Posted on 07/01/2015 3:56:31 PM PDT by betty boop
Why did it take 226 years — to see that Brutus' "prophecy" came into full effect last week, in such a way that rational people who love their country could (finally) notice and credit Brutus' just concerns?
Great question, Jacquerie. I don't know how to answer it.
But I do suspect that part of the problem can be explained by (1) a general ignorance of the concept of popular sovereignty, so clearly presented in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. (2) The general propensity of most Americans to "trust" their government. (3) The distractions of quotidian life, whereby people are more concerned about things that affect them most directly in daily existence, than by "abstractions" that are irrelevant to such immediate concerns.
Today, your average American is very probably unaware of the central fact of the U.S. Constitution: That the people — We the People, as the Preamable puts it — constitute the sovereign power in this country. There is no higher authority in our constitutional system than the People. And our constitutional system is predicated on "the consent of the governed."
The People of the Preamble are "sovereign," in the sense that there is no higher authority, other than God Himself, to whose rule they are subject, at whose "throne" they must kneel.
The Constitution is a compact, or contract, between the People and the government which they establish, for the "benefit of ourselves and our posterity," who have delegated certain limited, enumerated powers to that government, in the relation of a principal giving instructions to his agent.
In such a relation, it is the positive duty of the principal to bring his agent to heel, if that agent is exceeding his mandate, or is performing his duties poorly.
Thank God for Article V!!! The Framers expressly intended it as a means for the People to bring their government to heel, to correct, check, reverse any transgression it may commit against the Will of the People, who above all intended to create a system of government that mandates its agent to be exclusively concerned with the preservation and maintenance of the Liberties of its principal, to protect the People from usurpations of its sovereign power by unfaithful agents.
In short, the Framers really did expect, require, the active participation of the People to ensure that the constitutional charter would not be subverted against their liberty interests, and their desire for equal justice under law.
Few people today, or perhaps ever in our history, have the historical memory of a Brutus. He evidently knew that the glorious Republic of Athens imploded, due to systemic corruption; and thus became a slave of Macedon. He knew that the Roman Republic destroyed itself due to unrestrained imperial ambition, extending Roman territory to such an extent that it became practically ungovernable. (Not to mention the famous corruptions of specific emperors.)
He was also apparently a keen student of human nature and human psychology. Thus I gather, he was not unfamiliar with Plato and Aristotle....
I suspect most Americans don't much care about such concerns. As already mentioned, they just expect their government to do the right thing, and never bother to check whether this is actually the case.
Seems to me like it's time, even past time, for We the People to step up to the plate and restore the constitutional order of our beloved country. It's time for an Article V Convention of the States.
Failing the restoration of constitutional order, the only thing we can expect is that a call to arms, is the only other solution.
Some people actually look forward to this sort of denouement. I am not one of them. But if we are left with this as a last resort, then God's Will be done.
I pray that He will continue to bless the people of the United States of America.
Thanks, Jacquerie, ever so much for writing.
Oh my, even better news!!!
I was wondering about that point, which wonderment boils down to: What is the practical difference between ratification by a legislature, or by a "creature" of a legislature, that is answerable to its creator?
Delegates "chosen by the people in special elections" would obviate this difficulty.
Thank you so very much, Publius!
Obviously, Congress has no interest in facilitating any proposal that would undercut what it views as its own institutional interests. We can expect that there will be immense resistance from that quarter, that a Convention of the States proposing amendments to the Constitution can be expected to face an uphill battle.
FWIW, I think Bill Walker was right, that there should be no time limit, for the purposes of "aggregation," for State Applications.
Thanks again, Publius!
<>Thanks, Jacquerie, ever so much for writing.<>
And the same back to you.
The very limited role in the convention process allotted to congress by the framers of the constitution arose from their experience. An extra-congressional process would provide a safeguard against an abusive or recalcitrant national legislature. Debate records from the federal and state ratifying conventions make it plain that Article V is designed in part for the states to circumvent congress.
It is outright absurd to say the framers intended to entrust congress with authority over the very institution created specifically to bypass it! As Alexander Hamilton succinctly stated, “the words of this article are peremptory. The congress shall call a convention. There is no discretion.
The structure of the federal government created by the constitution also supports the view that congress’ role in the amendment process is severely limited. The convention process is created by Article V; it is not a component of any of the three branches of government created by the first three articles. The convention derives its power from a separate and independent grant of authority in the constitution itself. It cannot be made subservient to any branch of the government. Further, the sole purpose of the convention is to propose changes in the pre-existing system of government. This renders the convention distinct from, if not superior to, the three branches of government.
Whatever the application counting role of congress, congress has neither the power to limit the subject matter of a convention for proposing amendments, nor the right to limit the convention to a narrow issue. The federal convention specifically deleted reference to a single amendment on a single issue. This deliberate change is reflected in Article V and must be given substance. Congress/courts have no authority to alter or limit that power.
Nor does the plain language of Article V empower congress/courts to limit the form of state applications by topic or time limit. The whole reason for the convention method was to give the states the ability to circumvent a recalcitrant or unresponsive congress. Any construction of Article V that gives congress the ability to limit or defeat the application process is plainly incorrect. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the history of Article V is that congress has no authority to involve itself in any way in the operation of a convention for proposing amendments once it has been called.
Matters such as where the convention will meet, who shall chair it, how voting by delegates will be conducted, and what matters the convention will consider are all beyond the authority of congress.
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 85, once congress has called a convention it has no further role until the convention has finished its work and proposed one or more amendments.
I suggest printing off both the ALEC Document by Natelson that was in my link and also the ABA Report that was my second link. Both documents should be three-hole punched and placed in a binder. There will come a time when people and politicians will be quoting chapter and verse from both documents.
The two documents have very different, competing and mutually exclusive views of how an Amendments Convention would be run and how delegates would be chosen. In reading the two documents, you could build a matrix of the differences between them.
Natelson did not take the ABA Report into his research, and I say this because there is no mention of it in his endnotes. It's understandable because the ABA Report is not available on the Net. Bill Walker got it in hard copy from the ABA, laboriously keyed it into his brief, and I had it only because of the editing work I did for Walker. Natelson probably doesn't know it exists. It exists on FR only because I saved it from my effort with Bill.
The key to the differences lies in who is the controlling authority for an Amendments Convention. ALEC says it's the states, as does Mark Levin and the entire COS movement. The ABA says it's Congress.
When Congress calls an Amendments Convention, 535 copies of the ABA Report will come out of dusty filing cabinets in a warehouse that looks like the one where the government stored the Ark of the Covenant in "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Various congressmen and senators will introduce bills giving Congress control over who will be the delegates to the convention and how the convention will operate. The states will fight back. This will be the battle, not whether Congress will actually call a convention or not.
Love that guy!
Prof Natelson is a very gracious man, and I'm sure he would kindly receive a copy of the work you mention. Over the years, I've asked him an email question or two, and he has always graciously answered. I'm really amazed, actually. He seems a very kind man. I wouldn't want to wear it out, but just wanted to report that he is accessible.
you may be disappointed in the book a bit because he basically says that a political solution is next to impossible. That civil disobedience is the most viable option. I see that as becoming a third world country but in many ways we already are.
Thanks, Jacquerie, for this informative analysis!
Happy Independence Day!
+1.
This conflict is to be expected. I have to read the ABA Report — on a quick scan, I see it is extraordinarily well-detailed. Thanks again for the link to it.
And thank you so very much for writing, Publius!
Happy Independence Day!
Do you have an e-mail address for Natelson?
Check your freepmail
It also invalidated the 1973 ABA report that I have cited in the past, so I will no longer be citing that in these threads.
State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters
Your comment is a good representation of the contrary opinion expressed today, but I think you are relying on the Congress and SCOTUS to do what they are tasked to do and have failed to do for as long as I can remember or know, with only one or two exceptions for the last 90 or so years..
The CC is now necessary because Congress and Scotus as well as the Federal Appeals system require further direction (regulation) by the Constitution in order to correct decades of intentional misinterpretation and bad law used as precedent to judge todays bad law..
All this is in fact the purview of Congress but they have failed to act on it, and will continue to fail to act.
As far as I am concerned, we have only this one option remaining, and if we don't use it, then society will continue to break down, replacing our republican form of government with a top down command and control socialist system that will continue to degrade the Constitutional protections.
After that, it will be chaos, and it will happen like a snowball rolling down a mountain.
Is that intentional sarcasm or just a typo.
Thank you for the ping.
That is a 350 page pdf file with a lot of legalese.
I’m afraid that I will need for someone to digest it
and provide a reader’s digest version.
That Convention can only be useful if state legislatures get to it and call it THIS YEAR. Next year will be too late. The Central government will have the means and the inclination to stop it forcefully or to simply ignore it. This supreme court session has essentially struck down the Constitution. Everything is working hard to some sort of climax soon, probably next summer. Anything we do to stop the Total State has to be done this year. The next election will be for who we prefer for Dictator because Congress and the Court have transferred almost all power to the Executive. Once the transfer is complete it cannot be recovered peacefully.
We do in fact have lawyers at this site who might be able to summarize it. I find the best way to absorb it is to take it slowly over a period of time. Don’t rush it.
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.