“Individual amendments do not require a full Constitutional Convention. I would never think of opening that Pandora’s Box and argued against that just last April in The Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124105694445071685.html
“
The article negates the vital fact that if they proposed an entirely new Constitution as the last convention did in 1787.
Then regardless of the ratification requirements for it to come into effect, no State is a member of the new said “union” until its own individual ratification of the new Constitution.
That is the difference between the 3/4ths requirement required for an amendment to the existing constitution and union under the same and replacing the constitution and thus union all together.
Technically speaking the power to replace the Constitution and thus the union comes not from the Federal Constitution but from the natural law upon which the Constitution itself was formed in the first place.
This is why Article 5 of the United States Constitution only specify the using of a convention for the propose of amending the existing Constitution and union without the participation of the existing Federal government.
The only problem we have is the presidency established by the tyrant Lincoln and the “civil war” calming the Artical’s of confederation to still exist and as the authority which makes the union indivisible.
By that logic of course the union could never have existed in the first place by virtue of the lack of dividing authority within the British empire to form either the independent States or the original Confederation under the articles written in 1777 in the first place.
But thats a debunking of the legal argument for the Civil War, and we cant have that as 300+ thousand Yankees died to “save the union”.
Therefore adopting the irrational and self-defeating logic behind the existents of an “indivisible union”, then its either:
1: Impossible to do anything but amend the Federal constitution with a convention.
Except this assertion has already been demonstrated false in practice by the first convention in 1787(forming the existing Constitution), as well as by a “modern” Federal court ruling on the matter.
or
2: The Articles of confederation and the 13 State did not legally exist until the United Kingdom said so. If that be the case the Deceleration of Independents, the war, and all the other aspects of the American revolution were illegal and illegitimate acts, and we became independents when England said we were.
IE: Our Birth day of July 4, 1776 is a fraud, as is the whole doctrine of republicanism and the idea that legitimate power comes form the consent of the people rather then the Government.
In short everything we as Americans Stand for and believe is a compete and total fiction in the legal understanding of our Federal Government, as of the Civil War.
I may not understand the thrust of what you’re expressing here, but I think you’re discussing a proposal of a Constitutional overhaul or total rewrite. I certainly make no such suggestion, as it would be the sum of all terrors.
What I mentioned in my article is that if the grave error of a Constitutional Convention ever is convened, there are zero safeguards to guarantee we end up with anything even similar to the government under our existing Constitution.
In 1787 there actually was no call for an entirely new Constitution; it was merelyt supposed to be a tweaking of the Articles of Confederation, but the result was a whole new form of government under a completely new Constitution. A very fearsome warning of what could happen if we were to pop the hood on the Constitution in these hyper-partisan Marxist times.