Posted on 07/31/2013 6:56:57 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
I agree with you regarding an Article V Convention getting hijacked and so did James Madison! Madison wrote:
“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundationsof the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville
I should also add that at the time of the above letter being written which was after our existing Constitution had been ratified, there was a movement afoot by a number of States to call another convention to adopt amendments and a bill of rights to the Constitution, Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph were prominent leaders advocating this idea.
During this time period George Washington recommended that Congress draw up a bill of rights and send it to the States for ratification, and James Madison took up the cause in the House. Washington and Madison both feared a second convention and that a bill of rights proposed by Congress would end the call for a second convention.
On March 4th 1789 Madison and Washington’s efforts paid off when 12 amendments were sent to the states for ratification. SEE: Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
But getting back to you point about a convention being hijacked and who would attend a convention if one were to be called today, Madison appears to be right. During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention called to amend its state constitution, it would up being challenged in U.S. District Court because of the 400 delegates, 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and two legislative lobbyists….the very snakes who are now causing our misery!
The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a pubic office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”
And so, the very snakes who cause our miseries would more than likely dominate the convention. It would not be “We the People” as some may foolishly believe.
Additionally, keep in mind that while the Articles of Confederation were in effect, the convention of 1787 was called for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“, See: Credentials of the Members of the Federal Convention. Commonwealth of Massachusetts; April 9, 1787
Whereas Congress did on the twenty first day of February Ao Di 1787, Resolve "that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of Delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States to be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."
And what happened? We wound up with an entirely new Constitution, a new federal government, powers ceded to the new government, and the new government was instructed to assume the various State debts incurred during the Revolutionary War as part of the deal agreed to during the convention. The historical fact is, once the convention convened it considered itself as having a greater latitude than the limited purpose for which the States convened the convention.
Here is a great article by David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh’s brother: Constitutional Convention Is a Dangerous Idea
The article begins: The left's assault on liberty never rests, so don't ever be sucked into supporting the dangerous idea of a new constitutional convention, even if its stated purposes purport to be limited.
I would love to hear Mark Levin address the following questions. If two thirds of the Legislatures of the States did make “Application” for an Article V Convention, who is actually in charge of calling the “Convention for proposing Amendments”? Is it not Congress? And who is in charge of making the rules and regulations governing the convention? For example, will Congress be in charge of selecting the delegates to a convention and determine their necessary qualifications? Perhaps Congress will give us another “Gang of Eight” to rewrite our Constitution or the gang of 12 which gave us sequestration.
Just what are the rules which govern an Article V Convention? Seems to me, in the final analysis, Congress and our tyrannical Supreme Court have extraordinary manipulative powers over the whole Article V Convention process.
Why would any true patriot place the fate of our country in the hands of the very folks who now cause our sufferings by giving them an opportunity to fundamentally transform America’s Constitution and make constitutional, that which is now unconstitutional?
JWK
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
What I have not heard Mark talk about or explore is the sound reasoning of our founding fathers who suffered under the tyranny of King George.
And what was their first step? Prior to any forceful actions they put King George on notice, which in itself established a moral high ground and a good faith effort to resolve differences in a peaceful manner.
Indeed, our Founders petitioned King George for a redress of grievances in a number of documents, prior to taking a more direct and forceful approach e.g., see: Journals of the Coninental Congress - The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774
I believe our first step in correcting our problem ought to begin with representatives of our nation’s true patriots, from each of the United States, to meet and unite in forming an official document stating our grievances. This was one of the first steps taken by our founding fathers. Is the right of the people to petition the Government for a “redress of grievances” not contained in our Constitution and one of the specific tools given to us by our founding fathers to be used under existing circumstances? Should our nation’s defenders of our constitutionally limited system of government not work to put our federal government on notice and be united in articulating a list of particulars describing our grievances and the corrective actions which must be taken so no further action is necessary?
Another “tool” contained in our Constitution, and one I specifically embrace, is the impeachment of those who hold and office of public trust who blatantly violate their oath to support “this Constitution”. Is it not dutiful of those we elect to Congress to start impeachment proceedings when a Justice on our Supreme Court blatantly, knowingly and willingly, lies about our Constitution and the limited taxing powers granted to Congress, pretending our Constitution’s taxing powers allows for the implementation and enforcement of Obamacare? Would a refusal to support impeachment of Justice Roberts by a member of Congress not distinguish him/her from a true patriot who supports and defends “this Constitution” and is obedient to their oath of office?
If Mark Levin would use his platform to build a movement to draft a petition of grievances and also call upon Congress to impeach Justice Roberts for his disloyalty to the oath of office he took, would this not work to unite true patriots across America in a common goal in restoring our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” and be addressing our federal governments rebellion against our written Constitution?
JWK
Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.
The truth is, “One of the great objections raised to the new plan of Government had been that the delegates to this Convention had only been empowered by their States to amend the Articles of Confederation, an not to frame a new Constitution”___ The making of the Constitution by Charles Warren, 1937. Pg. 350
Also see letter TO GENERAL WASHINGTON September 30th, 1787:
“It was first urged, that, as the new Constitution was more than an alteration of the Articles of Confederation, under which Congress acted, and ever subverted those Articles altogether, there was a constitutional impropriety in their taking any positive agency in the work.”
Also see the Anti Federalist Papers, John DeWitt, Massachusetts, October 27, 1787, To the Free Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
In my last address upon the proceedings of the Federal Convention I endeavored to convince you of the importance of the subject, that it required a cool, dispassionate examination, and a thorough investigation, previous to its adoption -- that it was not a mere revision and amendment of our first Confederation, but a complete System for the future government of the United States…
The truth is, an Article V convention cannot be controlled, just like the delegates to the Convention of 1787 were not controlled. Even Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger confirmed in a letter “…there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederated Congress…"
Mark Levin needs to rethink the Pandora’s Box he is willing to open especially when our problem is not a defect in our existing Constitution which needs amending, but rather, our sufferings are caused by our federal government acting in rebellion to our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
JWK
> “Mark Levin needs to rethink the Pandora’s Box he is willing to open especially when our problem is not a defect in our existing Constitution which needs amending, but rather, our sufferings are caused by our federal government acting in rebellion to our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.”
You have entirely missed the big picture here.
There are in effect two potential congresses, one of elected members and one of the people.
For every scare tactic you throw at the congress of the people, that is the state conventions, you could likewise throw at the congress of elected members.
The congress of elected members consists of 535 Senators and Representatives and state convention delegates can be a like number but the key distinction is that the convention delegates can only vote with their state. So in effect the convention effect is of 50 votes and no more.
What makes you think the 535 elected member votes are more controllable than 50 effective state convention votes?
ANSWER: The elected members are not more controllable. In fact they are now more uncontrollable in the sense they pass laws that Americans do not want. They would be content to rewrite the Constitution if it wasn’t for the pesky fact that ratification is handled by states and not them. In fact if the ruling class of elected members could ratify amendments on their own, we would have a de facto socialist form of federal government embedded in our Constitution.
The fact is that conservatives have an overwhelming advantage at the state level. Conservatives will be solidly in favor of convention delegates writing law rather than the ruling class of elected incumbents.
1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;
2) that Congress and our Supreme Court would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;
3) that every snake on earth with self interests such as ACORN would be draw to the convention as a delegate;
4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be draw up by the Convention;
5) that the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission;
6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;
7) And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopted to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, they arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.
SEE: Articles of Confederation
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. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
There are many unanswered questions concerning an Article V convention, and yet, Mark Levin has decided to jump on the Article V bandwagon which Madison warned us against! The problem with this is, there is a very well funded organized effort by some very devious actors who have been trying to get enough State Legislatures to make application for an Article V convention and they are having success, e.g., see: Georgia lawmakers seek constitutional convention for federal budget
By Walter C. Jones
Morris News Service
Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:13 PM
ATLANTA _The Georgia Senate voted Thursday to petition Congress for a constitutional convention to consider requiring the federal government stick to balanced budgets.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to hold a convention if 34 states pass resolutions calling for one.
Thursday’s vote of 39-13 was largely along party lines on Senate Resolution 267 by Sen. Bill Cowsert, R-Athens.
The fact is, this Article V convention crap has been going on in the shadows for several years. With Mark Levin now jumping on the Article V convention bandwagon, although he may not be connected with the above mentioned group, his call as a “conservative” for an Article V convention aids these scoundrels by having a trusted "constitutional conservative leader" promoting their idea which in effect will have many of Marks fans dropping their guard because they have faith in Mark.
Mark Levin needs to take off his rose colored glasses and carefully study Madison’s warning about calling a second convention. He also needs to answer some of the unanswered questions regarding an Article V convention.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
You can take it however you want but I don’t agree with any of your nonsense.
JWK
Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.
Your ‘facts’ are nonsense. You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. And fact quips taken out of context are fodder for propaganda.
JWK
I believe it's all open and fair game ... like the muslim brotherhood in Egypt .. the victory goes to the best organized
.
I don’t take orders from you. Get lost.
I spoke to a a lawyer friend and his opinion is that the convention subject(s) can be specifically defined ahead of time.
But even he admitted that he would have to double check that.
See: Credentials of the Members of the Federal Convention. Commonwealth of Massachusetts; April 9, 1787
Whereas Congress did on the twenty first day of February Ao Di 1787, Resolve "that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of Delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States to be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."
In addition, Madison warned us against a second convention just after our Constitution was ratified, and before our Constitution’s bill of rights was added to our Constitution. He wrote:
“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundationsof the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville
And more recently, here is what Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, regarding another convention: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
The simple truth is, there are too many unanswered questions regarding an Article V convention and in the end our existing Supreme Court and Congress would be in charge of answering these questions.
Let us review the reasons why an Article V convention is a dangerous idea:
1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;
2) that Congress and our Supreme Court would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;
3) that every snake on earth with self interests such as ACORN would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;
4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;
5) that the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission;
6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;
7) And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, they arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.
BTW, did you see the great article by David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh’s brother?
Constitutional Convention Is a Dangerous Idea
The article begins: “The left's assault on liberty never rests, so don't ever be sucked into supporting the dangerous idea of a new constitutional convention, even if its stated purposes purport to be limited.”
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
Yep.
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.