Phyllis Schlafly vs. Article V

From the 1776 Maryland Declaration of Rights and the 1783 New Hampshire Bill of Rights we are reminded of the proper American attitude toward a government hostile to freedom:

The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

In a recent post to her Eagle Forum website, the highly respected and admired Phyllis Schlafly unfortunately resorted to a lot of snark and little reason in her decades’ old opposition to an Article V convention of the states to reclaim free government.

Beginning with her title, “Failed Republicans Want to Rewrite the Constitution,” Mrs. Schlafly goes on to imply that since the former candidates Huckabee, Rubio, Jindal failed in their bids for the GOP presidential nomination, whatever they support must be a losing proposition too. Not only are they losers, but since they support what Schlafly derides as “something called the Convention of States,” they are con-artists as well. According to her, these three men and the snake-oil salesmen and volunteers at the Convention of States (COS) project intend to deceive the American people. Schlafly writes, “Theirs is the same old con, or con con.” No, Mrs. Schlafly, yours is a sleazy alliteration far beneath your intellect and standing. Your comment attacks the character of patriotic men and women determined to turn back the progressive tide overwhelming our nation.

Mrs. Schlafly eventually gets into a bit of substance when she explains that she opposes the COS recommended application, to “limit the authority and jurisdiction of the federal government,” on the grounds that our Constitution is “wonderful,” and how can new language improve a government designed by the “most brilliant political thinkers in American history?” Well, Mrs. Schlafly, it doesn’t take a reincarnated visiting French nobleman by the name of de Tocqueville to see that which is obvious: after almost 230 years, the Framers’ Constitution has been horribly corrupted. Instead of serving its stated purposes as per its Preamble ( . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty . . . ), various laws, executive precedents and many scotus decisions have transformed a once wonderful governing form into an instrument of usurpation that tramples our God-given unalienable rights on a daily basis.

The most brilliant thinkers in political history were not so conceited as to believe their design was perfection on earth. The existence of Article V is self-evident proof of their humility.

Next, Mrs. Schlafly displays a common misunderstanding of the hierarchy of law. The state convention process draws its independence from two sources: Natural Law and from Article V itself. A convention to recommend amendments to the supreme law of the land is simply above the government. It represents the natural law right of all societies to frame their compact of union. Government, as the servant, cannot supersede the master. Furthermore, the Framers created a stand-alone Article in recognition of the sovereign superiority of the amendment process, rather than detail an amending procedure in Article I and subject it to congressional control.

Alexander Hamilton, a man not known for his states-rights approach to republicanism, wrote in The Federalist #85 that once two-thirds of the states apply, nothing is left to the discretion of congress. Mrs. Schlafly believes congress has discretion to determine if, at all, it will call a convention.

From the simple custodial duty of congress to call a convention, Mrs. Schlafly reads further powers into Article V that just aren’t there. Contrary to the opinion of Mrs. Schlafly, should congress or scotus attempt to control state delegate selection, their voting power, number of delegates, rules of the convention and so forth, the states must let facts be submitted to a candid world that a state convention to propose amendments is the expression of the sovereign capacity of the people and is thus beyond the grasp of congress or scotus. The role of congress is limited by Article V to the duty of calling a convention and specifying the mode of ratification. To assert additional powers of government beyond those enumerated is the habit of Leftists, not conservatives.

Notice also in her column, Mrs. Schlafly deftly changed the word, ‘application’ in Article V to ‘petition.’ Our Framers were careful wordsmiths. The word petition is associated with underlings, with peasants who humbly ask their lord for relief. On the other hand, to apply is to put the recipient on notice. In the context of Article V, the component members of the American republic inform congress of their intent to consider amending the Constitution.

Let’s resort to first principles. Unalienable rights are just that. Neither congress, nor the president, nor the scotus can take away the Natural Rights of individuals or society. For instance, as individuals, we have the natural and God-given right to defend ourselves. The Second Amendment grants nothing. The 2A merely acknowledges a preexisting right. If Article V was absent from the Constitution, would we, the sovereign people, not have the right to amend our form of government? Of course we do! The Constitution is our creation. It belongs to us, and no institution has the authority to deny society of the right to set the limits of their government.

Next, Mrs. Schlafly equates the excruciatingly detailed calls of the democratic and republican party leaderships to their national conventions with what she believes congress may insist in its call to a state amendments convention! Need I explain the total absence of substantive equivalence between the two?

Perhaps as the ultimate, uncalled for and undignified slam at the persons of Huckabee, Rubio and Jindal, Mrs. Schlafly attributes their support for an Article V “circus” as somehow promoting their political future.

Mrs. Schlafly apparently equates an Article V convention with an actual and dangerous circus, the congress of the United States. While I debunked that equivalence in an earlier blog post directed at The John Birch Society, suffice to say here that states will send delegates with detailed commissions that provide for punishment should a delegate wander outside his authorized power. In other words, the states will not send schlubs off the streets and arm them with plenipotentiary power.

Considering the precarious condition of the remains of the American republic, why does Mrs. Schlafly assume the states will recommend amendments that will ensure its destruction?

I ask Mrs. Schlafly, what is her solution to the accelerating tyranny that is America 2016? I say that to recommend doing nothing beyond voting every two years is to condone Obamunism. Maryland and New Hampshire got it right: The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is indeed absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. What say you, Mrs. Schlafly?

What you state is not an answer. It is the left wing quality of the legislatures of the states I named; i.e. California, Illinois etc. etc. You are delivering our Republic right into the hands of extreme leftists all for purposes of following some slogan.

Any proposed amendment would still need ratification, which requires 3/4 State approval either in the Senate or in a separate ratification convention. (IIRC the only time the ratification convention was used was to repeal Prohibition.)

Convoke a convention and everything is on the table and up for grabs. Whatever it is that you want -- indirect election of senators or whatever -- you aren't going to get it from any convention that could happen nowadays.

I hope you didn't write the article yourself. It's whack-a-doodle:

For instance, as individuals, we have the natural and God-given right to defend ourselves. The Second Amendment grants nothing. The 2A merely acknowledges a preexisting right.

Well, no. People all over the world have a "natural and God-given right" to defend themselves. They don't have the Second Amendment (and we may not have it that much longer ourselves). Written laws and constitutions do matter. The natural rights you think you have aren't respected by governments without written guarantees.

"Convoke a convention and everything is on the table and up for grabs."

Theoretically perhaps, but ratification is still required after the Convention is over. I see no reason to expect a Convention to be more radical than Congress already is, and Congress has never passed a proposed amendment to delete the 2nd. Even if either tried, the state legislatures, as a whole, are much more conservative and would never ratify such a thing.

What the article says, that governments can't take away natural rights isn't really true. The rights that you think you have by nature here aren't enjoyed by people in other countries because they aren't written into law and people aren't going to assert them against the government. Not recognizing that indicates something wrong with the writer's logic. Schlafly's right in recognizing that the pipe dream of a new convention would only bring chaos.

But what makes you think a convention could agree about anything? First of all, Democrat and Republican states wouldn't agree about anything important. Secondly, you wouldn't get what you want from Republican conventions or state legislatures.

We still have a Congress, a President and a Supreme Court, for instance. We still hold elections every 2 years. So far, 0bama has not overstayed his term limit.

Actually a congress and court exist but I hardly think they are ours. As far as overstaying we have the very best situation in this cycle to actually start an uprising then all bets are off.

As far as elections are concerned..

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. Joseph Stalin

I think this election will tell us if Joe was right.

Not mere words. The state’s have to ratify any proposed amendment. There is the ultimate check and balance. Your argument is specious and beyond that dangerous. If the state’s are not empowered to overrule the federal government soon AND recover their voice in DC, the Republic is likely finished and with that the world will be plunged into war. Compared to what is happening right now, the invasion of islamists, the marxist courts, the lawlessness of all branches of government especially the unelected agencies, the islamist fifth column at the highest levels of government that facilitates the invasion and prevents America from defending herself, there is no risk at all to a convention of states. Get over your fear. Fight for Article V or the nation is likely finished.

If the states reject a proposed amendment then the convention was a waste of time. Plus never never overlook the power of a media boom in favor of a bad amendment.

It is easier to elect people who respect our constitutional principles than to propose a wise amendment.

Our demographics are quite different today than they were in 1789. You could get an amendment to take the vote from white males and it could pass. California's government is virtually all Mexican from top to bottom. Other states are flooded with aliens; i.e. Somali's Pakistani's, Arabs all who hate us. We may pretend race does not count but they know better and ACT upon racial discrimination.

People hear "Constitutional Convention" and think "all our problems are solved" NONSENSE a Pandora's box would be opened. Leave it alone.

I completely disagree that it would be a waste of time even if the amendments are not ratified. And I am not a bit afraid of the propaganda media. They are held in utter contempt by the vast majority of the people.

As to electing people who respect constitutional principles, hogwash. We have been electing people who promise fealty to the constitution. The roll back of government. Reigning in the federal courts. And the repeal of noxious laws. And we we were lied to straight to our faces. Every election. It is clear our "leadership" has no moral underpinning. There will be no correcting this situation by electing politicians. Thus it will fall to other methodologies to correct this situation.

As to the aliens, all illegal aliens should be thrown out. All aliens brought in over the last sixteen by color of law should be thrown out too. The democrats brought aliens into this country to destroy the United States and raise a socialist state in its place. Copperheads all and the pubbies too. Lincoln knew well how to deal with them.

The idea that a Convention of States is a Pandora's Box is an argument I have heard over and over again. It is an illogical argument based upon fear of the unknown. What people should fear is the status quo. Doing nothing ensures our destruction. While a convention of states provides a slim chance of averting our destruction. While all must make their own choice, I will take the slim chance the Convention of States provides us over no chance at all.

"The rights that you think you have by nature here aren't enjoyed by people in other countries"

I believe you are missing the founders' point when they say, "unalienable". Just because a government tramples your rights does not remove them from you. That's why the 2nd Amendment is worded the way it is, for instance.

"But what makes you think a convention could agree about anything?"

If that is the greatest risk we face from a convention, isn't it worth that risk to try (as opposed to doing nothing)?

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.