Posted on 07/24/2013 1:36:41 PM PDT by Jacquerie
A government designed to secure our unalienable rights has become something of a black-hole that devours our liberties. In the sum total of our three national branches, fewer than 1,500* men and women push around over 300 million citizens without restraint or fear for their personal safety. What is to be done? If we weigh the potential benefit, meaning the restoration of our republic, against the remote disadvantages of an amendment convention, there is little reason to avoid one.
There’s been some hubbub at FR recently over both the necessity and danger of the states calling an Article V Convention. Mark Levin lit the fuse on July 10th when he showed a little more leg, when he revealed the title of his new book, The Liberty Amendments, Restoring the American Republic. We know eleven chapters will be devoted to eleven amendments that include repeal of the 17th amendment, the grant of state recall authority over senators, and term limits for congress and federal judges.
He made it clear that from Article V, this convention of state delegates could only recommend amendments and not draft a new constitution. Instead of congressionally derived amendments, Article V acknowledges the right of a sovereign people and states to go around our near hopelessly corrupt and consolidated government. As done a couple dozen times before, the people/state derived amendments would be subject to ratification, as are congressionally sourced amendments, by at least three-fourths of the states.
All well and good, right? Well, not everyone agrees.
Is there a danger an Article V convention could produce a positive right, USSR type of constitution that would make Saul Alinsky proud? It is not at all likely.
The reason resides in our history. As in 1787, today’s states would send delegates, not representatives. There is a big difference. As opposed to our congressmen and senators, amendment convention delegates will be agents of the states. Delegates from states that actually wished to restore republican freedom would arrive not with plenary powers, but would be subject to legislative instructions that restrict their jurisdiction. Limited to specific areas, and perhaps backed up with enforceable sanctions, it would take a bold delegate to dishonor his commission. This isn’t to say some states won’t send some far left radicals with rather wide open instructions. Perhaps the CA delegates would be cleared for full a full Alinsky. Still, it is doubtful that more than a handful at most would promote this.
State delegates to Philadelphia in 1787 were charged with improving the Articles of Confederation. That they did, but at a cost of recommending the ditching of what very little remained of the confederation government. For freepers who believe the constitutional convention will be today’s model, they’re partly right. Delegates with restrictive state commissions in 1787 followed their instructions. For instance, the majority of delegates from New York left the convention because the evolving constitution violated their instructions. Similarly, due to their commissions, delegates from Delaware practically forced the compromise that provided for equality of state suffrage in the senate.
To summarize, no state delegate to an amendment convention will arrive without instructions. It is less than unlikely that any significant number will have something remotely close to carte blanche authority to create a social justice, utopian hell. The remaining adults in the room will be armed with specific amendment topics or perhaps detailed instructions from their legislatures.
* One president, 435 congressmen, 100 senators, and 875 Article III judges.
There can b e no “Article V” Convention. There is no provision for a Constitutional Convention to be limited to anything less than the whole Constitution. Given that delegates cannot be limited to sensible right thinking people anything that would come out of a Convention at this time would run to thousands of pages and would attempt to cover in fine every situation that might arise, as happened with the European Constitution.
A fascinating topic. I recall a rather detailed thread in which Publius interviewed the late great Congressman Billybob (John Armour) on the topic. Pinging the Man...
I agree with Senator Long's intent. I wish he hadn't implied there is a constitutional provision to call for an open constitutional convention.
I have two sources that attempt to take apart all the issues and fill in the gray areas. The first is a document from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a lobbying group. This document by Robert Natelson has been sent to every state legislator in the country for guidance purposes.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
I think that 90% of Natelson’s document is correct, but there are places where I think he got it wrong. The reason he got it wrong is that he didn’t read the next document. Certainly I found no indication in his endnotes that he was even aware of its existence. It’s not available online, and the only reason I have it on my hard drive is because I edited the brief in Walker v. US in 1998-2000. Here is where I posted it to FR as a reference source.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
This 1973 document attempted to fill in all the gray areas of every part of the amendatory process, Amendments Convention included, and I think they did a thorough job. If you combine the two documents and resolve the conflicts in favor of the ABA Report, I think you get a clear picture of how an Amendments Convention would operate.
I don’t fear it. It’s the means by which the states take control of the proposal phase of the amendatory process by proposing amendments on their own without going through Congress.
In the end, you’d need three-fourths of the states to ratify, either by the State Legislature Method or the State Ratifying Convention method, as Congress so chose. That’s the actual safety valve to prevent violence being done to the Constitution, either by carelessness or design.
Want to bet? Once you call a convention to propose amendments, it as open ended as the delegates want it to be. And you can bet that the first order of business will be the same as last time, i.e. making all proceedings behind closed doors.
This is my take on how an Article V Convention would turn out: a nightmare run by Alinsky radicals.
It’s from my third novel, “Foreign Enemies And Traitors.”
http://enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/index.php?page=excerpt&p1=Foreign_Enemies_And_Traitors&p2=FEAT Part 1&
Whoops, linky no worky. Click the excerpts link to FEAT part one.
I agree with you. Read about the “Philly Con-Con” in my novel linked above. It would be run by Alinsky radicals with tens of thousands of “disaffected urban youths” surrounding the convention center, and jamming the seats.
Thanks for replying Jacquerie. I'm going to make a note about Congress's limited power to lay taxes and then a brief word about 17A.
Regarding Congress's limited power to lay taxes, given the remote possibilty that you aren't aware of the following, please take note. Justice John Marshall had officially clariified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Section 8, Article I-limited powers.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Regarding the 17th Amendment (17A), I used to beat the drum for the repeal of 17A and would still support its repeal.
However...
Since I now know about Justice Marshall's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes, 17A doesn't matter imo. This is because federal lawmakers take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That oath includes respecting Justice Marshall's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes imo, 17A or no 17A. So Congress can go ahead and lay direct taxes as long as the federal budget doesn't include federal taxing and speniding programs beyond the scope of what Congress can justify under Section 8 and other miscellaneous things in the Constitution that Congress must spend money for.
Soft oatmeal reasoning, as one would expect from the Goldwater Institute, which is controlled by leftist/globalist infiltrators.
Are you afraid of one humongous amendment that says "Amendment XXIIX: Delete the Constitution and all 27 prior amendments, and replace it with this one?"
-PJ
>> “I’m not crazy about an Art V convention, but on the path we now are on, we’re about finished.” <<
.
Really just beginning, through the fulfillment of the remainder of the prophecies of The Revelation.
He said that he would send strong delusion, and it is here in a big way. Go Yeshua!
>> Are you afraid of one humongous amendment that says “Amendment XXIIX: Delete the Constitution and all 27 prior amendments, and replace it with this one?” <<
.
Its coming soon through UN treaties, and the GOPe won’t lift a finger to stop it.
It is shocking that so many freepers are unwilling to grasp a nonviolent means, unavailable in 1776, to institute reforms that could save our fast eroding freedoms.
Think about who would benefit from such a convention.
Conventions cannot be controlled by the people.
Re-read Article V: when the legislatures of 2/3 of the states ask for a convention, Congress calls for the Convention. So it is Congress,, not the state legislatures, which will set the rules for holding the convention, selecting the delegates, etc.
Correct and thank goodness.
Majoritarian, democratically derived tyranny is the foundation of what ails our republic. The Framers were aware of the danger and specifically crafted a Senate of the States to make sure we did not end up where we are today.
Most of those “majorities” are fraudulent anyway.
We do not have free, honest elections.
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.