Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where Chief Justice Burger Likely Got His Anti-Amendment Convention Views
americanthinker.com ^ | 3/20/15 | Rob Natelson

Posted on 03/20/2015 5:06:53 AM PDT by cotton1706

Opponents of the Constitution’s Article V convention method of proposing amendments tout three letters written in the 1980s by former Chief Justice Warren Burger. In those letters, Burger took a very hard line against any convention of states that might bypass Congress and propose corrective constitutional amendments.

I’ve previously explained one reason Burger may have been so adamant:Although appointed to the court by President Nixon as a “strict constructionist,” Burger proved to be a fairly activist judge. He famously voted for Roe v. Wade, the abortion decision that upended laws in all 50 states.

Thus, when Burger wrote his anti-Article V letters, he was protecting Roe v. Wade and his Court. At the time, there was a great deal of talk about using Article V to overrule Roe and other ventures into judicial activism.

But it seems that Burger was friendly with a man named William F. Swindler.

Swindler was a law professor at the College of William and Mary, which is located in Williamsburg, Virginia. Burger appointed Swindler to two official Supreme Court committees. Upon Swindler’s retirement, Burger wrote a glowing testimonial. Upon Swindler’s death, Burger eulogized him as “an analyst of history and a historian of the first rank.”

Swindler was a strong liberal, and he fiercely opposed the convention process of Article V -- particularly when conservative amendments were proposed. During the 20th century, many academics wrote attacking Article V, but Swindler’s assault was the most over-the-top I’ve seen.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: Political Junkie Too
There is a legal term for what that individual was suggesting. It's called "the Doctrine of Laches". (The last word is French and is pronounced "laash".) It means that if a legal procedure hasn't been used in a very long time, it no longer exists under law.

The problem is that the Doctrine of Laches does not apply to the Constitution. In theory, unless the words of the Constitution are changed via the amendatory process, every word stands.

Unfortunately, every time a federal judge rules on a case, he holds a miniature constitutional convention in his chambers when he writes his opinion. Large swaths of the Constitution have been nullified by judges in their legal opinions as part of the theology of the Living Constitution. The primary purpose of the Convention of the States movement is to put an end to that with structural changes that rebalance the role of the Judiciary.

21 posted on 03/20/2015 11:10:49 AM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Article 5 conventions are not Constitutional Conventions they are a conventions of the States to propose ammendments to the existing Constitution that must then be ratified by the states just as any other ammendment.

They cannot rewrite the Constitution only propose ammendments for ratification. Just like Congress has previoiusly done.


22 posted on 03/20/2015 11:10:50 AM PDT by reed13k (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

You can add Post #21 to the standard information as to the ins and outs of a convention.


23 posted on 03/20/2015 11:37:15 AM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Publius
if a legal procedure hasn't been used in a very long time, it no longer exists under law.

How far back is "a very long time?"

How does that square with the Obama administration resorting to early 20th century law to justify its actions, such as using 1930's era regulations to take over the internet?

-PJ

24 posted on 03/20/2015 12:13:59 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

From the perspective of English Common Law, the time would involve centuries. The fact that we haven’t had an Amendments Convention since the adoption of the Constitution would put such a convention under that concept — except for the fact that the Doctrine of Laches doesn’t apply to the Constitution for reasons stated in my prior post.


25 posted on 03/20/2015 12:18:06 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

It appears you do not support self-government.

Study a subject before you slam it.


26 posted on 03/20/2015 1:04:21 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I do not support giving the Dhimmicrats a free ride, no.

Wanna propose an amendment? Propose an amendment.


27 posted on 03/20/2015 1:23:17 PM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Thank you for your post. But my primary concern is still valid.

Yes, the convention will propose amendments only.

Nonetheless, the next step is where Congress decides what to do next. Regardless which of the ratification methods decided, the left will have the opportunity to take over and the RINO’s will just play dead. The left has very smart, creative people that will find a way yet to be conceived to get what they want.

And let’s assume it is possible to get some very clear amendments into place. Then the left will simply ignore them like they are ignoring existing law.

The key is to get people to obey the law, whether it be a law from the 1700’s or some new law of today.

Federal elected officials and employees have sworn to defend the Constitution as a part of their oath of office. Today this is a joke. I’d love to get our RINO’s to uphold their oath of office as much as I would key members of the current regime. None of this will happen in my lifetime.


28 posted on 03/21/2015 7:37:57 AM PDT by redfreedom (All it takes for evil to win is for good people to do nothing - that's how the left took over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson