our dire situation. Like the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, while over a much longer time, has fallen far short of serving its purposes: “to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.” We send good men and women to DC, and exhort them all to enforce the Constitution we have, but to no avail.
While the Federalists/Anti-Federalists and Article V Supporters/Opponents all agreed there were/are problems that had to be solved in order to save the union, one side to both situations refused to address the problems head-on. They preferred to conserve, out of fear of change and possible abuse of power, that which had proved to be detrimental to liberty. James Madison pointed out at the VA ratifying convention that if a power was judged necessary to good government, its possible abuse was an insufficient reason to oppose it, for there isn’t a power or privilege on earth that could not be abused. An Article V convention represents prudent use of state power for the purpose of reversing an encroaching evil.
The problems are real. Unlike the Federalists of 1787 who sought to reform a system that was only six years old, our task today might be more difficult. One hundred and three years of rot introduced by the 17th Amendment has unquestionably pervaded the body politic, yet the solution is not to do nothing.
Of course, no particular outcome is guaranteed from an Article V convention of the states. But as in 1787, if we do nothing out of fear of possible abuse of power by state delegates, what is guaranteed is transformation of the union for the worse. The future is a certain and hardening tyranny if we do not accept our responsibilities to save the great American experiment in free government.
Article V.
Article V ping!
And the Anti-Federalists were right!
Anti-Federalists
George Mason
Patrick Henry
James Monroe
Samuel Adams
Richard Henry Lee
James Winthrop
Elbridge Gerry
George Clinton
Luther Martin
Melancton Smith
John Lansing
William Grayson
Abraham Yates
William Findley
Thomas Tredwell
John Smilie
William Paca
Rawlins Lowndes
Robert Yates
Robert Whitehill
IMHO, the problem is not the current U.S. Constitution. The problem is the men and women we elect to office who take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then fail to do so.
Article V will not prevent ignorant constitutients from continuing to elect corrupt, amoral and criminal representatives.
Just keep voting. As if it matters.
We could end direct election of Senators, add in term limits for Congress perps. How about making elected officials subject to the same laws against insider trading? Donating campaign funds to other office seekers could be banned. Working in another government connected office for 10 years. An outright ban on elected officials becoming lobbyists after they retire or are voted out? Campaign dollars can only come from people, not corporations. Get rid of the Federal Reserve Banking system and build a system backed by valuable metals, on a 1 dollar for a denominated amount of silver, gold, unobtainium, lithium or other valuable things. Let the Federal Reserve print up 30 trillion dollars and give it back to them to erase the debt.
IMHO, the problem is not the current U.S. Constitution. The problem is the men and women we elect to office who take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then fail to do so.Your point highlights a flaw in a constitution that allows for its own abuse. The Founders knew that unscrupulous actors would take office ("If men were angels..."), only they thought, following Madison's view and as referenced in the article here, that checks and balances and separation of powers across a large republic would protect against such abusers.
If any of y'all are interested, you can see the following links...
<>To my mind, the original flaw in the Constitution is its lack of protections against the judiciary.<>
Article III empowers Congress to limit federal courts.
Thanks to the 17th Amendment, which neutered the Senate, Scotus became the tyrannical branch. It wasn’t until the FDR era that Scotus found its social justice groove.
For those (not you) who gaff off the destructive nature of the 17th Amendment, I ask them to consider why the people need two popularly elected houses of Congress? Answer: We don’t.
SIX YEARS between elections? Really?
Most important, the Constitution acts on both the people and the states. Simple republican theory and the Declaration of Independence itself demand the states have a seat at the legislative table.
I agree with your excellent recommendations. The difficulty as I see it is the "we could".
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress... - Article V
One might argue that amendments put forth by the states under Article V could not possibly make things worse and that may be right. My fear would be that the states would propose amendments that would further erode our freedoms.
If the founders had anything right it was that concentrated, unchecked power is a formula for corruption.
John Adams observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He wasn’t the only Founding Father to hold this view. Indeed, James Madison wrote that our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.” - re: https://constitutionallaw.regent.edu/preserving-a-constitution-designed-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/
I also used to think that the anti-Feds were spot on, but the more original source material I take up and read the harder I find it to keep that view intact.
Neither Hamilton nor Madison disclosed in their Federalist Papers of the effort to amend the Articles of Confederation "as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."
It is a shame that Patrick Henry turned down his appointment as Virginia delegate to the Federal Convention.
assorted villains and miscreants would find refuge in the federal city.
Prescient.
Yep. “Checks and balances” results in “cahoots,” every time. It’s them against us.
Who decides the power of the federal government? The federal government. Of course it expands its power by any and all means.
And there you have it, right there. The Article V movement is a Trojan Horse. Let it in and you won't like the results.
Want certainty? You’ll find certainty in death and taxes.
Outside of certainty, what do you recommend to turn back the Obama/Biden/Rat/Rino tyranny?
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.