...the debate over "why" the Article V clause was put into the Constitution to begin with is in itself, as a debatable issue goes, solidly unprovable by either side and therefore a moot point--it's in there nonetheless...
...the important thing is that it is in there, it is legally binding and when the numerical requirements have been satisfied it is both legally binding and illegal to deny its taking place--period!--now the subsequent religious, moral and ethical debate over the difference between what is right and what is wrong and what is legal and what is illegal and how the two are divided is an entirely separate debate--the Article V Convention exists, nonetheless, currently within the realm of the Constitutionally defined legal/illegal issue...
...let's imagine, therefore, ourselves sitting down in that tavern of historic repute and from across the table from the Framers and Founders, as we all had a mug of ale, and our trying to explain to them how and why we have decided to adhere to, support and defend their document--except for just this one thing--it is hard for me to imagine that they would reply, "Bye Golly, you win the prize! You've guessed correctly at the one thing that we put in there that we wanted you to ignore and dismiss!"...
...within the context of the previously described scenario perhaps we true Constitutionalists could hope for the best. I, personally, quite well imagine Thomas Jefferson taking the questioning-me aside and within a more modern context explaining to me, "See here, it is within the realm of possibility that the Federal government could still gain excesses in power beyond what is intended by this Constitution. Hardly any honest thing has ever been contrived that the mind of man could not eventually subvert. The Article V clause gives a recourse to the individual States to put this in check in the event that this happens. Look at it, the ball is in the court of the individual States. It takes two-thirds of them to call the Article V Convention and three-quarters of them to ratify any decisions made therein. If and when needed it will test and prove, or disprove, the metal of the individual citizens of the individual States--if and when the Federal government exceeds its Constitutional bounds. The Article V Convention was put in place in order that the individual States could call the Federal government to the carpet if it exceeds its Constitutional limitations. The agenda of this thing may appear to be undefined, but if you take it within the context of and according to the spirit of the intent of the entire document it is redundantly self-explanatory! (look--sometimes you have read between the lines) As being "undefined" some might assume that it's purpose is to "amend" or "delete" or otherwise change it; and I suppose that the unworthy, if given the advantage, could use it for this purpose--but again, as being "undefined," others might assume that it's purpose is to "reaffirm" it--what with the ball being placed in the court of the individual States and all, it's really left to them to decide its agenda and course of action. If it fails to reestablish and reaffirm this Constitution that we've just drafted, then the voting constituency has deservedly lost its Republic and will reap the consequences thereof for they no longer merit the Liberty afforded by it!"...
...NEWSFLASH!!! The Federal government has so long ago so far exceeded its Constitutional limitations so that an Article V Convention called by the individual States is so far overdue that it is probably so well beyond the point of any retrieval of Constitutional reestablishment and reaffirmation so that it might be so far beyond any such hope to accomplish such so that we should give it try nonetheless!!!
Consider these two critical points among many:
1. Ron Paul on Martial Law in the USA:
2. You have no right, any longer, to be a "War Protester" on threat of having your assets seized and frozen and you, yourself, as an individual, being given no social recourse to quarter:
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/5-seizing-war-protesters-assets/
...Hey now--Come on here--you self-professing Constitutionalists against an AVC need to give our Constitution a break...
...Constitutional patriot Bill; you be the "detail" man--and I be the "principle" man...
...I think that our current concern is more about how that the test of the metal of the current constituency of the individual States will currently fail than it is about the test of the metal of our current Constitution...
©2008 Michael, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, December 26, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, December 27, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Michael only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Michael is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Michael of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Michael |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: spinnikerca
Date: 2008-12-27 05:01:13
I don't think Article V should be stricken from the Constitution, I just think that right now the country is as far from being controlled by the people as it ever has been. I don't want those who brought us the bailouts and FISA and the Patriot Act being the people who put in place those who would craft Constitutional amendments. I find that scary. I want to enforce the Constitution we have, not give Pelosi/McCain/Obama and the states lining up for bailouts the ability to make what they have been doing 'Constitutional'.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-12-27 05:15:19
I agree with spinnikerca, and I also go a step further. The Constitution is not a black or white question. It's not a question of "you're with us or you're against us." There are far more gray areas in the Constitution than you are acknowledging in your article.
Further, the current political climate suggests that an Article V convention would result in a revised document that makes official the elimination of most of the Bill of Rights. Freedom should be popular, but the fact is that it's not nearly as popular as it needs to be in order to have such a convention produce a revised Constitution that makes us more free and protects individual liberty more than the current document does.
We live in an age of collectivism, which means the resulting document will almost certainly be more collectivist than the current document is. Any convention that is convened now will almost certainly reduce our freedoms.
Posted By: David S
Date: 2008-12-27 12:13:08
As far as I can tell the argument of the AVC advocates is that we must support 14 words in the constitution even if it means destroying the rest of the constitution. I think I will support the rest of the constitution at the possible risk of those 14 words.
Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: 2008-12-27 17:26:49
Well, first I'm glad to see that Michael has finally got it. He's hitting on all cylinders.
Now, will a convention be able to correct all our ills? Well, it doesn't have to as such. Remember it proposes amendments meaning all it has to do is propose amendments which in turn allow people to use those new tools to effect the changes. (I'm ignoring for this conversation the fact that it requires 2/3rds vote of the convention to propose plus a 3/4th vote of the states to ratify meaning any proposal is going to have pass a lot of metal to get into the Constitution. That's what protects us from wild or other fringe actions by small groups. They simply haven't the numbers to win.) For example, if the convention proposes a initiatve, referendum, recall amendment which is passed, the amendment itself has solved nothing. But the effect of the amendment GREATLY curtails and controls government. A referendum on whether or not we Americans want to assume 8 trillion in debt or bail out rich fat cats for example. An initiative on any number of issues you can name. And recall? Anyone want to talk about Nixon, Clinton just to name a few quick points.
Now, who have made comments above clearly say "we just ignore this little 14 words of the Constitution" we'll be okay. But, the problem is you've established the government can veto part of the Constitution. Sure, it's just little part of the Constitution. No harm done. We'll be fine.
Just like the jews in Germany were fine when Adolf Hitler suspended one sentence in the German Constitution allowing the government to designate citizens of Germany to be undesirables meaning the government could ignore their citizenship rights granted them under the German Constitution. It was just one little sentence. No harm done, right?
I mean, the second amendment if you read it, isn't many more words that 14, if you read it. It's just a few words after all. And the right to trial is even less than the 14 words everyone seems to eager to allow the government to veto or ignore. They are just little words after all, what's the harm, right?
And, isn't it just a few words that say the President and members of Congress must suffer election in tems of office meaning if these few little words were removed they could remain in place permanently. But there is only a few little words. What's the harm, right if they are ignored?
It comes down to this: If you believe in the Constitution you figure out solutions to any problems it presents. If you don't believe in the Constitution, you find ways to veto it and avoid following it. I'll bet if I could read all the posts on the Internet by the above writers they would be complaining mightily about the government vetoing rights. Meanwhile they advocating doing the same thing. Can anyone say---hypocrite? It's just one little word. But in this case it is absolutely true.
Just a reminder. All 50 states have submitted a total of 650 applications for an Article V Convention. The Constitution says when 34 states submit 34 applications Congress must call. This matter was decided long before any of us were born. Like it or not, we either decide to obey the Constitution or we decide to terminate it---all of it. Now, do you want to live in an America which has no rights whatsoever? Then all you need do is keep pushing for the government to veto Article V and you'll get your wish.
You can read the actual texts of the applications at www.foavc.org. These are photographic copies of original source material which can easily be verified by anyone simply by going to your local public library. Come to our site. Read the applications. Learn the truth and facts. Spread the word. Thank you.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-12-27 18:23:21
Great. So let's have the Article V convention and watch our rights get officially declared unconstitutional. Should be fun.
Posted By: HummingbirdTG
Date: 2008-12-28 03:41:40
Is there a way to Thumbs Down articles, Mr. Thiessen? I'm sure many would love one...
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-12-28 07:39:03
Yes, hummingbirdtg. The way to thumbs down an article is to add a reader comment saying why you disagree with it. The point of the "thumbs" feature is to simply provide a way to say, "I agree." Agreement on an issue need not imply a need for saying more. But disagreement shouldn't be merely a thumb. It should be a basis for discussion. Simply "thumbing down" does nothing to clarify why there is a disagreement. Thus, "thumbing down" is nothing more than a refusal to engage in discussion when you disagree with something someone else has written. I see no reason to encourage that kind of laziness.
Posted By: David S
Date: 2008-12-28 14:22:57
Mr. Walker I can see that you've done a great deal of research on this and that you've put your heart into it. For that I commend you. If I believed this would restore our constitution I would happily apologize for doubting you and would join you. Nothing would make me happier than a peaceful means of restoring our constitution. But you must see the circumstances under which this would currently occur. The average American has no understanding of our constitution or its importance in protecting our rights. And yet these folks elect the state representatives who would either vote on the ratification or would elect the delegates who would vote on it. I suspect that most of these representatives are equally ignorant of the constitution. These are the people in whose hands we would trust our constitution. In my opinion it would be like putting a bull in the china shop or maybe like asking the fox to guard the hen-house. Our constitution and our rights would be at great risk.
BTW I don't think you can count all applications which have ever occurred. Some, like those dealing with slavery, have already been resolved. Some were written by people who are long since deceased and still others were written to call for a convention to address only specific issues like a balanced budget amendment. What is the number of applications which can be counted today?
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-12-31 10:41:37
Walt,
I always appreciate your insights, however what do you propose to do to solve the problem? All of us so called Constitutionalists agree that the Government is not following the contract. That being said, why would we continue to allow them not to follow the contract for fear that they might follow the contract?
What are your proposals? All of you. Do we wait until the Republic is completely gone to try and then do something about it? Everyone is affraid that we may get a different contract. I say we deal with that possibility if and when it happens. But they are not following the one we curently have and that contract has the means to do something about it, yet we choose to ignore that based on the possibility that they may change it. What have we lost then? We have all but lost it already! What about the possibility that we may win and save or Republic before it is gone. Wouldn't common sense dictate it is easier to save Liberty and the Rule of Law while you still have it vs wait until it is finally gone and try and get it back?
Enough talk! At least Michael and Bill are proposing a solution. Simply opining and offereing no solution is no part of the solution only part of the problem.
So what is it that the nay sayers propose?
LoD
Posted By: David S
Date: 2008-12-31 12:50:36
Patrick Henry you make a very good argument: We are already losing the constitution. But my point is that much of the constitution is still intact. We can still make comments on this forum without getting arrested. We can still practice whatever religion we choose or no religion if we prefer. We can still own guns and carry them ( with a license) . We can still own property. And many of our other rights still exist although you can see them being slowly eroded away. Now consider that most of government is made up of socialists and neo-cons. The con con would give those folks the ability to totally alter our constitution. To make an extreme example, a new constitution could say simply " Obama is the one. He can do whatever he wants." I think not many Nolan Chart participants would prefer that over our current constitution, even with the numerous violations of it. I'm not optimistic that the cast of characters likely to be delegates would improve on the current situation. There is a chance that they could improve it, but a greater chance that they'd mess it up. So my thinking is that the con-con should be a last ditch means to restore our constitution. We should do it only after the violations of the current constitution become so bad as to render it nearly useless. But we should do it before we opt to haul the guns out.