Algernon Sidney’s Advice for Article V Opponents

ArticleVBlog ^ | October 21st 2019 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

Our Founders’ textbook to revolution was Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government. Alongside John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, these famous works were refutations of another influential 17th century book, Patriarcha by Sir Robert Filmer. In Patriarcha, Filmer invoked the Bible to defend the English monarchs’ divine right to rule. Among his arguments, he painted dire consequences to the established order if the people ever attempted to limit kingly prerogatives.

In the background to these works was the 1649 execution of King Charles I. Monarchists could point to the subsequent short-lived English commonwealth, a volatile republic with a written constitution and ask, “Do you really want a repetition? See what happens when you violate God’s laws?”

Sidney countered that no one in God’s creation was born with a crown on his head nor a saddle on his back. All men were created equal, “and if the princes received this truth some of them might be restrained from doing evil.” Since all men were created equal, the law applied equally to the people, Kings and their magistrates.

Like Article V Opponents today, those who prefer the status quo instead of an Article V COS to restore the blessings of liberty, Filmer acknowledged the occasional awful king made life difficult for the people, but it was nonetheless better to bear the burden than risk societal upheaval once again.

As Sidney put it, “Those who desire to advance the power of the Magistrate above the Law, would persuade us that the difficulties and dangers of inquiring into his actions, or opposing his will when employed in violence and injustice, are so great that the remedy is always worse than the disease, and that it is better to suffer all the evils that may proceed from his infirmities and vices . . .

[nathanbedford]

We have two otherwise reasonable conservatives who would rather curse the darkness than light a candle.

The one refuses to recognize that amendments in fact do function as intended. I have shown you examples. If you think about it for a moment you would understand that these are process amendments. Hence, an amendment for term limits would certainly be observed if properly drafted. An amendment, equally well drafted, that compels a balanced budget would also likely be observed, and if observed sometimes in the breach would nevertheless constitute great relative progress.

The other otherwise reasonable conservative contents himself with rewriting the English language to make politics into "slavery." He would be well to remember that the framers understood human nature, conceived of man as flawed and expected men to contrive, to corrupt, even to redefine language to achieve their selfish ends. That is why they provided for checks and balances, between equal branches of government limited to enumerated powers. The same framers foresaw that human nature would contrive to evade the Constitution, hence they provided us an amendment process.

To content oneself with naysaying and self righteously demanding that human nature change, is to condemn us to a slouch into tyranny.

We can deny history, we can play language games, or we can avail ourselves of a constitutional remedies to the trespasses we all decry. Do you gentlemen not understand that the more you argue that the Constitution is being evaded, the more you need to stop passively accepting that state of affairs, to stop denying the realities of history, to contenting yourself with complaining, exaggerating and relabeling the problem when you might actually fix it.

[Hugh the Scot]

I believe that you are solving problems that already have a solution.

“Hence, an amendment for term limits would certainly be observed if properly drafted. “
The method is already in place, should the people choose to exercise it.

I also see the argument for a balanced budget amendment for what it really is... A forced and neverending tax increase. The budget could not be unbalanced with adherence to the limited scope of government laid out in the Constitution.

Taking the argument that government operating outside constitutional restraint is a valid reason to change the Constitution is disengenuous.

To say that I support “Doing nothing” just because I don’t support doing what you want to do is simply a bald lie.

I support adherence to the limits on government activity enshrined in the Constitution. Limited powers, and clear guidance on what’s not to be done.

[AndyJackson]

the President had little real power, because he was not given a massive army of armed bureaucrats to impose his will.

Like in the Whiskey Rebellion?

[AndyJackson]

Well, I don’t make any pretense of being a “reasonable” conservative. Nevertheless I fall in line with your view that our present constitution is entirely workable if we were just to follow it. The one change I would like to make is to repeal the popular election of senators, but I won’t wager a plugged nickle on that ever happening.

[TheNext]

Article 5 COS is STUPID.

>>o Black Law Dictionary says a contact CANNOT be modified with Amendments.

>>o The U.S. Constitution is a contract.

>>o Amendments can only correct or make additions to a contract or Constitution.

>>o For changes, the contract must be rewritten and reratified.

>>o Amendment 17 is unlawful.

>>o Merely NULLIFY Amend 17 with a simple signature.

>>o Same as legalized pot, States did not need a COS.

Learn it.

[nathanbedford]

You support more of the same.

[Amendment10]

"Changing the Constitution cannot fix a government that regularly disregards the Constitution."

I agree to an extent, for the reason you stated.

On the other hand, the Constitution has already been foolishly changed, the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments for example. Patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in 2020 elections that will promise to propose a repeal amendment for those amendments to the states for ratification.

[TheNext]

You do not need to repeal Amendments that can simply be nullified.

[SauronOfMordor]

>>Like in the Whiskey Rebellion?<<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

“Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation”

Washington would have had no army to enforce federal will, without the agreement and support of local governors, and without the militia showing up. This is my point.

[Hugh the Scot]

If we’re going to change the Constitution to save the Republic we’ll need to begin with repeal of the 19th.

[Hugh the Scot]

You began your interaction with me in this discussion with an attempt at “shitting up”.

It’s only fitting that you close out the same way.

[Political Junkie Too]

It is the Judiciary that has slowly but inexorably assumed more and more power, in direct violation of the Constitution's balance of power. We are now, it seems, a Judicial Oligarchy...

We don't need a Constitutional amendment to fix that problem.

Congress already has the power to realign the lower courts, abolish some, limit the jurisdiction of others, etc.

They won't do it, but they have the power.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

The U.S. Constitution is a contract.

A contract between whom?

The people and the states? It can't be with the federal government, because the federal government didn't exist prior to its creation via the Constitution, therefore it couldn't be a party to it.

The Constitution is an organizing document, not a contract between existing parties. It delegates powers held by the states and the people to the newly formed federal government. Something delegated can be retaken.

-PJ

[nathanbedford]

I gather you are accusing me of some sort of improper conduct. Let me tell you that we have been rehearsing the same vapid arguments against Article V for many years. The arguments are always the same. Here is a reply I wrote on September 22, 2014:

So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections:

1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.

3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.

4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.

Which category are you in?

To answer my own question, you are obviously in category number two and in category number four.

Good luck changing human nature. You've had your way now for many years, at some point in time one ought to ponder the definition of insanity, or we can keep on keeping on.

[Jacquerie]

Who are the parties to the contract?

[Jacquerie]

Thanks PG. I wish more would actually comment on the post rather than run off down their favorite blind alley.