Skip to comments.Michael Farris Debates Andy Schlafly in N.J.(ARTICLE V)
Posted on 07/08/2014 4:44:49 PM PDT by dontreadthis
During May, Michael Farris of Convention of States (CoS) and Andy Schlafly of the Eagle Forum held a debate in a New Jersey church. Farris argued in favor of using Article V while Schlafly argued against using Article V. 1 hour 24 minute.
What does Andy Schlafly offer as a viable alternative short of cessation?
Article V ping.
I wonder what crime Obama will have to commit to move enough state legislators off bottom dead center and call for a convention to propose amendments.
“... What does Andy Schlafly offer as a viable alternative ...”
Listening to it now,
so far Andy does not offer any alternative,
just saying it is a bad idea...
that Congress is the body that will set the rules....
that Harry Reid will determine when, where, and how delegates would be chosen...
that we just need to abide by what we have...
Michael Farris stood and disputed all of Andy’s points.
Andy went back to his point that the Constitution says “Congress shall call” the convention.
I get so tired of opponents (including some “conservatives”) who offer no alternatives but just drone on and on about what they’re against. They actually are unwittingly aiding and abetting the Left who say the Right are a bunch of nay-sayers with no alternatives.
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Mike has been a great debater and chess player since his days at Park Junior High in the mid-60’s.
Incredible. First of all, we know that won't happen. Second of all, that is NOT what Article V says. "Two thirds of the several states shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" is in black-and white in Article V for the very reason that the framers knew Congress might not cooperate in passing wanted amendments. Schlafly needs to do his homework.
whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
on the Application of the Legislatures
of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments...
Right, so Congress doesn’t call a Convention, the states do. The Congressional option is to propose amendments. But even if Congress won’t, the states may via a Convention. That’s the Constitutional provision.
If you ignore the words between the commas, Article V does reasonably reduce to "The Congress, ... , ... , ... , shall call ... ," imo.
However, Article V's "Congress shall call " doesn't give Congress a choice any more than the 1st Amendment's, "Congress shall make no law ...," does imo.
His stated his alternative is using the existing system to correct itself. And used examples concerning the right to life votes in texas i believe and else where. he was advocating the social issues as the battleground which is interesting because that is where Ferris (sp) does most of his fighting. A great debate by two great men. I think the Article V assumes that the states, which are just as corrupt as washington, will do the right thing. They won’t and can’t be trusted. they are all washington wannabees.
Ido worry that they might write some dangerous things, but those things will never get properly ratified.
The question I have asked over the the last two years before Mark Levin wrote the Liberty Amendments and actually before he was onboard with Article V (he used to think similar to Schlafly) is that if an Article V is so risky for conservatives to engage, then why are liberals not going all out to get an Article V COS launched? The answer is obvious, they haven’t a hope of getting any of their own amendments proposed let alone ratified.
The above question was asked at least a couple of times in this debate and with mixed answers.
The beauty of Art. V is that it counts by states and not by delegate totals. Therefore, Wyoming is equivalent in power to California, Kansas is equivalent to New York, etc.
Schlafly is clearly relying on fear and hyperbole to make his points but throughout the course of the debate he actually does make some good points that Art V supporters should consider. For example, he recounts how chaos and disorder carried an issue of taking God out of the democrat platform in 2012 when in fact the dems in the quorum wanted it, the speaker became confused and passed it anyway. He makes the point that if any mistake is made in a disorderly convention, that the media will make it difficult to put the horses back in the barn so to speak. The lesson to be learned is that order must be tightly controlled and rules strictly adhered to in the COS.
So this debate is good because we can learn new things from it.
But then he says at 49:47 that liberals want a COS because then they can take it over. Excuse me, why don’t they just organize a COS themselves? Why is it left to conservatives to go first? It doesn’t make sense.
Then Schlafly answers the question of why is Art V in the Constitution and he tries lamely to attribute it to George Mason who he said opposed the Constitution. This is an answer that would garner an ‘F’ in any political science class. Farris rightly points out that Art V was unanimously adopted with George Washington presiding over and voting for Art. V. Would Schlafly denigrate George Washington? His tactic is one similar to Alinsky in that he tries to denigrate Art. V by focusing on George Mason alone. This is clearly wrong. So Schlafly clearly fails here.
But there is one major contradiction of Schlafly that was not pointed out by Farris at about time 53:35 into the video:
Schlafly goes on and on about how the liberals will take over the COS. “Who’s going to stop them” he asks repeatedly (49:58). But then at about 53:35 the question is asked when should Art. V be used? So Schlafly concocts an example of when martial law is imposed and elections are cancelled. To which I would challenge Schlafly “Really now? Who’s going to stop those that impose martial law and cancel elections? Who’s going to stop them?” I would use the same argument he just minutes before used; Schlafly contradicts himself within minutes. He can’t have it both ways.
From experience, the Framers realized virtue alone in a democratic republic was inadequate to secure the blessings of liberty across a continent. It is why in the constitution of 1787 they divided power among the people, and the states in a federal republic. There is no substitute for this division of power.
No other constitution better harnessed the use of power. It was this division of authority which eliminated that perennial curse of government, arbitrary power.
Open tyranny is at our doorstep. Obama exercises arbitrary power. Every executive branch agency stands ready to serve the democrat party. The tyrant will hopefully be gone in 2017, but his horrible precedents, the tyranny will remain. Given all this and certainly much more, we are supposed to fear a meeting of state delegates in accordance with the Constitution?
There is nothing to lose and everything to gain from an Article V convention to propose amendments.
Article V is the last hope for a dying republic.
That BS came from the Bircher website, which listed dozens of leftist organizations supposedly in support of Article V. I put on a hazmat suit and visited ten or so of the most prominent sites, and not one supported Article V.
The Left doesn't need a convention. Their acolytes in government have rewritten the constitution these past hundred years without the hassle of a convention.
Good on you for pointing out Schlafly’s deception regarding George Mason. There is no substitute for real knowledge of our constitutional history. The Left certainly doesn't know, and conservatives can handily trip them up when they display their ignorance.
Later on Schlafly’s entire argument falls apart. It is obvious that he believes Art. V is anachronistic and should be ignored if not removed from the Constitution.
I don’t doubt Schlafly is sincere about fighting the Left on issues but he is oblivious to the fact that he is fighting on their turf and is losing.
It is painfully obvious now especially with the collusion of democrat and GOPe forces in Mississippi that the people are not faithfully represented in their national government. Elections are controlled and manipulated now to the satisfaction of the ruling class aristocracy. The trajectory will only get worse unless the people use what means given them in the Constitution. That Schlafly can’t see this is awful as we witness people like him surrendering a strategic tool.
We need only pass one amendment via a COS to put the ruling class aristocracy on notice that their game is up. Conservatives hold both state chambers in 26 states. There is no way a leftist cabal is going to get anything past conservatives.
The only way a leftist cabal can use a COS in the future is if they can control 38 states fully. America is not so far gone yet but maybe so in one or two more generations. If we pass amendments that make it so difficult for leftists to complete their quest for controlling the proletariat, then we can set them back a hundred years or more. That’s why a COS is so important. Because Washington DC will never do it, the courts will never do it and our political parties will not do it; will not reverse the march to its ultimate totalitarian end.
We can no longer rely on the integrity of elections. Our electoral process is compromised and soon no longer available to us. I witnessed firsthand an election stolen 10 years ago by democrats and hard core leftists; actually communists. People need to wake up that the Left aims to control election offices in critical counties that can swing elections. They are smart. They know exactly what to aim for. And when they don’t get what they want the first time, they try again. They never retreat. A successful COS will have them in retreat for generations.
Again the COS is a gift to us because it allows a true republican form of government to prevail. It counts participation by a total of states and not by totals of delegates. This allows for the individual, the independence of the individual to be preserved and not swallowed up by federal laws and courts.
Still, it is good to hear from the likes of Schlafly. He makes some good points about how the Left and their Media will lie and cheat to subvert the Art. V COS process. The more aware participants are to various forms of subversion, the stronger the procedures can be made to foil such subversion.
For newbies who listen to this debate and others like them, I can imagine many first reactions to Schlafly’s arguments will be fear, fear that he instills in them. Many Americans have forgotten that the Founders had a lot more to be concerned about and those concerns are with us still today and forever. But we can educate future Americans about how to treat and manage these concerns while preserving our American values. George Mason’s premonition has come to being. Our federal government now controls almost everything we do, even soon to control the decision process over whether we live or die.
Copy your post for future use.