Article V and The Federalist No. 1 (2016)

In words that ring true today, Hamilton’s first Federalist explained the situation that faced America. The young country was at a crossroads; its very existence was in the balance. The nation was to decide whether society can establish good government through thought and choice, or whether people are forever destined to be ruled by accident and violence. The answer depended on the nation’s response to the crisis. The wrong decision deserved to be considered a misfortune for all of mankind.

Then as now, Americans have a choice. Shall we succumb to the course of current events and continue our slide into arbitrary rule by the executive and judicial branches, or step back from the abyss and work to restore free government?

Article V opponents point out that powerful forces with vested interests in the existing corruption will stand athwart reform. Hamilton would agree, for the new 1787 plan of government was similarly opposed. He noted that the Constitution affected so many institutions and interests that passions opposed to truth and the common good would join together in opposition. The first opponents to improvement of the union would be that class of men in every state whose prestige, power and wealth might be diminished. Today, “that class of men” inhabit Washington, DC. They will certainly fight like demons to retain their privileges.

Hamilton identified another sort of opposition from a class of men whose “perverted ambition” sought to profit from the anarchy, or from high positions in future partial confederacies as the union flew into pieces. Today, we need only ask the likes of President Obama, George Soros, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch if fomenting disorder and societal collapse isn’t profitable or at least personally rewarding.

However, rather than brush all opponents with ulterior motives, Hamilton recognized the existence of heartfelt and honest disagreement. The new plan of union deserved thorough examination, and through examination, Alexander Hamilton hoped to expose the truth: the present form of government was insufficient, and that a federal republic was necessary to the preservation of liberty and happiness.

Today there are honest, sincere opponents to unknown change, to risking an Article V convention to reform our corrupted system. But as in 1787, the cure for what ails our union is federalism. In 1787-88, the people at their state ratification conventions couldn’t be sure of what to do; in 2016 we need only look at their example for the solution.

Article V

“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; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

That’s it. That’s the whole thing.

The only thing that can come out of an Article 5 Convention is proposed amendments to the constitution. That’s it. Nothing else. That’s how it’s written in the constitution. Anything other than that would get tossed by courts the day it was released.

Any proposed amendment would still need to be ratfied by 38 States. What anti-USA amendment could possibly be ratified by 38 States? Please tell us what that would be.

I seriously doubt it could get hijacked, as safeguards are being put in place right now. But even if somehow an ammendment was proposed for, say, terms for life for Pelosi and Schumer, it wouldn’t get ratified by 38 States. Disagree? Name the 38 States who would back it. I’ll wait...

Nothing? Thought so.

“I’m scared” is meaningless. Throwing rocks is easy, but describing what could actually happen to our detriment is difficult. So people divert, deflect, use straw men arguments, or just say, “I scared!”

Personally I think we should stick to one, and only one, amendment the first time. We can do more later once the public sees they sky didn’t fall, and the scaredy-cats were gaslighting. That amendment should be Term Limits. Nothing else the first time. 80% of the public supports it, and it would be ratified in 2 years max. Then we can do another, on the budget, clarification of the Commerce Clause, or whatever.

There is a contingent of sleeper freepers against Article 5, like vampires afraid of sunlight. Why? Because it is the last hope of this country and they do not want it saved.

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.