Posted on 06/18/2016 11:08:48 AM PDT by Da Bilge Troll
From the 1776 Maryland Declaration of Rights and the 1783 New Hampshire Bill of Rights we are reminded of the proper American attitude toward a government hostile to freedom:
The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
In a recent post to her Eagle Forum website, the highly respected and admired Phyllis Schlafly unfortunately resorted to a lot of snark and little reason in her decades’ old opposition to an Article V convention of the states to reclaim free government.
Beginning with her title, “Failed Republicans Want to Rewrite the Constitution,” Mrs. Schlafly goes on to imply that since the former candidates Huckabee, Rubio, Jindal failed in their bids for the GOP presidential nomination, whatever they support must be a losing proposition too. Not only are they losers, but since they support what Schlafly derides as “something called the Convention of States,” they are con-artists as well. According to her, these three men and the snake-oil salesmen and volunteers at the Convention of States (COS) project intend to deceive the American people. Schlafly writes, “Theirs is the same old con, or con con.” No, Mrs. Schlafly, yours is a sleazy alliteration far beneath your intellect and standing. Your comment attacks the character of patriotic men and women determined to turn back the progressive tide overwhelming our nation.
Mrs. Schlafly eventually gets into a bit of substance when she explains that she opposes the COS recommended application, to “limit the authority and jurisdiction of the federal government,” on the grounds that our Constitution is “wonderful,” and how can new language improve a government designed by the “most brilliant political thinkers in American history?” Well, Mrs. Schlafly, it doesn’t take a reincarnated visiting French nobleman by the name of de Tocqueville to see that which is obvious: after almost 230 years, the Framers’ Constitution has been horribly corrupted. Instead of serving its stated purposes as per its Preamble ( . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty . . . ), various laws, executive precedents and many scotus decisions have transformed a once wonderful governing form into an instrument of usurpation that tramples our God-given unalienable rights on a daily basis.
The most brilliant thinkers in political history were not so conceited as to believe their design was perfection on earth. The existence of Article V is self-evident proof of their humility.
Next, Mrs. Schlafly displays a common misunderstanding of the hierarchy of law. The state convention process draws its independence from two sources: Natural Law and from Article V itself. A convention to recommend amendments to the supreme law of the land is simply above the government. It represents the natural law right of all societies to frame their compact of union. Government, as the servant, cannot supersede the master. Furthermore, the Framers created a stand-alone Article in recognition of the sovereign superiority of the amendment process, rather than detail an amending procedure in Article I and subject it to congressional control.
Alexander Hamilton, a man not known for his states-rights approach to republicanism, wrote in The Federalist #85 that once two-thirds of the states apply, nothing is left to the discretion of congress. Mrs. Schlafly believes congress has discretion to determine if, at all, it will call a convention.
From the simple custodial duty of congress to call a convention, Mrs. Schlafly reads further powers into Article V that just aren’t there. Contrary to the opinion of Mrs. Schlafly, should congress or scotus attempt to control state delegate selection, their voting power, number of delegates, rules of the convention and so forth, the states must let facts be submitted to a candid world that a state convention to propose amendments is the expression of the sovereign capacity of the people and is thus beyond the grasp of congress or scotus. The role of congress is limited by Article V to the duty of calling a convention and specifying the mode of ratification. To assert additional powers of government beyond those enumerated is the habit of Leftists, not conservatives.
Notice also in her column, Mrs. Schlafly deftly changed the word, ‘application’ in Article V to ‘petition.’ Our Framers were careful wordsmiths. The word petition is associated with underlings, with peasants who humbly ask their lord for relief. On the other hand, to apply is to put the recipient on notice. In the context of Article V, the component members of the American republic inform congress of their intent to consider amending the Constitution.
Let’s resort to first principles. Unalienable rights are just that. Neither congress, nor the president, nor the scotus can take away the Natural Rights of individuals or society. For instance, as individuals, we have the natural and God-given right to defend ourselves. The Second Amendment grants nothing. The 2A merely acknowledges a preexisting right. If Article V was absent from the Constitution, would we, the sovereign people, not have the right to amend our form of government? Of course we do! The Constitution is our creation. It belongs to us, and no institution has the authority to deny society of the right to set the limits of their government.
Next, Mrs. Schlafly equates the excruciatingly detailed calls of the democratic and republican party leaderships to their national conventions with what she believes congress may insist in its call to a state amendments convention! Need I explain the total absence of substantive equivalence between the two?
Perhaps as the ultimate, uncalled for and undignified slam at the persons of Huckabee, Rubio and Jindal, Mrs. Schlafly attributes their support for an Article V “circus” as somehow promoting their political future.
Mrs. Schlafly apparently equates an Article V convention with an actual and dangerous circus, the congress of the United States. While I debunked that equivalence in an earlier blog post directed at The John Birch Society, suffice to say here that states will send delegates with detailed commissions that provide for punishment should a delegate wander outside his authorized power. In other words, the states will not send schlubs off the streets and arm them with plenipotentiary power.
Considering the precarious condition of the remains of the American republic, why does Mrs. Schlafly assume the states will recommend amendments that will ensure its destruction?
I ask Mrs. Schlafly, what is her solution to the accelerating tyranny that is America 2016? I say that to recommend doing nothing beyond voting every two years is to condone Obamunism. Maryland and New Hampshire got it right: The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is indeed absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. What say you, Mrs. Schlafly?
It’s an open question whether states really have the moxie required to come up with a better formulation. Phyllis may be right on practical grounds rather than theoretical ones.
As C. S. Lewis put it, those who twisted under the old system will twist under the new one as well. Giving up a lot of stuff that they have been accustomed to getting from an Uncle Sugar will be required. Are states willing to go lean for the sake of a meaningful political reformation of what the USA is about?
I posit that the ultimate engine is going to have to be divine, not political. Almost any constitution will suffice if the people are vibrantly serving God. Any constitution will fail, if the people are shrugging their affairs off to the devil.
And they don't want to rewrite it; they want to REINSTATE it.
At first you don’t secede.....
Article V ping. A useful article about Ms. Schlafly’s opposition to a Convention of the States.
The first one went miserably, and I posit that it was because of slavery. To beg before God to be free when you aren’t even making your inhabitants free, is to court a rebuke. It doesn’t matter what the North was doing, God is not letting the South hide behind the North.
The convention of states is a lunatic proposition. We have enough problems with unconstitutional politicians without sending a bunch of delegates from Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, Oregon, Washington to finger, lick and play with our constitution. I cannot believe that people are so stupid as to think delegates can be bound by mere words.
And do we have slavery today?
We have the soft slavery of low expectations (GWB called it bigotry). Our charity has decayed into idle entitlements, that do not urge betterment where they are applied.
We’ll have to become ungreat in a JFK sense of the all helping government (not its mission before God) before we can become great in a Trumpian sense.
Reforming this may or may not entail a Section V action on an earthly plane. God acts in mysterious ways, so goes the saying. But we need the spiritual basis.
Let them lick and play, they need a 38 state buy-in for it to stick.
The main problem is probably practical. It would be another self priding Kabuki theater, just as our modern Congress and state houses are today. It would overlook the real fundamentals of the human condition.
I would not disagree with you, However,you list only one aspect of the problem-albeit a big part. Another dimension is the almost total corruption of the electorate.
Indeed. The Constitutional Convention itself was a coup that went far beyond the scope authorized by the Congress.
One state, one vote.
"finger, lick and play with our constitution"
You are under the misconception that the Convention could change the Constitution. It would have no such power, any more than Congress has - it may only propose.
You are one of the few who recognized what happened at the Convention; i.e. the Old Articles of Confederation were thrown over.
See Post 11.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams
Actually I think the Convention is a pipedream, unless, of course Trump manages to survive to be elected and has enough of a majority vote to overtop what will be the most intense vote fraud since the USSR and then himself pushes for a Convention. It is otherwise a pipedream because the next president will be a dictator perfected where the current dictator is still not entirely in control. I don't qualify thatby saying the next Democrat because the nature of the office has transformed by Congress ceding all its power to the President directly or through the Agencies. Congress cannot take that power back nor can it be given back. A president that tries to be COnstitutional will be overwhelmed by the Agencies which will become a collective dictatorship and politics thenceforward will be backstabbing battles for control of the Bureaucracy - the Agencies.
More Laws won't do that. If they won't obey the current law why would you expect they would obey the new ones? Unless of course the new laws only applied to you, like ObamaCare.
Yes: Social Security.
Yes: ObamaCare.
Yes: the lack of liberty to even build your own house without intrusive regulation, and a million other "you have to have permission" things.
In fact, you might be able to argue that it's more institutionalized now because it's the institutions of government that are doing it.
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.