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 ...
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.
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.
You can add Post #21 to the standard information as to the ins and outs of a convention.
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
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.
It appears you do not support self-government.
Study a subject before you slam it.
I do not support giving the Dhimmicrats a free ride, no.
Wanna propose an amendment? Propose an amendment.
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.
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.