Posted on 11/03/2018 3:05:27 PM PDT by Jacquerie
<>The only constitutional convention in U.S. history, in 1787, went far beyond its mandate<>
You display a common defect among COS opponents: ill-informed rants about the 1787 federal convention.
<>The Constitution provides for no authority above that of a constitutional convention, so it is not clear that the courts — or any other institution — could intervene . . . <>
Thank God.
The authority is We the People, once again acting through our states. However, you are quite correct in that no other institution may intervene. Article V was purposely made a stand-alone section distinct from the others. It simply outlines peaceful means to improve government without resort to revolution.
But again - what stops them from derailing the Constitution as a whole, or redefining any of the Bill of Rights? Nothing.
Your posts read like they came straight from Publius Huldah. Is she your source?
"Duties of Article V convention delegates. Describes the duties of delegates and alternate delegates to a convention called under Article V of the Constitution of the United States. Provides that a vote cast by a delegate or an alternate delegate that is outside the scope of the instructions given by the general assembly is void. Provides that a delegate or alternate delegate who votes or attempts to vote outside the scope of the instructions given by the general assembly forfeits the delegate's appointment by virtue of that vote or attempt to vote. Provides that the call by the general assembly for an Article V convention is withdrawn if all delegates and alternate delegates vote or attempt to vote outside the scope of the instructions given by the general assembly. Provides that a delegate or alternate delegate who knowingly or intentionally votes or attempts to vote outside the scope of the instructions commits a Class D felony. Establishes an advisory group to evaluate whether a delegate or an alternate delegate has acted outside the scope of instructions."
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2013&session=1&request=getBill&docno=224
That's nice - but has no teeth. Just like a state cannot force a US Senator to vote a certain way - and has no authority (via legislation) to recall or sanction said Senator - the line has already been drawn. Once a delegate is sent - the state has no control - no matter what the state's "law" says. This has already been hashed out by folks far more constitutionally literate and studied than most on FreeRepublic
It helps to read the entire summary. You missed the felony part.
So, is Huldah your source?
You completely miss the point - the supposed “felony” threat is non-binding. Sure - a delegate could theoretically go home after shredding the constitution - but have fun getting a conviction that will hold up in courts - that would ultimately end up in the SCOTUS (if the court even still exists after a convention).
What then, is the solution?
OH... maybe enforcing the existing Constitution, as written? Guess that’s too complicated for the masses... or too restrictive of the Federal Government... (which is exactly what the framers were trying to prevent).
Because they don’t see the harm... agenda FAR outweighs reality and the damages possible.
Think about how many delegates California would send... and New York... and their agenda would likely not even come close to the agenda more “red” states would be seeking.
A couple years ago, a Freeper challenged me to read/listen to Publius Huldah. I did. I found her so fascinating that I wrote an eight-part series about her.
Here is the introduction.
John Birch Society also is very against the Convention of States, and lays out some pretty convincing arguments as well.
And even the most staunch pro-Convention writers can’t flat out say a “runaway” is impossible.
Campaign for Liberty is also quite against the Convention.
Near the core of John Birch Society opposition to an Article V Convention of the States is mistrust of the American people. Dig further and one cannot avoid the conclusion that JBS opposes the essence of republicanism, the right of all peoples to determine the structure and boundaries of their government. While JBS has no apparent problem with the exercise of the people’s electoral capacity at polling places every two years, they curiously stand athwart the exercise of the people’s sovereign capacity via their states to frame their government.
I tell you what - if the Convention of States happens - and they ONLY do what the Convention of States is (supposedly) called to do - the limited job of addressing the couple of things supposedly listed - and all is well at the end, I will gladly post an admission of my error with an apology to thinking less of those who supported the Convention.
IF
You and the rest of those who support the Convention are willing to do the same if the Convention goes awry...
While I have taken the time to analyze Huldah, JBS, and Schlafly, I’ve found Article V opponents to be particularly resistant to even reading columns that may upset their mindset.
I’ve read everything that has been given to me (via link, printed, or otherwise). Even watched several pro and con videos and a few podcasts on both sides as well.
I have yet to see a single bit of irrefutable evidence that such a Convention can be contained/controlled by ANYONE. The only example we have - was a radical runaway (even if it resulted in an arguably better document).
Hmmmm....
https://youtu.be/RTANv-VkEaM
Huge mistake. Look at all the infiltrators in DC. A convention will be filled with infiltrators who will pull their usual tricks. Remember how they let true conservatives lose, including throwing the HOR Republican majority, rather than implement the Deplorable Agenda. If they get it through a Constitutional Convention, and then manipulate results in enough states, the damage can never be undone.
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.