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

To: LibertyBorn
The Congressional Research Service is merely parroting the view in this document:

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

The ABA Report is the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. The ABA is only a lobbying organization, and it would be foolish to take their view as incontrovertible, which is what the CRS has done.

Secondly, James Madison disagrees with your view that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a runaway convention. Read Federalist #40 for details.

71 posted on 05/02/2015 6:44:48 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]


To: Publius
Publius, contrary to your indication, Madison in Federalist #40 does not not actually contend with my assertion that the Convention of 1787 was a runaway convention, but rather Madison himself confirms the runaway convention in that authoring, and the provides the rationalization that working within the bounds of the Articles of Confederation would have allowed for nothing workable.

The fact of history, even as recognized by Madison Federalist #40, is that those Delegates at the Convention were only charged with the authority for "ALTERATIONS" and "PROVISIONS" to the Articles of Confederation, but that's not what they did. Furthermore, those delegates also disregarded the specific terms of ratification indicated by the Articles of Confederation under which they operated, to create a lesser standard for that ratification, only 3/4ths of the States, rather than unanimity.

The same excuse will undoubtedly be employed today, and in fact it is already evident in the rationalizations provided by Congress, CRS and other organizations.

Pretending that we are now safe by the same standards applied by the founders themselves, is just not an accurate reflection of the facts.

As far as an Article V Convention goes, even Alexander Hamilton touches on why we NOW DO NOT DARE have a Convention of the States again, and Hamilton does so right where logic might tell you to find it: the very last of all the Federalist Papers, Federalist #85!

Among the things Hamilton indicates in Federalist 85 is:
"The reasons assigned in an excellent little pamphlet lately published in this city, are unanswerable to show the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded."
Please pause and read those words again and let them soak in.

Right there, in one single sentence, Hamilton recognizes a profound fact of the very history that he himself was still living in, and a part of, even as he wrote those very words! The insight Hamilton shows here is amazing, almost breathtaking.

The fact is that at NO TIME following that Convention in Philadelphia, where they drafted the Constitution, will the people of this country ever convene again and have the same unified, mutual interests in common among them.

After that one moment in time, where the country has been formed and stabilized, each group and State have developed their own divergent interests, with Americans to never again so closely share in common such same interests and motivations as they did at that one time.

It is precisely because of those divergent interests and motivations now being so entirely in conflict with not only one another, but also in conflict with the very principles of this country itself, that we DARE NOT now have a Convention of the States, as there is ZERO HOPE that it will have any similarly positive and constructive outcome.

In point of fact, an Article V Convention of the States is the wrong tool for the job at hand. The only possible outcome of a Convention now will be to reduce the Constitution itself, and in so doing remove the legitimacy of our objections to an entirely illegitimate government.

Contrary to (mis)representations, those Founders NEVER indicated, "When the federal government deliberately ignores the Constitution, write more of it." This claim is utterly absurd, and nowhere actually supported by even one reference.

The only valid remedies repeatedly recognized by those Founders for when a government is in deliberate breech of its terms of legitimacy, is to either invalidate the government's actions, or to throw off that government entirely, and provide new guards for our future security. As hard as it may be to accept, the remaining remedies really have been reduced to two, and two alone:

1) State Nullification of invalid Laws, or
2) Secession and/or Revolution.

"Writing more Constitution" is nowhere a rational remedy, much less a viable one. The only possible outcome by that means is to undermine and reduce the Constitution, not restore it.
87 posted on 05/02/2015 11:09:06 PM PDT by LibertyBorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

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