State-Led Push to Force Constitutional Convention Gains Steam With High-Profile Republican Support

A state-level campaign to rein in the federal government by calling an unprecedented convention to amend the U.S. Constitution is gaining steam, picking up support from two high-profile Republicans as more states explore the idea.

Coburn, a legendary government-waste watchdog, announced this week that he has joined the effort by becoming a senior adviser for the group Convention of States Action, which wants states, not just Congress, to pass constitutional amendments.

Article V of the Constitution states amendments can be ratified either by Congress or by states if two-thirds of them petition Congress to call a convention. Then, any amendment proposed at the convention must be ratified by three-fourth, or 38, states.

So far, the Alaska, Florida and Georgia legislatures have each passed a resolution in support of a convention, and 25 more are considering one, according to group.

“Our founders anticipated the federal government might get out of control,” Coburn said Tuesday. “And they gave us a constitutional mechanism to rein it in.”

Meanwhile, Ohio GOP Gov. John Kasich, a potential 2016 White House candidate, has recently concluded a six-state tour in which he has asked legislators to support the convention, largely to push the balanced budget idea.

“Who the heck thinks we should keep spending without any regard to the consequences?” Kasich, a fiscal hawk and former House Budget Committee chairman, asked in South Dakota. “I don’t care if you’re a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian. This is not what we should be doing as a nation. It’s irresponsible.”

Kasich, who claims credit for crafting a balanced federal budget before leaving Congress in 2000, gave a similar pitch week last month in Utah, urging state lawmakers to pass a convention resolution, which has failed there in past years.

Here’s an article for you, not one that is totally against the idea, but says ... “There may be a future time, but it’s not now!” ( paraphrased ). It’s an older article, but relevant.

— — —

Don’t Be Fooled by Article V Conventions

The idea that there might be a simple fix to all our problems has seduced many thoughtful and well-intentioned men and women over the ages. If only we could do this, then all would be well.

We stand with our persevering friends and allies. But let’s not be fooled. By the very nature of man and the imperfection of politics, there are no silver bullets.

Such is the case with the proposal to hold an Article V constitutional amendments convention. A perennial question in American history, it seems on its face to be a simple suggestion to deploy a forgotten option to bring about the changes we seek.

In the course of our work advising state and federal lawmakers and conservative allies across the country, we have been giving this issue close attention and study. Along with Trent England, the director of constitutional studies at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, I’ve written our assessment of the meaning and status of Article V as part of our Constitution Guidance for Lawmakers series. Stemming from that analysis, and taking into consideration the circumstances under which we are now operating, we have come to the conclusion that an Article V convention is not the answer to our problems. The lack of precedent, extensive unknowns, and considerable risks of an Article V amendments convention should bring sober pause to advocates of legitimate constitutional reform contemplating this avenue. We are not prepared to encourage state governments at this time to apply to Congress to call an amendments convention.

This should come as no surprise. While the congressional method of proposing amendments is unambiguous—Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses deem it necessary, may propose specific amendments—things get murkier with an Article V convention. The vagueness of this method led Madison to oppose the proposal at the Constitutional Convention: “difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum etc. which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided.” Combine that with the fact that no such amending convention has ever occurred, and too many serious questions are left open and unanswered.

The requirement that amendments proposed by such a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states is a significant limit on the process and would likely prevent a true “runaway” convention from fundamentally altering the Constitution. But we don’t think it is at all clear, for instance, that two-thirds of the states calling for an amendments convention can limit the power of all the states assembled in that convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Other questions include the many practical aspects of how an amending convention would operate and whether any aspects of such a convention (including going beyond its instructions) would be subject to judicial review.

That said, advocating an Article V convention as part of a state-based strategy to press Congress to pass a constitutional amendment is not unreasonable. Precisely because of the potential chaos of the process, the very threat of an amendments convention will pressure Congress to act rather than risk having one proceed. That’s what happened in the 1980s with the unsuccessful push for a balanced budget amendment (good example) but also during the progressive era with the successful push for the direct election of senators (bad example).

Serious scholars will undoubtedly continue to debate the historical record and speculate about the possibility of an amendments convention under Article V. But the argument that, as a matter of course, we should spend considerable time, money and effort right now to design, plan and implement a convention—despite the unknowns and risks involved—is both imprudent and potentially dangerous. It is a distraction that inevitably gets bogged down in a debate over technical details, taking valuable attention and focus away from the substance of the constitutional reforms themselves. Claims of the ease and efficacy of an Article V convention are also misleading to the many committed and well-meaning reformers and activists who are serious about constitutional change in the United States.

There are several very good constitutional amendment ideas circulating, and a strong consensus is beginning to coalesce around a few. We should be careful not to undermine those good efforts by tying them intrinsically to the dubious process of an Article V convention.

There may be a time in extremis when an Article V convention is our last option to try to preserve the Constitution. That’s how Madison at the height of the Nullification Crisis and later Lincoln in the midst of secession and the Civil War looked at it. But just when there seems to be a national awakening to reestablish constitutional principles, American politics at the state and national level is moving in the right direction and a decisive election is on the horizon—that dark time is not now.

http://dailysignal.com/2011/02/10/dont-be-fooled-by-article-v-conventions/

Yes, the Birchers are still around ... kinda amazing ... :-) ...

— — —

The Ultimate Argument Against an Article V Constitutional Convention

An Article V constitutional convention would have the inherent right to be a “runaway” convention.

The John Birch Society has led the movement to prevent a constitutional convention (Con-Con) for over three decades now. Most conservative proponents of a Con-Con have claimed that they only want to bring on a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing one or a few amendments, such as a balanced budget amendment, a national debt relief amendment, term limits, etc. We have maintained that any such constitutional convention could not be limited as to which amendments would be considered and how many, and therefore could become a “runaway convention.”

Since neither side, with a few notable exceptions, on this Con-Con issue wants a runaway convention, much of the rhetoric centers on the likelihood of a runaway Article V constitutional convention. In recent years one prominent Con-Con proponent has argued that a close historical study of how states chose and instructed delegates to various conventions in the founding era, including the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and how these conventions were conducted, proves that there is no danger of a runaway constitutional convention in our day.

This argument is not very persuasive. How can we be sure that the customs and procedures of 200 years ago regarding constitutional conventions will be adhered to today when large portions of the Constitution itself are no longer obeyed?

However, there is a more fundamental argument against convening a constitutional convention. Take a careful look at this passage in the early portion of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You can break this passage down into three parts: (1) Our rights come from God; (2) Governments, such as our present federal government as defined by the Constitution, are instituted to secure our rights; and (3) Whenever any form of government fails to secure our rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.

Since “the right of the people to alter or abolish [our government], and to institute new government” is proclaimed in a key portion of the Declaration of Independence, and since this right was reaffirmed eleven years later when the Constitution opened with “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,” you could say this right is part of our national DNA.

This right is referred to as the theory of popular sovereignty. Moreover, this theory wasn’t just specific to Jefferson’s thinking. It was a consensus notion among the Founding Fathers. Consider for example what Edmund Pendleton, President of the Virginia ratifying convention, said to the delegates on June 5, 1788:

We, the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self-interest. What then?... Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument.

Although there are some ambiguities in this passage, Pendleton appears to be assuring the delegates that if the Constitution turned out not to secure happiness for Americans, then it could be reformed by the “easy and quiet” methods of Article V. However, if the Article V process were to be subverted by “our servants,” the state and federal legislators, then We the People would assemble in convention, wholly recall and reform the delegated powers of the Constitution, and punish the offending servants.

Given the right of popular sovereignty as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and agreed to virtually unanimously by the Founding Fathers, how could any limits be placed on a convention for proposing amendments representing the sovereign people (a.k.a. a constitutional convention) convened according to Article V?

So, the ultimate argument against convening an article V constitutional convention is that based on the theory of popular sovereignty of the Founding Fathers, any such convention of the sovereign people would have the inherent right to propose any changes to the Constitution that they deemed necessary to properly secure our rights, and even the right to specify the method of ratification of these proposed changes, just as the Constitutional Convention of 1787 did.

Therefore, we can say that we oppose the calling of an Article V constitutional convention because such a convention of the sovereign people would have the inherent right to become a so-called runaway convention and propose whatever amendments to our Constitution it deemed necessary to secure our rights.

If you’d like to read in-depth about the theory of popular sovereignty in American history, Google “Philadelphia Revisited” (1988) and “Popular Sovereignty and Constitutional Amendment” (1995), two articles by one of the leading contemporary experts on the topic, Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School. If you do read these articles, be aware that Professor Amar is an enthusiastic proponent of combining the right of popular sovereignty and the democratic principle of simple majority vote to enable rapid changes in our Constitution away from our original Republic and toward a Democracy.

(This article was first published as “The Ultimate Argument Against a Con-Con” in the November 2012 JBS Bulletin; and is reposted here with permission.)

(Learn more about Article V constitutional conventions and then take action at “Choose Freedom — STOP A CON-CON.”)

http://www.jbs.org/legislation/the-ultimate-argument-against-an-article-v-constitutional-convention

Another writer ...

— — —

The Case Against Convening a New Constitutional Convention

Arguments about process are usually, at bottom, arguments about policy. That explains why many Republicans, Democrats and The New York Times change their opinion about Senate filibusters as frequently as control of the Senate changes hands: Giving more power to the minority party is a virtue only if you’re in it. It also explains why enthusiasm for changing the Constitution waxes and wanes according to the issue being debated.

The U.S. rarely lacks for suggestions about how to improve its guiding document. In the 1980s and 1990s, a balanced-budget amendment was in vogue—mostly among conservatives. Those on the right also have proposed constitutional amendments barring abortion, forbidding gay marriage, prohibiting the burning or desecration of the American flag, permitting organized prayer in school, and even enabling states to repeal federal laws and regulations.

Liberals also have sought to amend the Constitution through, e.g., the Equal Rights Amendment. Bill Clinton endorsed an amendment to protect the rights of crime victims. More recently, some on the left who hate the Citizens United decision have proposed an amendment that would nullify it; others have suggested amendments to scale back or repeal the Second Amendment.

Often, efforts to amend the constitution arise from anger at Supreme Court rulings. Many Americans who favor such amendments might not realize there is a less drastic approach. Article III says the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” If it wanted to, Congress could steer the High Court with a much heavier hand.

Amending the Constitution is difficult and rarely done. Yet to some, occasional amendments do not suffice. They would like to pass several amendments at once. The process they propose—a convention of the states—is spelled out in Article V. Legislation has been introduced in four states (Alaska, Georgia, South Carolina, and Missouri) and this year Del. Scott Lingamfelter introduced a resolution in Virginia, which he withdrew Thursday after it failed to gain enough traction.

After two-thirds of the states petition it, Congress calls a convention of the states, which can propose whatever changes it likes. Those must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, either through their legislatures or through subsequent state-level conventions.

The groundswell for all of this has conservative roots. Michael Farris, a longtime social conservative and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Fund, leads Convention of States (conventionofstates.com), which identifies four (actually, three) “major abuses perpetrated by the federal government”: the spending and debt crisis, over-regulation, congressional attacks on state sovereignty and the somewhat repetitious fourth item, a federal takeover of decision-making in America.

Backers of the movement would like to see, among other things, a balanced-budget amendment, a tax ceiling, term limits for lawmakers and Supreme Court justices, and limits on executive orders and federal regulations. These are not exactly issues that resonate with the Elizabeth Warrens of the world.

The idea of calling a convention has a certain Jeffersonian appeal. As the sage of Monticello wrote in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, “Some men look at Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, & deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. . . . I am certainly not an advocate for frequent & untried changes in laws and constitutions . . . but I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind . . . we might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

But the idea also has alarmed those on the right who are conservative in temperament as well as ideology. They worry about the possibility of a runaway convention, in which a convention meant to make a few minor adjustments to the nation’s charter decides instead to scrap it entirely and start over. That is precisely what happened in 1787, when delegates who assembled in Philadelphia took their mandate to fine-tune the Articles of Confederation and ran off with it.

To this concern, supporters of the convention idea have a ready answer: It can’t happen. As former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli argued in a recent Facebook post embracing the movement: “Critically, 38 states have to ratify any proposals coming out of the convention before they become part of the Constitution—this is our ultimate ‘backstop.’ Put another way, at a time when Republicans control more state legislative chambers than ever before in my lifetime, only 13 legislative bodies (e.g., only the House of Delegates, even without the Senate) may block ANY proposed amendment.”

From one angle, this seems persuasive. In fact, it might be so persuasive that it renders the entire project moot. If only 13 legislative bodies, or parts of legislative bodies, can stop any proposed amendment from taking effect, the most likely outcome would be no amendment taking effect.

On the other hand, it is not hard to imagine how a runaway convention might succeed. If conservatives gained enough political power to bring about a convention of the states, then presumably they would have enough political power to dominate the subsequent state-level conventions that would have to ratify the proposed amendments. In that case, they could rewrite the Constitution to their hearts’ content.

At least for a while. Constitutional amendments viewed as conservative when passed could end up serving liberal goals. For instance, conservatives seem to assume a balanced-budget amendment would require Washington to cut spending. In fact, given the choice between sharply higher taxes or sharply reduced government benefits, the public might opt for the former. It also might opt for vastly higher taxes to support a war of national survival, or perhaps even a war of convenience, if persuaded to by a sufficiently charismatic leader.

There are other reasons for skepticism. For instance, constitutions should be (to borrow from legal theorist H.L.A. Hart) sets of secondary rules—i.e., rules that determine who will write the rules that govern people’s conduct.

A rule that forbids wearing hats in church is a primary rule. A rule that says all church rules shall be approved by a two-thirds vote of the church elders is a secondary rule. This is one reason (among many) a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning or gay marriage is a bad idea. We shouldn’t clutter the Constitution with primary rules. But the biggest reason to be skeptical about a convention of the states is this: It fails to address the very problem that inspired it.

Advocates of a constitutional convention are upset that the federal government has grown too large. It has done so, they correctly believe, because politicians have ignored the plain meaning of the current Constitution. Yet if that is the case, then rewriting the Constitution with more or plainer language solves nothing.

If politicians can ignore the language of one Constitution, then they can ignore the language of another. People who break rules don’t start obeying them just because you write some new ones.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/09/the-case-against-convening-a-new-constit

This should give you ample material ... :-) ...

— — —

Delegates to an Article V Convention Can’t be Controlled by State Laws!

Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) sets forth our long forgotten Founding Principles that:

- All men are created equal.
- Rights come from God.
- People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of our Constitution throw off the European model where political power originates with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last sentence).
-When a government seeks to take away our God given rights, we have the right to alter, abolish, or throw off that Form of government.

These are the Principles which justified our Revolution against a King.

These are also the Principles which permit us today to throw off our Form of government by discarding our existing Constitution and replacing it with another one. This is why the language at Article V of our Constitution, which authorizes Congress to call a convention “for proposing amendments”, does not restrict Delegates to merely “proposing amendments”: Delegates are invested with that inherent pre-existing sovereign right, recognized in our Declaration, to abolish our existing Form of government (our Constitution) and propose a new Constitution.

This has happened once before in our Country. I’ll show you.

The Federal Convention of 1787: Federal and State Instructions to Delegates

Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74) to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia

“for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

The Continental Congress authorized each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the convention. Twelve of the States 1 made laws respecting the appointment of Delegates and issuing instructions to Delegates. Ten States instructed their Delegates to propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation; and only two (North Carolina and New Hampshire) gave instructions which arguably permitted their Delegates to do more than propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation. 2

But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution. Because of this inherent authority of Delegates, it is impossible to stop it from happening at another convention.

The Delegates also instituted an easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of all of the then 13 States before an amendment could be ratified; Article VII of the new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for ratification of the new Constitution.

Why is an Article V Convention Dangerous?

So! Do you see?

If we have a convention today, there is nothing to stop Delegates from proposing a new Constitution with its own new method of ratification.

New Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention. Here are three:

Fifty years ago, the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by a referendum called by the President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a convention, and Delegates propose the Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to the States for ratification – it goes directly to the President to call a Referendum. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Read the Newstates Constitution and tremble for your country.

The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.

The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.

Warnings from the Wise

Brilliant men have warned against an Article V convention. It is immoral
to dismiss their warnings:

Alexander Hamilton writes of “the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded…” Federalist No. 85 (9th para)

James Madison writes in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country. In Federalist No. 49, he shows that the convention method is NOT GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention so they could control the outcome.

Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his Sep. 14, 1986 article in The Miami Herald, that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution. He warns that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda [of the convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”

Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger warns in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly that “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention”; “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda”; and “A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”

Can State Laws Control Delegates?

Convention supporters say we don’t have to worry about any of the above because States can make laws controlling their Delegates.

Really? James Madison, Father of our Constitution and a consistent opponent of the convention method of proposing amendments, didn’t know that. Two US Supreme Court Justices didn’t know that. They said there is no effective way to control the Delegates.

But in case you are uncertain as to who is telling you the Truth – and who isn’t - I will show you how easily State laws which pretend to control Delegates can be circumvented.

Let’s use House Bill 148, recently filed in the New Hampshire Legislature, to illustrate this:

Section 20-C:2 I. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“No delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention shall have the authority to allow consideration, consider, or approve an unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.” [italics mine]

Section 20-C:1 V. of the bill defines “unauthorized amendment” as:

“any amendment outside the scope permitted by the Article V petition passed by the general court of New Hampshire”.

What is wrong with this?

It doesn’t prohibit New Hampshire Delegates from proposing or approving a new Constitution.

Article V of the US Constitution provides that Amendments will be proposed at the convention. Any state laws contrary to Article V must fall under the supremacy clause at Article VI, US Constitution.

New Hampshire Delegates can’t restrict Delegates from other States.
It ignores the inherent sovereign authority of Delegates to throw off both their State governments and the federal government by proposing a new constitution with whatever new mode of ratification they want. Remember! Under the proposed Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

And if the States already know what amendments they want, they should tell their State congressional delegations to propose them in Congress. This is the method James Madison always advised.

Section 20-C:2 II. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any vote taken by a delegate from New Hampshire at the Article V convention in violation of paragraph I of this section shall be null and void. Any delegate making this vote shall be immediately disqualified from serving as a delegate to the Article V convention.”

What is wrong with this?

What if the Delegates vote to keep their proceedings secret? At the federal convention on May 29, 1787, our Framers made rules restricting publications of their proceedings.

What if the Delegates vote by secret ballot? As long as some vote “for” and others vote “against” every proposition, there is no way to tell who did what.
Section 20-C:2 III. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Every delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention called for by the Article V petition shall be required to take the following oath:”

“I do solemnly swear or affirm that to the best of my abilities, I will, as a delegate to the Article V convention, uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of New Hampshire. I will accept and will act according to the limits of the authority as a delegate granted to me by New Hampshire law, and I will not vote to consider or approve any unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. I understand and accept any penalties that may be imposed on me by New Hampshire law for violating this oath.” [boldface mine]

Does one need to comment on the efficacy of Oaths of Office in our degenerate times? Article II, §1, last clause, of our Constitution requires the President to take an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and Article VI, last clause, requires everyone in the federal and State governments to take an oath to obey the Constitution.

Who today honors his Oath of Office?

Section 20-C:2 IV. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any delegate who violates the oath contained in paragraph III of this section shall be subject to the maximum criminal penalty under RSA 641:2.”

Any criminal defense attorney worth her salt can figure out how to get around this one:

As shown above, if the proceedings of the convention are kept secret, or Delegates vote by secret ballot, one would never know if any one Delegate violated his oath. Defense counsel would get any attempted criminal prosecution of any particular Delegate dismissed at a pretrial hearing.
Congress can pass a law granting immunity from prosecution to the Delegates.

The Delegates can insert a clause in the new constitution granting themselves immunity from prosecution.

If the new constitution abolishes the States, as does the Newstates Constitution, there is no State left to prosecute Delegates.

The local prosecutor is the one who decides whether he will prosecute any criminal offense under his jurisdiction. Politics are a deciding factor in deciding whether to prosecute. Remember Eric Holder refused to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place?
Do you see? James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Justice Warren Burger were right: It is impossible to restrict the Delegates.

Everything to Lose, Nothing to Gain

If there is a convention today, George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you. Who will the Delegates be? You don’t know. Do you trust them?

Our Framers never said that when the federal [and State] government violate the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution they violate. They never said the remedy is to file a lawsuit and let federal judges decide.

They expected us to act as they did – with “manly firmness” 3 - and resist unconstitutional acts of the federal and state governments. Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – it needs to be read and enforced by our votes; and failing that, by manly opposition - resistance - nullification.

Endnotes:

1 Rhode Island boycotted the Convention. See RI’s Statement of Reasons in document at 2 below.

2 For the texts of the States’ instructions to their Delegates and a helpful commentary, go to Principled Policy Blog HERE.

3 The 7th paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” [boldface mine] PH

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/01/delegates-article-v-convention-cant-controlled-state-laws/

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.