Posted on 07/24/2013 1:36:41 PM PDT by Jacquerie
A government designed to secure our unalienable rights has become something of a black-hole that devours our liberties. In the sum total of our three national branches, fewer than 1,500* men and women push around over 300 million citizens without restraint or fear for their personal safety. What is to be done? If we weigh the potential benefit, meaning the restoration of our republic, against the remote disadvantages of an amendment convention, there is little reason to avoid one.
There’s been some hubbub at FR recently over both the necessity and danger of the states calling an Article V Convention. Mark Levin lit the fuse on July 10th when he showed a little more leg, when he revealed the title of his new book, The Liberty Amendments, Restoring the American Republic. We know eleven chapters will be devoted to eleven amendments that include repeal of the 17th amendment, the grant of state recall authority over senators, and term limits for congress and federal judges.
He made it clear that from Article V, this convention of state delegates could only recommend amendments and not draft a new constitution. Instead of congressionally derived amendments, Article V acknowledges the right of a sovereign people and states to go around our near hopelessly corrupt and consolidated government. As done a couple dozen times before, the people/state derived amendments would be subject to ratification, as are congressionally sourced amendments, by at least three-fourths of the states.
All well and good, right? Well, not everyone agrees.
Is there a danger an Article V convention could produce a positive right, USSR type of constitution that would make Saul Alinsky proud? It is not at all likely.
The reason resides in our history. As in 1787, today’s states would send delegates, not representatives. There is a big difference. As opposed to our congressmen and senators, amendment convention delegates will be agents of the states. Delegates from states that actually wished to restore republican freedom would arrive not with plenary powers, but would be subject to legislative instructions that restrict their jurisdiction. Limited to specific areas, and perhaps backed up with enforceable sanctions, it would take a bold delegate to dishonor his commission. This isn’t to say some states won’t send some far left radicals with rather wide open instructions. Perhaps the CA delegates would be cleared for full a full Alinsky. Still, it is doubtful that more than a handful at most would promote this.
State delegates to Philadelphia in 1787 were charged with improving the Articles of Confederation. That they did, but at a cost of recommending the ditching of what very little remained of the confederation government. For freepers who believe the constitutional convention will be today’s model, they’re partly right. Delegates with restrictive state commissions in 1787 followed their instructions. For instance, the majority of delegates from New York left the convention because the evolving constitution violated their instructions. Similarly, due to their commissions, delegates from Delaware practically forced the compromise that provided for equality of state suffrage in the senate.
To summarize, no state delegate to an amendment convention will arrive without instructions. It is less than unlikely that any significant number will have something remotely close to carte blanche authority to create a social justice, utopian hell. The remaining adults in the room will be armed with specific amendment topics or perhaps detailed instructions from their legislatures.
* One president, 435 congressmen, 100 senators, and 875 Article III judges.
Goldwater Institute: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/amending-constitution-convention-complete-view-founders-plan-part-1-series
I agree with Mark that carrying on as we are is hopeless, and that Congress, which has surrendered OUR sovereign powers that WE granted to it to the Administrative State, over which we have no control, will not reform the system.
I’m not crazy about an Art V convention, but on the path we now are on, we’re about finished.
It’s a great idea - but the truth is - we’re under Soviet-style occupation and there is NO WAY IN HELL the Ruling Class Oligarchs are going to permit any attempt to restrict their power or the regime they have established.
This government has already shown us the contempt they have for We The People - that was self-evident during several TEA Party demonstrations and Town Halls.
The rule of law is dead.
The only way such Liberty Amendments become enacted is going to be by force, because assuredly - the MarxoFascists and the Ruling Class will use force to prohibit their implementation.
Such is history.
Heck, we can't even agree on what the right things are among ourselves.
Heck, we can't even agree on what the right things are among ourselves.
He is assuming that the state legislatures will select delegates and give them narrow instructions, but Article V doesn't say so. Even if the states call for a convention, it is likely that the delegates will be popularly elected.
I’m not crazy about an Art V convention, but on the path we now are on, we’re about finished.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
The above post is worth the read (for the questions raised in the posting, & the hole(s) pointed out in the Goldwater Institute article / report.)
If I remember correctly, it took about an hour or more just to format the posting above.
A new Constitutional Convention at this point in history would end in civil war. Additionally, there’s no point in it. The problem now isn’t the Constitution, it’s the willingness to ignore it.
“Another added benefit is that WE would take charge of the debate.”
Why do you believe “WE would take charge of the debate”?
If “WE” have what it takes to take charge of the debate, why haven’t we done so?
If “WE” have what it takes to take charge of the debate, why have we let things get to the place they are now?
Article V doesn’t mean a constitutional convention.
I understand that Madison dreaded a second con-con but also know that Jefferson later regarded such a convention as a practical remedy to troubleshooting the nation’s problems.
I don’t dread a con-con because the product of a con-con is not an amendement to the Constituton as many people seem to think. A con-con only proposes an amendement to the Constituton which the states can choose not to ratify.
Also, I don’t expect to see a con-con in the foreeseable future. This is because the corrupt federal government doesn’t want Constitution-ignorant citizens to find out that it is the states, not the federal government, who uniquely controls what the Constitution says, the states thus having absolute control over the federal government. If such knowledge become widespread then it would probably throw a major monkey wrench into the Progressive Movement agenda to unconstitutonally centralize government power in DC.
Finally, there’s nothing wrong with the Constitution, imo, other than PC interpretations of it. What patriots need to do instead of trying to fix something that’s not broke is the following. Patriots need to wise up and win 2/3 conservatives majority control of both Houses of Congress in 2014. Then conservative-controlled Congress will have the constitutional authority under the Constituton’s Clause 2 of Section 7 of Article I to override presidential vetoes. Clause 2 means that Congress will be able to repeal Obamacare without Obama’s signature.
Congress will also be able to impeach Obama, Biden, justices and everybody else in DC who needs to be impeached.
That is precisely what is being spoken about in this article.
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.
For instance, the 17th Amendment changed the fundamental nature of our previously federal government. We can thank it for making possible the seating of anti-10th Amendment judges to the federal bench.
A convention to propose amendments is not an open ended constitutional convention.
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.