Posted on 02/04/2024 7:05:20 AM PST by Jacquerie
During a recent hearing for an Article V measure under consideration by the New Hampshire House, an opponent testified, “Are we of the same character as the people in the late 1700s who fought a revolution against the British? I don’t think we are…We should be thanking our lucky stars that we have [a Constitution] that’s as good as it is, and we should not try to change it at all.”
Are we really so morally inferior to our forebears that we can’t be trusted to amend our Constitution? This position has, as its cornerstone, the assertion that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention disobeyed their instructions to simply amend the Articles of Confederation and instead wrote an entirely new Constitution; and since that’s what they did (supposedly), we should expect delegates to a convention for proposing amendments to run amok, too. This is demonstrably false, but let’s imagine for a moment that these naysayers are correct…that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 really did “run away.” Wouldn’t that make the delegates scoundrels and traitors instead of moral paragons?
Recall, too, that several of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention (Daniel Carroll, John Dickinson, Elbridge Gerry, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, and Roger Sherman) were also involved in the creation of the Articles of Confederation. If the personal morality of the authors is a basis for evaluating the finished product, how is it that these god-like individuals came up with a Constitution that should be regarded as sacrosanct when their work product from just a decade earlier had been rendered completely inadequate?
How could morally superior beings like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson allow the blatantly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts (which made it a federal crime for newspapers to criticize the government) to become law? How is it that Alexander Hamilton was driven from public life by information about a sex scandal wielded by Jefferson, then shot to death in a duel with political rival Aaron Burr? Historian Joanne Freeman, who documented the pervasive verbal abuse and physical violence that characterized the politics of the early United States, notes: “The antebellum Congress had its admirable moments, but it wasn’t an assembly of demigods. It was a human institution with very human failings.”
When the whole story is told, it is difficult to make the case that the founding generation was morally superior to our own. And they didn’t think of themselves in such terms, either. In Federalist 51, James Madison wrote one of the Federalist Papers’ most oft-quoted passages: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” This is precisely why our checks-and-balances system harnesses self-interest in service of the common good. If the founding generation were the angels among us that these naysayers claim, it never would have occurred to them to construct our government as they did.
The idea that we should not use the constitutional tools the Framers gave us stands in direct conflict with what they themselves thought and did. They not only anticipated that the Constitution would need amending and provided for it: they began amending it immediately. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution itself when the first ten amendments were ratified. Two more were proposed and ratified within fifteen years, the latter putting the Vice President with the President on a single ticket instead of making the runner-up the VP. Can you imagine a President Biden paired with a Vice President Trump breaking ties in the Senate? No, because that generation recognized that what looked good on paper turned out to be problematic in real life, and they immediately got to work to fix it.
We all know Washington is broken. We do not honor our founding generation with a perverse, paralyzing exercise in ancestor worship. We honor our heritage and our neighbors by coming together and using the tools the Framers created for us to solve problems that only time would reveal.
Notice how Article V naysayers react like Pavlov’s dogs to titles and never address the substance of the articles?
Sad.
The problem with this carp is that the Administrative State is not following the existing Constitution. Why would changing it make any difference?
“Just a piece of paper written by a bunch of dead white slaveholders”
The Second is really probably the only thing that doesn’t worry me.
Unlike most others, Second Amendment people are actually active during non-election years. They get it and they can be trusted. They have earned being trusted. So elected republicans, even from the establishment do as they are told and they actively protect 2A.
It’s the non-2010 attitude that people have that makes this untenable. When the country was lit up by Tea Party Protests, Article V was a safe choice, now, not so much.
There is too much apathy among conservative voters right now. We cannot fix the GOP until we fix the voters who are too busy watching the woke NFL to mount a greater campaign against the old guard. So the circle continues.
The comparison goes like this. If there was an announcement that they were actually going to abolish 2A, I think it would be real easy to get nationwide protests going and it would be 2009 all over again. It would be beautiful, it would be what we desperately need. But if the government said they were going to nationalize healthcare like they tried to do in 2009, I just don’t think people could be bothered with it.
The people would sit back and let it happen.
The point is, we need to be realist.
No realist would back an Article V situation when we have LOST the people, and I mean our own people. We have LOST our own people.
You are 100% right, frogjerk. I don't even have to wait in order to say there has not been a single one greater than George Washington. Far as I see it, the nation has been in a downward spiral since the day Washington retired from public life. The downward direction was slow at first, but it picked up speed with the Civil War and it is about to crash completely in our time.
I really don't know how we compare morally to the founders, but I like to think that the constitution of the United States was a document who's creation was inspired by God.. God often uses folks who's background is far less then perfect, and we sure got a whole bunch of dudes nowadays that match THAT description to a "Tee"..
So, let's hope for the best, that is to say, with a little help from God we can give it our best shot to repair our Constitution and put DC back where it belongs..
I am with you. We NEED to begin the process of fixing what is not working. The only way to do that is to involve We the People outside of of official DC, and the parties.
You have a supporter in me, keep up the work.
We are doing “VERY WELL”?
How can we get the Dog Democrats in the States on a leash? Show them that THEY can get their money from the citizens of the State, cutting out the Federal Government. If my current State of WA is addicted to the Federal milk from the process of Income taxes, and Senators controlled from outsiders not within the State, can’t see the advantage of changing elections of Senators, and Income tax, then they are stupid. They are NOT stupid. They are self serving, not idiots.
It is either this, or have an actual CW II. THAT is the Republican sides hammer, along with getting ride of direct election of Senators, and Income tax. EASY sells.
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.