Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V

Convention of States ^ | Michael Farris, JD, LLM

[Jacquerie]

The John Birch Society describes itself as a constitutionalist organization, yet it is highly critical of a very important component of the Constitution. The JBS does not like Article V’s provision that allows the States to unilaterally propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution.

George Mason demanded that this provision be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.

Current conservative solutions to the problems of federal abuse of power fall into one of two general strategies: (1) try to elect more conservatives to federal office; or (2) promote theories like “nullification” that are not grounded in the text of the Constitution and have no realistic chance of success.

Our plan is to use the Constitution’s own formula—a Convention of States under Article V—to give us real solutions that are as big as the problems.

Here are our answers to the sixteen JBS questions:

[bfh333]

A worth endeavor...

But it can NOT be the only strategy to at least slow the tide... Popular Culture & Media are our enemies and reach MANY MORE than ONE individual can do...

We’re going to have to Cloward/Piven DC...

[bfh333]

You should document & elaborate on what you discovered... Telling us about it won’t be enough...

[fwdude]

Yes, when you HAVE to sell a product, the negatives get shoved aside.

[matthew fuller]

Mark for later.

[NormsRevenge]

The JBS does not like Article V’s provision that allows the States to unilaterally propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution.

—

It’s disapproval wouldn’t be necessary for fear of how far the Left would pursue, no, push an agenda.. at any cost.

[GILTN1stborn]

Thank you Jacquerie. Be strong, the negatives in this thread can be depressing.

[Prospero]

The Supreme Court has devolved into a permanent Constitutional Convention all by it's lonesome. Thus we have the important check that might have spared us this unworkable Socialist experiment stand unsteadily on a rationalized decision made by one man, the Chief Justice.

[Jacquerie]

Yes, Marx is beating Madison. He's winning because too many believe we can beat him at home, on his home field turf, Washington, DC.

However, via Article V we can force Marx to fight on our field of battle, among the states. We have a chance. It is our last chance.

[Verginius Rufus]

Yes, it is clear from Madison's notes that Mason was there until the final day of the convention:

(Under date of Monday, Sept. 17:) "The Constitution being signed by all the members except Mr. Randolph, Mr. Mason, and Mr. Gerry who declined giving it the sanction of their names, the Convention dissolved itself by an Adjournment sine die--"

Mason had spoken on the previous day they met (Sat., Sept. 15).

[nonsporting]

A COS would NOT be limited to proposing amendments. They could rewrite the constitution, artificial constraints aside. The Articles of Confereration were similarly transformed into the Constitution.

[Publius]

You have just recapitulated the most pernicious myth of early American history. Here is Madison explaining the whole thing.

Federalist #40

[c-b 1]

The first thing I noticed was the statement that "Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court constantly violate the Constitution," so we have to add Ammendments to make them follow it. I have noticed that the "Bill of Rights is never mentioned by the COS People, Why do they avoid speaking about the First 10 Ammendments that expressly forbids the Government from intervening in, which are violated with impunity, quite regurlarly. How can adding more ammendments correct that?

I started my research about 6 weeks ago, my first stop was the Convention of States Website, I went to find the plan, and study it, I did not find any thing about a plan. What I found was a list of well known people who had endorsed their plan, and several articles, which I opened looking for the plan, In each of the three articles contained cynicism, name calling, and bashing of those who opposed the COS Plan,or said what was being proposed was a Constitutional Convention.

I then found a couple of articles with explinations of how this was not a Conswtitutional Convention, it was an Article V Convention of States. I then went to Article V, and studied it.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Please note that the only place conventions of states is mentioned is in the Ratification process. I attended the first two COS webinars, there were lots of verbal gymnastice explaining how Article V says what it doesn't say. One of the questions from a caller was, "What is the difference between a Constitutional Convention, and a Convention of States?" The answer was, "a Constitutional Convention is for when the Constituton is to be scrapped, a Convention of States is to ammend the Constitution." Later the same question was asked by another caller, another member of the panel gave the same answer, both referencing Article V. Another question asked was "what protection do we have that bad ammendments will be added." the answer was "the ratification process will stop that from happening." I Immediately remembered that the 16th, Income Tax, the 17th Direct Election of Senators, the 18th Prohibition which was later repealed were all ratified by 3/4 of the State Legislatures.

The second webinar was obviously scripted, only questions favorable to the program were asked.

Need I add more?

[Smokin' Joe]

The Constitution does not need to be ammended it just needs to be enforced.

I'd go so far as to say the 16th and 17th Amendments should be repealed, but the Constitution itself should be followed.

In practice, the branches of the Federal Government not only reach far beyond their roots, but perform tasks and exert powers which were either limited to other branches or reserved to the States and the people--in particular, the Legislative duties which have been assumed by both the Executive and Judicial branches.

If those who currently pull the strings in the halls of power ignore the present Constitution, will they not be involved (directly or indirectly) to pervert any Convention and twist it toward their aims? Those who usurp power will not relinquish it easily.

When they already refuse to follow the current Constitution, there is no guarantee they will follow any other, even if that (by some miracle) is a document in any way improved.

Great deliberation, discussion, and some of the best minds in the history of Western Civilization took time to craft a framework based on a fundamental knowledge of human nature and history, in an attempt to limit and disperse that limited power to avoid the despotism we now see. If we can't get past the GOP-e and the Dems, what makes us think we conservatives will control the process which has the potential to fundamentally change our Republic?

Better to out the imposters, and do all possible to defeat them within the current framework than to open a process which can be as handily subverted and which opens the entire government (as it is supposed to be) to destruction.

[TBP]

Electing more conservatives helps, but it only goes so far.

[Jacquerie]

For some reason, a common characteristic among anti-Article V folks is the belief that our Constitution is illegitimate.

No state will send some knucklehead off the street and give him plenary power. As in 1787, state delegates to an amendment convention will be limited by commissions. These written, legal restrictions, with potential penalties define each delegate's envelope of action.

[Jacquerie]

I try to imagine the fatigue, stamina of these men, sitting through endless debates since May 25th, the Philly heat, discomfort, etc.

IIRC, it was Thomas Jefferson who described the convention as a meeting of demigods.

[Jacquerie]

Yes, I think Levin is correct in that regard. Voting conservative is necessary, but insufficient.

[kalee]

Placemarker

[afsnco]

Agreed.

I fear that our current state is supernatural in origin. I fear we may well be in the “falling away” the Holy Spirit spoke of in 2 Thess. 2:3-4. Our fall from Godly to godless nation, so far, so fast, is nothing less than miraculous. The majority of our depraved fellow citizens have certainly elected a narcissistic sociopath. Twice. He reflects their character, or rather, their lack of it. He’s obviously demon-possessed, making no effort to refute those who call him their “messiah” and “the one.” The only question is, is the demon Satan himself. Time will tell.

[Verginius Rufus]

I think whenever Luther Martin got up to speak everyone groaned (he was known for his longwindedness).

Jefferson, of course, was off in Paris at the time.