Replies

[The States] used Congress on their general purpose convention of states for the purpose of Article I legislating within the framework of the Constitution.

Question: When has a "general purpose" convention of the states ever been called in American history? I see no precedent for such a thing.

Even the first convention, the Philadelphia Convention of 1789, the mother of all constitutional conventions, was not a "general purpose" convention: The States convened for the purpose of remediating obvious defects in the Articles of Confederation.

I have no knowledge whatsoever that a "general purpose" constitutional convention has ever been convened in American history. Maybe I've missed something. If so, kindly cure me of my ignorance.

You wrote:

You are sounding like the states are there to serve the federal government, and have to unite in some way to convince the feds to let them meet to discuss how to change their own method of governing.

This is not my understanding, nor my position, at all. My fervent hope is that an Article V COS will be called for the main purpose of proposing amendments that restore and strengthen the Tenth Amendment powers of the States as recognized by the federal constitution, which the federal constitution as originally purposed was charged to uphold and defend.

I do not at all regard the several states as mere administrative units of an overweening leviathan. The people, acting through their states, have a sovereign right to call their national government to account for transgressions against their natural and constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, which mainly occur whenever the national government works outside the scope of its very limited constitutional powers. And succeeds in doing so, mainly by invading and effectively nullifying the clear language of the Tenth Amendment.

The States are the bulwark of the people against federal tyranny.

I may be from Massachusetts; but I'm "state's rights," right down to the ground.

In no way am I imploring Congress for "permission" to defend my natural and constitutional rights. Rather, I DEMAND that Congress perform its completely non-optional duty to call a COS, upon evidence that a 34-state quorum on subject matter has been established sufficient to FORCE such a call.

Just some thoughts, FWTW.

Thank you so very much for sharing your thoughts, PJ!

> “I may be from Massachusetts; but I’m “state’s rights,” right down to the ground.”

Just a suggestion ...

I am writing to my state’s grassroots and COS persons that we should avoid the phrase “state’s rights” because it is a trigger for unneeded and unwarranted adversity.

The phrase “state’s rights” is a trigger for the history of segregation as espoused vociferously by democrat Governor George Wallace of Alabama during the 1960s.

In its place I am thinking to propose using “State’s Role”, “State Sovereignty”, “State’s Realm”. “State’s Sphere”, “State’s Prerogative”, “State’s Area”, “State’s Domain”.

I am not advocating political correctness but rather political expediency. No need to get bogged down by the usage of trigger words that set a discussion off on a tangent of segregation or other unrelated issues and history.

Although the 1960s are by now quite a time ago, the trigger words still persist in the media.

Question: When has a "general purpose" convention of the states ever been called in American history? I see no precedent for such a thing.

I was speaking metaphorically.

The Senate is a perpetual convention of states, authorized by Article I, for the purpose of legislating. Prior to the 17th Amendment, the states even selected their own delegates.

Article V authorizes a convention of states for the purpose of amending the Constitution. I was noting the similarity that these were both bodies at the direction of the states, not of the federal government.

I DEMAND that Congress perform its completely non-optional duty to call a COS, upon evidence that a 34-state quorum on subject matter has been established sufficient to FORCE such a call.

Then that is our point of disagreement. Asking for subject matter agreement in application, to me, is an unnecessary "high bar" that is intended by opponents to stop the Article V process. It becomes a Congressionally-imposed burden on states, which makes states subordinate to Congress. Buying into the argument that same subject applications are required just buys into the idea that Congress is supreme in this matter.

-PJ