Posted on 07/03/2022 11:44:06 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
The latest Supreme Court rulings make it clear: Our current constitution is ill-equipped to provide the necessary legal structures and framework of ideas necessary for democracy to flourish as an institution in the 21st century. This may be the real point of the latest rulings of our highest court. Rather than hold the position that the court ruled inappropriately, consider the argument that the court ruled correctly based upon the document they had at hand, namely, the United States Constitution.
During the 1970s and ’80s, conservative groups dreamed of holding a constitutional convention. Why? To write into our governing document ideas and governing beliefs that those on the right believed were missing. I suggest that rather than whine or complain about the court’s current rulings based on its constructivist view of law, why not instead use the energy of our modern times to construct a document that is reflective of a new constructivist view of the world that includes all of humanity, not just selected groups?
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
“The communists want their own Article V Convention”
Don’t conflate a Constitutional Convention with an Article V Convention. They are completely different things!
(I’m assuming your mistake was inadvertent.)
A Constitutional Convention is an attempted rewrite of the Constitution. That is not allowed, nor even mentioned, in our Constitution. It would be throwing out our entire system of government and starting over. That ain’t going to happen, but everyone should feel free to rail against it anyway. Can’t hurt. Just please, don’t call rewriting the constitution “an Article V Convention.”
An Article V Convention IS allowed, and mentioned in the constitution, under Article V, of course. Completely different thing. It simply describes a process for amending the Constitution, nothing else:
“Article V, U.S. Constitution
* * * * * * * * * *
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.”
That’s it. That’s the whole thing. No “rewrite of the Constitution” is discussed, nor somehow permitted.
(If anyone disagrees, please explain exactly how the above paragraph somehow allows a rewrite—and which 38 State Legislators would pass it. Just screaming “They will rewrite the entire thing!!!” with hair on fire, without showing how it could be actually achieved using Article V, is a non-sequiter far beyond disinformation; it’s an evil, manipulative lie, and a psyop.)
Article V permits two methods to propose amendments, via Congress or The States, then describes how to ratify—which is the same for either method of proposal. When we talk “Article V,” we usually are referring to the second method of proposal.
Since Congress will never limit their own terms, the States can propose an amendment for Term Limits, for example. Very few people seem to know this. So we need the States themselves to band together and propose that amendment anyway. Just ahove it down Congress’s throat. Screw those self serving, corrupt, geriatric, power mad gang of little kings and queens!
That is entirely permitted. And it scares Control Freaks all over the world!!!
Regardless of which method of proposal (Congress or The States), any amendment must still be ratified by 38 of the 50. If 13 States say “no,” nothing changes. So there’s no way you can rewrite the Constitution using Article V (thank God!).
Imo, Term Limits is the single key to reforming the United States. All other excellent ideas (repeal Amendment 17, repeal income tax and go to a simple national sales tax, etc.) have nowhere near the public opinion approval compared Term Limits—which has a consistent 80% approval across all divisions (!).
Having a Convention Of States to propose that single amendment would change the world. And it would be the fight of our lives.
You and so many others are stuck on the rules.
We abide by the rules. The left does not.
I dont know how to make it any clearer for you.
“I dont know how to make it any clearer for you.”
And I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Not happening.
What about our REPUBLIC, Dougie? Sounds like you want it negated.
Absolutely horrible idea - might as well burn the Constitution, because that is what would happen.
“Constructivist” seems to be the Decepticon mimic of “Constructionist,” a sound-alike term that — like “equity” versus “equality” — has been cleverly tailored to attempt to fool the unwary into thinking those who use it are talking about something noble, righteous, and desirable when, in fact, they are talking about nothing of the sort, and their intent is, actually, diametrically opposed.
Constructionism goes hand-in-hand with Constitutional Originalism in faithfulness to the framed language of our founding documents. Manifestly, this present cabal of ferals intends no faithfulness whatsoever to The Constitution, therefore we may safely conclude that this “Constructivism” represents thinly-veiled hostility toward same.
At least this guy knows the correct process.
I would like to see the beginning of gatherings designed to hash out how to split up the states into two nations which reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of their citizens.
The socialists get to pursue their force fed utopian dream without our resistance and we no longer have to deal with their filthy corruption, their violent intimidation, their worship of despotism, and their pathological hate of anyone and anything that does not conform to their world view.
Oh?
I've missed this clarity of which you speak.
“..Maybe they could have their own states...”
Why give em perfectly good USA land?
These AINOs are ALL perfectly good candidates for living in China under the current government there. That’s what they want for here.....instead, just send em there since it’s all established and functioning. /s
When I envision the Handicapper General, Janet Reno always pops in my mind. She just had that look.
One of the problems (or positives, depending how you look at it) with a constitutional convention is that just 13 states can block anything from happening. It takes 3/4ths of the states to ratify any amendment.
I can’t really think of anything that the repub or dem states agree on to the degree.
So, nothing would happen. It would all be a big media, crisis event ending in nada.
I am against any convention where the rules would be set by those representatives to the convention. I’ve heard the argument for decades this could not be done, a setting of rules by representatives. Wrong. This is a leftist’s wet dream to have a convention. Fall for the ruse and lose more of the Constitution
Distilling arguments made during several talks given by individuals who represent or otherwise support “The NewAmerican” point of view (to which I strongly agree), the following is submitted for the reader’s edification:
TEN REASONS TO OPPOSE AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION
1.) Article V will not address the root cause of the problem.
For over a century the federal and state governments have willfully defied our Constitution. It is absurd to believe this usurpation would cease by amending the very document they have habitually violated. The problem is not with our Constitution – but in our ignorance of its content, and indifference to its enforcement.
The Constitution and the federal government it established are creatures of the States and of the people. It is therefore the duty of the people to enforce their Constitution, and to constrain government to the enumerated powers defined in that covenant.
No process of amendment has the power to secure the people when they have forsaken wisdom and virtue. We abdicated our duty in favor of the welfare state. Abandonment of responsibility cannot be rectified through the amendment process or the drafting of a new constitution.
President James Garfield made clear the issue: “Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.”
2.) There is no precedent. It is unrealistic to suppose the structure, rules and limitations of a 21st century version would mirror those practices that governed the convention of 1787.
From the beginning there was ambiguity on the form an Article V convention would take. Expressing his concerns, in his ‘Notes from the 1787 Constitutional Convention’ (15 September 1787) James Madison wrote: “… difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, &c.” This uncertainty was never remedied. Madison was terrified of the possible results. In his letter (2 November 1788) to G.I. Turberville, he stated: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, … an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; ... would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, [who] might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.”
3.) States have no authority to select delegates. The process is solely the role of Congress, via two methods: Congress proposes amendments – this has governed the existing 27; or “The Congress … on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”
The ‘Necessary and Proper Clause’ (Article 1, Sec. 8) provides Congress the power to make laws to carry out ‘the call,’ as to the date and location of the convention, and the manner in which delegates shall be appointed. On 7 March 2014, the Congressional Research Service released a report to instruct Congress on Article V. The CRS confirmed Congress has exclusive authority over both methods. It may apportion delegates based on one vote per state, or on the Electoral College. Under the electoral form, California would receive 55 delegates, Nebraska five (In 1983, we came within two states of calling a convention. In its preparations, Congress voted to appropriate delegates by the electoral method). Congress could appoint delegates, or appoint themselves as delegates. Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to allow the States to select their own. Furthermore: “… The Congress, as well, clearly possesses the authority to set forth the necessary and attendant details of the convention.” – U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1984, re: S. 119
Perhaps most ironic is the realization that the very individuals we accuse of ignoring constraints on federal power and jurisdiction are likely the same individuals who will choose our delegates. Moreover, Congress has power to provide delegates immunity from arrest and prosecution.
4.) Incongruity of the proposition. The Constitution sets limits on the scope of federal power; so, on what basis do proponents of an Article V convention contend to “fix” that which already exists?
Since Woodrow Wilson, unconstitutional federal agencies have created a regulatory code whose reach extends government power far beyond the authority delegated by Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution.
What Article V advocates propose does not constrain this usurpation, but legitimizes abuses that already exist. Mark Levin proposes an Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy; however, the existing federal agencies – each a violation of Article 1, Sec. 1 – are not eliminated. He also proposes an Amendment to Limit Federal Spending, by creating a “balanced budget.” This would effectively replace the enumerated powers: rather than limit spending to what is authorized by the Constitution, Congress could raise taxes to meet expenditures – and, if a “national emergency” is declared, the language permits Congress to ignore the limit. Since1979 here have been, and presently remain, 30 such declarations.
Amendments to the Constitution were never about correcting federal usurpations. In Federalist No. 85, Hamilton asserts that amendments were meant to remedy defects; that amendments of errors, and useful alterations, would be suggested by experience; that the novelty and difficulty of what they were doing would require periodic revision; that useful amendments “will be applicable to the organization of the government, not the mass of its powers.” The remedy to federal usurpations is not a new constitution or new amendments; but rather it is our resistance to and nullification of unconstitutional laws.
5.) States have no control over the proceedings, nor may they dictate the wording of amendments.
When the Continental Congress called for a convention to be held in Philadelphia (21 February 1787) – “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation” – they lost control once the convention began. It was held in secrecy, the limitations set by Congress and 11 of the 13 states were ignored, and a new constitution written. The inherent authority of the delegates makes it impossible to prevent such occurrence.
In 1993 the U.S. House Judiciary Committee ruled: “If the State legislatures were permitted to propose the exact wording of an amendment and stipulate that the language not be altered, the convention would be deprived of this function and would become instead part of the ratification process.”
6.) Proponents cannot know how the convention would function.
The CRS stipulates “In the final analysis, the question ‘what sort of convention’ is not likely to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and the convention assembled.” This is reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi’s infamous Obamacare quote: “But we have to pass the bill, so that you can, uh, find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” We cannot know how the convention will operate, until we call for the convention – and, by that time, it’s out of our hands.
7.) The protections presumed through the ratification process are not without substantial risk.
Ratification of amendments to the Constitution are listed under Article V, and are under the power of Congress to choose: Ratification by three fourths of the legislatures of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof. The convention method would bypass state legislatures, and was used by Congress to pass the 21st Amendment (Repeal of the 18th Amendment – Prohibition).
Under Article VII there exists a third possibility: “The ratification of the conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution.” Via the precedent set by the 1787 convention, this method could be used to ratify a new constitution – and the delegates could also write a new ratification process.
8.) States are not victims of federal usurpation; but collaborators.
The States compromised their power when they ratified the 17th Amendment. Under the promise of eliminating corruption, the States acquiesced to having their federal senators elected by popular ballot, rather than upon the assent of their own legislatures. This act eviscerated the 10th Amendment. Today, most States have more than 1/3rd of their annual budget padded with federal dollars, with all the attached strings – and plenty of corruption.
9.) Delegates are sovereign representatives of the people; and, by the authority stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, they are vested with the inherent right of the people to alter or abolish their form of government.
Through an Article V convention, opportunists will spare no effort to “alter or abolish” our present form of government – one most unique in human history. We shall then no longer possess that bulwark which, up until our poor stewardship, had reliably thwarted the machinations of unscrupulous men. When enforced, our Constitution is capable to arrest such designs – yet, we now risk its existence, by possibly entrusting its care to those whom have long disparaged its precepts and desired its dissolution.
10.) We must distinguish between defects in a constitution, and a government’s refusal to obey the constitution.
That our Constitution is routinely violated by a lawless federal government does not make it any less the highest law of the land. Insofar as the Supreme Court has distorted its essential clauses (Interstate Commerce, General Welfare, Necessary and Proper) the Federalist Papers are sufficient to clearly and concisely define the Founders’ original intent.
In Federalist No. 16, Alexander Hamilton stated that “… [T]he people … [are] the natural guardians of the constitution.” I am thus compelled to repeat – The problem is not with our Constitution, but rather in our ignorance of its content and indifference to its enforcement.
This nutjob wants to invite the world to our Article V convention. Biden has already invited them to storm the border. May as well have them redraw the constitution. Hondurans have a contribution to make
The way the socialists did this in other countries is to ask every resident to participate online in drawing up the new constitution and what rights they want.
It all seems so fair and transparent until you realize that the people compiling the submissions are the ones really writing the new constitution.
And while some of the arguments for a ConCon are interesting, the negatives far outweigh the potential postives, especially in this day and age. The solution to this problem is to simply adhere to the existing Constitution as written.
Yeah, right, I know. But that's actually the ultimate argument against a ConCon -- today's politicians don't honor the Constitution now, what makes anyone honestly believe they will honor anything new that originates from a ConCon? They won't, unless it bolsters their power and/or weakens the nation. Ergo, a waste of time at best.
At best, it would simply result in gridlock, where states would deny the amend-ists the 3/4 majority needed, or engage in trade offs for pet interests. Compromise would be our demise.
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.