What lies in the heart of an attacker? A recent Phyllis Schlafly Reports column entitled "Beware of Attacks on the Constitution" Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, discusses attacks on the Constitution. As reported in her bio page, Mrs. Schlafly’s column is authored by her.
Mrs. Schlafly begins, "Americans are fortunate to have a written Constitution that has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for more than two centuries, and we certainly don’t need a new constitution. There is nothing wrong with the one we have except that politicians do not obey it and liberal judges pretend it is a ‘living’ document that they can re-interpret according to their own social and economic preferences." (Emphasis added). In sum, Phyllis Schlafly’s complaint is that the only thing wrong with the Constitution is that the government does not obey it. Quite true. The fact Congress refuses to obey Article V and call an Article V Convention when it is required to do so irrefutably proves Mrs. Schlafly’s point.
Mrs. Schlafly then discusses an Article V Convention, a legal constitutional process within the Constitution intended to allow proposal of amendments to the Constitution. By the specifics of complaints Mrs. Schlafly enounces in her column obviously, Mrs. Schlafly considers the use of this part of the Constitution as an "attack" on the Constitution. As her charges and allegations have, long since been refuted by use of public record and other irrefutable sources, no employment of space this time will dwell on disproving them again. Instead, what is noteworthy is that Mrs. Schlafly believes to obey the Constitution is to attack that Constitution. Logically therefore, Mrs. Schlafly should believe that not to obey the Constitution is not an attack on the Constitution.
However, this is not the case. She then describes what in her opinion are three other "attacks" on the Constitution. In each instance she complains about groups that want to "change our form of government without amending the Constitution" or "amend it by unconstitutional means." Thus, Phyllis Schlafly opposes amending the Constitution by unconstitutional means as well as opposing amending the Constitution by constitutional means. Obviously, Mrs. Schlafly wants to leave the Constitution exactly as it is for all time while ignoring how thin she is on consistency.
After urging bypassing the Constitution regarding Article V, she discusses the Electoral College. She urges the Constitution be obeyed stating that [the Electoral College] "serves this nation well." She condemns groups that have attempted to go around the Constitution "by getting rid of the Electoral College without amending the Constitution." Given that public record shows one amendment issue the states have requested for convention consideration is altering the Electoral College and that if such an amendment were proposed and ratified, this would be "amending the Constitution in the proper way" which she vehemently opposes, her criticism is at best, ludicrous.
Mrs. Schlafly then discusses "the devious plan to subvert the District Clause." In this instance, she opposes efforts in Congress to give the population living in Washington DC congressional representation. She states in her summation paragraph, "We urgently need Americans and American leaders to study the U.S. Constitution in order to learn what it says, why it has survived for more than two centuries, and why Americans should defeat all mischievous attempts to bypass it in unconstitutional ways."
Clearly by these comments Mrs. Schlafly sees no double standard with her position--the Constitution should be bypassed when the issue is Article V but the Constitution should not bypassed when the issue is not Article V. Perhaps Mrs. Schlafly should take her own advice and "study the U.S. Constitution" in order to learn the most fundamental point of all. The Constitution is a single document. It contains no provision that permits selective enforcement or obedience of its provisions. Obviously in the mind of Mrs. Schlafly, however, in spite of her advice, is what is okay for her to urge, bypassing the Constitution, is not okay for someone else to urge, bypassing the Constitution.
In her final example of "attacks on the Constitution" Mrs. Schlafly discusses the treaty provision of the Constitution. She states, "They ["globalist and word-government types"] look upon the two thirds requirement [a vote by the Senate to approve any treaty] as impeding their goal of putting the United States into various global organizations subject to foreign law, and so there is an ongoing effort to bypass the treaty requirement." She laments the effort to enact by statute rather than by treaty, agreements between nations. This practice of doing exactly that has been going on since the founding of this country. Without going into deep discussion, clearly, if Congress enacts a statute, even if other nations enact the exact same legislation, the authority for its enforcement in the United States (and thus the ability to repeal the statue should a future administration be so motivated) remains with and is based on the Constitution and United States law not any foreign law. Where a treaty may grant foreign authority over the United States in some manner, a federal statute cannot do this. However, the focus of this column is not to debate the individual examples presented by Mrs. Schlafly but instead discuss her overall theme of "attacks on the Constitution."
Besides the already quoted lead sentences, this column will examine two other key sentences; "A call for a Constitutional Convention is a terrible idea and should be defeated in every state legislature where it rears its ugly head." The states have already applied in sufficient number to cause a convention call. Article V provides no method to rescind applications by the states or permits Congress any choice once the states have applied. Thus a convention call is obligatory. By her opposition to this obligatory constitutional provision, Mrs. Schlafly urges constitutional amendment "by unconstitutional means" or bypassing the Constitution altogether by the states and/or Congress committing an act they are not constitutionally authorized to do. In the final sentences of her column, Mrs. Schlafly states, "Americans must constantly be on guard against all attempts to violate or bypass our Constitution or amend it by unconstitutional means. Our freedom depends on it." Apparently Mrs. Schlafly does not refer to herself in urging "Americans be on guard against all attempts to violate or bypass our Constitution" as her attempt to violate Article V and bypass its provisions clearly can be described as an "attempt to violate or bypass our Constitution."
In her effort to bypass the Constitution, Phyllis Schlafly as well as others such as the John Birch Society has engineered a campaign of fear and misinformation rarely seen in this world. History will very likely look back on this fear campaign and credit it as the single reason for the downfall of the United States. With this fear campaign, Mrs. Schlafly has effectively paralyzed the Constitution. In doing this, she has eliminated the sole reason why the Constitution "has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for more than two centuries." She has denied this country the ability to change its form of government and without this ability we cannot survive. A simple examination of history proves this point. If the Constitution existed today as written in 1787, there would be no Bill of Rights. There would be no right of women to vote. This country would have slavery. There would no equal protection under the law. There would be no freedom of the press or speech. The right to bear arms would not exist. These are but a few examples of alterations achieved through amendment that our Constitution has undergone since 1787 all of which have served to increase our liberties and freedoms.
Would the 1787 Constitution serve us in 2009? Would it be adequate to the needs of our citizens that it would require no alterations in order for it to survive as a system of government? Obviously, if our 1787 Constitution would not serve us now, there is no reason to support that our 2009 version would be or is up to the task today. While our 1787 Constitution would have remained stagnant to this day, the rest of the world would have evolved. Women’s right to vote, obtained in nearly every other nation on earth, would present enormous political pressures in this country, pressures we could not address because of the inability to change our form of government to respond to that pressure. Slavery, having ended in virtually every country in the world while we remained the last slave holding nation would certainly bring as much or more condemnation and political pressure that even South Africa has experienced. Again, our inability to change would bring tremendous pressure to bear on our society. Obviously, the Internet and its associated freedoms not guaranteed under our 1787 form of government and thus in all likelihood regulated by the government would bring tremendous pressure for freedom with our government unable to respond. These few examples prove the point that it is doubtful our 1787 Constitution would be adequate for 2009.
Yet, the 1787 Constitution contains all aspects of our form of government. The 1787 version describes all three branches of government as well as their powers. The relationship of federal power and state power is detailed. Save for the limitation and correction of two or three amendments in fact, the operational structure of the government has remained the same since 1787. Should it therefore not be adequate to the needs of our society in 2009? Is Mrs. Schlafly correct that no amendments ever be permitted?
Has our 1787 Constitution survived the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" as Mrs. Schlafly says? The answer is no. Our Constitution, amended in order to respond to the needs of our people, has survived 200 years and it is in its amended form that it has survived "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" Mrs. Schlafly writes about. Without amendment, our form of government likely would have failed even before the Civil War. Indeed, given the fact the states refused to discuss the slavery issue in a convention before the Civil War, it can be stated by not using Article V to resolve problems of this nation, such failure can and will lead to civil war. The failure in 1860 to use a convention to amend the Constitution cost this nation 600,000 American lives. Only through amendment to resolve and address the needs of our people has our American Constitution survived and it only by the fact our ancestors had the good and common sense to realize the power of amendment and its value that we today have a Constitution which they, not us, can take credit for. We, having rejected their wisdom and experience as to the need for legal constitutional change, can take credit for nothing.
Many people in this country fear a convention. However, this is not true in the rest of the world. One only need Google "constitutional convention" to find out that movements to hold constitutional conventions, amendment conventions and so forth are alive and well all over the globe not to mention in several states in the Union. References in articles on the Internet repeatedly refer to the success of the convention. However, these Internet articles do not refer to our 1787 convention. These articles instead heap praise on the recently held convention in Scotland. Even now, discussion to hold a convention in Britain to write a constitution based not on the American Constitution and its events but on the events in Scotland fills the Internet. Why? Because of the frustration British people have with both political parties in Britain and their inability to address the needs of the people they represent—the same problem we have in this nation. This is one example of many conventions held in recent times. Results have been identical. The condition of the country has improved. The form of government has aligned with the current needs of the people rather then remaining trapped in the past due to fear of change or fears created by opponents over the convention itself.
The fact is America has fallen behind as the beacon of democracy because by our denying ourselves our right to evolve our form of government through legal amendment, we no longer represent what is best in a representative republic; the ability to change our form of government to best effect to our lives, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness. Others not afraid of a convention have removed that beacon from us. They are unlikely to give it back.
There is, so far as can be determined, not one instance where a convention has removed any right of its people. Indeed the trend shows that the people emerge from a convention with even more rights than they had before the convention. This was true with our 1787 convention. It is true today. Now, we trail behind the world in modifying our form of government to bring it into the 21st Century. Nations that have had conventions have modern governments and modern economic systems and the benefits of this to them as well as the detriments to the United States are becoming increasingly obvious each passing day. However there is a more insidious effect the fear campaign of Mrs. Schlafly has had on the nation that Mrs. Schlafly does address in her column.
This insidious effect is ever more frequently that those within government and those outside the government, conditioned like Pavlov's dog to fear a convention reject change by use of legal amendment. Still they are required resolve the pressures of needed change. Thus, they have turned to other methods outside the Constitution in order to address these needed changes. In short, an ever-increasing series of "attacks" on the Constitution have occurred. By her own admission as a result of these "attacks" which she spawned in her political womb by leading the charge to veto and bypass Article V, the Constitution is unraveling. Mrs. Schlafly and her cohorts admonish those who use short cuts regarding the Constitution to achieve their political ends. Yet, it is clear Mrs. Schlafly, as one of the original opponents to an Article V Convention, is the mother of this constitutional destruction. Mrs. Schlafly, having denied people the right to alter their form of government as is intended by her campaign of fear, has failed to provide a solution to replace that which she has denied. The responsibility for these "attacks" is hers to bear alone as she has left everyone in this nation no other choice if they are to effect needed change but to "attack" the Constitution.
It is ironic that Mrs. Schlafly chose to quote Hamlet (Act 3, Scene 1) in her opening remark of her column. The substance of that quote bears directly on the issue of her fear campaign. In his famous soliloguy, Hamlet debates whether to take action to resolve his problems or silently live with them and do nothing.
The full speech reads: "To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
In the like manner that faced Hamlet, Mrs. Schlafly’s campaign to deny Americans their right guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence to "alter" their form of government faces all Americans. Her fear campaign requires Americans to "lose the name of action" and not "take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them." Instead, she seeks to have America simply "suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" but do nothing about it. Nothing could present a more antithetic view of America than this, that we should fear our form of government and when faced with a problem do nothing about it. She laments the problems of this government and the bypassing of the Constitution, a condition she helped create. However Phyllis Schlafly sees no connection between the fact she lead the movement to bypass the Constitution in the first place by urging bypass of Article V and the fact others have come behind her with different political agendas and done the exact same thing as she. She condemns them for their acts but reserves to herself the right to act in exactly the same manner without condemnation.
Mrs. Schlafly should answer one question: what is the difference between her position of urging the Constitution be vetoed and bypassed by the government and others such as herself and her opposition to the government, and others, vetoing and bypassing the Constitution?
Frankly, the only difference between Mrs. Schlafly’s complaints regarding vetoing and bypassing the clauses of the Constitution regarding DC, treaty powers and the Electoral College and her support of bypassing Article V is a debate over which parts of the Constitution are vetoed or bypassed. Both sides fundamentally agree of the basic principle of veto or bypass of the Constitution if someone disagrees with its provisions. In which case, there is no distinguishable difference between her position and that of the government or other groups. Only in the debate of which parts of the Constitution are vetoed or bypassed is there a difference. The details of that debate are so miniscule as to be meaningless.
I put to all those who favor the position of bypass and veto of the Constitution whether it be on Article V or elsewhere in the Constitution that once you accept the Constitution can be vetoed or bypassed you open it to more damage, more slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, more danger than any convention could ever possibly do. Not because a convention can only propose amendments and has no other authority, but because you have created a new form of amendment, more dangerous, more uncontrolled and more unpredictable than any a convention might propose---the amendment of convenience.
"It is remarkable, that the resemblance of the plan of the convention to the act which organizes the government of this State holds, not less with regard to many of the supposed defects, than to the real excellences of the former. Among the pretended defects are the re-eligibility of the executive, the want of a council, the omission of a formal bill of rights, the omission of a provision respecting the liberty of the press. These and several others which have been noted in the course of our inquires are as much chargeable on the existing constitution of this state, as on the one proposed for the Union; and a man must have slender pretensions to consistency, who can rail at the latter for imperfections which he finds no difficulty in excusing in the former. Nor indeed can there be better proof the insincerity an affectation of some of the zealous adversaries of the plan of the convention among us, who profess to be the devoted admirers of the government under which they live, than the fury with which they have attacked that plan, for matters in regard to which our own constitution is equally or perhaps more vulnerable." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 85.
Some things have never changed in 200 years. Some of the "slings and arrows" Mrs. Schlafly refers to were slung by those who, like Mrs. Schlafly, said they supported our form of government at the time but railed at any attempt for improvement even though that form of government permitted such alteration and required improvement. Mrs. Schlafly has presented "pretended defects" regarding a convention. She provides no proof of any convention having the issues she says will occur. Based on no evidence whatsoever she urges the Constitution be vetoed and bypassed. Like her political ancestors who fought so hard to maintain the Articles of Confederation and opposed the new Constitution, she hopes to preserve the status quo, to prevent any amendment to the present Constitution whatsoever. An Article V Convention cannot create or write a new Constitution; it may only propose amendments. But Mrs. Schlafly, who urges we all "study the U.S. Constitution in order to learn what it says" ignores the plain language of Article V. Instead she urges Article V and therefore the Constitution be bypassed. She wants the Constitution changed by unconstitutional means, the very thing she rails against her political opponents for doing. She condemns them for doing the very same thing she herself does. America must be careful in following her advice. No ship of state has ever long existed crashed on the rock of hypocrisy.
©2009 Bill Walker, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Monday, June 8, 2009
Last modified: Monday, June 8, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Bill Walker only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Bill Walker 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 Bill Walker of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Bill Walker |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: 2009-06-08 11:51:48
Is this the same Phyllis Schlafly who led the "Stop ERA" movement, thus making herself a traitor to the other members of her own sex?
What a disgusting right-wing extremist! Her hypocrisy makes me puke!
Posted By: mvymvy
Date: 2009-06-08 18:23:01
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,777 state legislators — 829 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 948 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 28 state legislative chambers, in small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Posted By: mvymvy
Date: 2009-06-08 18:24:06
What the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution about how electors should be awarded is: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.
In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
Posted By: Robert
Date: 2009-06-09 06:53:04
This is classic activity for what is know in the intelligence community as a "Confusion Agent"Bill Walker's goal is to get sound minded individuals off on a tangent so that they are not focused on the real threat - egomaniacs like Randy Barnett who fancy themselves as smarter and better than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc.
Consider for just a moment the logic he employs. He says that there are 750 calls for a con con (a complete lie, many are duplicats, etc) and that congress does not honor them even though they are plain for all to see. He then wants a con con to have a new document that somehow and suddenly will be followed by the same politicians that do not follow the current Constitution.
For solid information you can bank on, check out: [link edited for length]
Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: 2009-06-09 08:19:12
To Dale: Yes, this is the same person.
As to the discussion regarding the Electoral College, I quoted Mrs. Schlafly in her column regarding that issue because she did. I have no comment on the issue itself and my using it in this column regarding its discussion should therefore not be construed as either supporting or opposing the proposition.
To Robert: My goal is to have Congess obey the Constitution and call an Article V Convention. As to your assertion that I "want a con con to have a new document...." I suggest actually read what I have written and what is on FOAVC. You are stating a flatout lie. I have always advocated that a convention is limited to proposing amendments to the present Constitution and have stated on countless occasions it cannot write a "new document" or new Constitution. Anybody who has read anything I've said on the subject knows that and this shows how little you know about this subject.
As to your assertion regarding duplicates and so forth which you ask people to refer to for "solid information" FOAVC recently published a response at http://www.article-5.org/blog/index.php?filtertype=site& . I suggest anyone wanting to check out Robert's assertion also read our response and then decide.
By the way Robert, the offer made to Teri Owens is of course open to anyone. If you have knowledge of actual documented public record (and I assure you we checked with the national archives and have an official response from its director that no such public record exists) that shows which application relates to whatever other application we, as stated in our response, will be happy to adjust our material and statements accordingly. But until we have documented public record from an irrefutable government source such as we have now showing the applications based on the public record of the Congressional Record, we will not make presumptions or assumptions regarding that public record. Thus all we at FOAVC have stated and can state is there is, based on available public record, 750 applications. We have provided copies of those public record for examination.
Beyond which Robert, as we point out in our response, even if you are correct and there are duplicates such that each is a duplicate of another, this simply means that instead of there being 20 times the number of applications required to cause a convention call with 750 applications from all 50 states there is only 10 times the number with 375 applications from all 50 states. The Constitution only requires the state submit applications in sufficient number once. Therefore your assetion menas nothing as Congress is still obligated to call.
And finally, the choice of Mr. Barnett is a bad example. If you actually read his proposals you'll find he advocates that applications simply be used to cause Congress to act to propose an amendment, a game of constitutional chicken as it were. Thus he opposes an actual convention. However, given that Barnett is obviously unaware of the tremendous number of applications, that these applications have satisfied Article V, that Congress must call a convention and that by not doing so therefore Congress has clearly signaled it will not engage in such a game of chicken, his proposal is obviously flawed. Nevertheless, using him as example given his public position shows your lack of knowledge on this subject.
And as I've said in a response to Mr. Barnett as to having the government obey any new amendments---all you gotta do is write them with enforcement procedures such that government has no choice.
As I've said many times, I wish your side would turn away from trying to establish as Mrs. Schlafly obviously does, the Constitution can be bypassed and instead accept a convention must be called and concentrate your efforts on resolving any issues that causes. In short, act in a positive manner to present solution instead of negative manner to destroy the document.
Posted By: Jan
Date: 2009-06-09 08:20:16
What a leftists liberal comment to compare the US to the "rest of the world."
Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: 2009-06-09 08:36:43
Jan,
First of all as shown above I am classified as a libertarian here and in fact I'm a conservative.
As to your comment, given that the United States originated the convention concept and was the first nation to put it into national law as a method to change a form of government, and given that our government has refused to obey our form of government on this point long before other constitutional violations even were consider, I think it is important to show that our form of democracy, that is proposal of amendments through a convention, is alive and well elsewhere in the world.
Given the fact of our government refusing to call a convention when it is required to therefore, it is not me comparing the U.S. to the rest of the world, but me comparing the world to the U.S. Your comment is without merit given that is a peremptory requirement that we hold a convention in our Constitution and by showing many other nations (many with much more volitile and therefore more prone to political mischief political climates) have safely held conventions and improved their countries only serves in my mind to demonstrate how ridiculous the assertions of fear made by those who are trying to bypass the Constitution.
I mean for crying out loud they held a convention in the middle of a war in Iraq and people were killed lining up to vote for it. The voter turnout despite the fact many knew they would die doing so, was so huge its percentage of vote puts ours to shame.
It is obvious we take our form of government for granted. Others in the world obviously value thier forms of government more and have no fear of a convention. And by the way, as shown on our site, we still lead the world in total number of conventions. Nearly 700 of the nearly 1000 conventions held since 1776 have been in the United States. State conventions.
But that still does not excuse or justify the fact Article V has been bypassed and people like Mrs. Schlafly want it this way. Is that what you want--the Constitution bypassed?
Posted By: Hal Shurtleff
Date: 2009-06-09 12:24:19
Mr. Walker called the U.S. a "democracy." This proves how little he knows about our form of government. We are a republic (Article 4, Section 4). He made some type of specious argument about slavery and the U.S. Constitution. Within a few years of the U.S. Constitution, a number of states outlawed slavery. And the 13th Amendment was not passed by a Constitution Conventon.
Yes, other countries have Con-Cons. Most of which are unstable and socialist governments. In these same countries, a person accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent. Does Mr. Walker want to live under such a system? U.S. States d My states have Con-Cons. Masaachusetts has had a handful. But it isn't the same procedure and the results never led to a new form of government
Posted By: Hal Shurtleff
Date: 2009-06-09 12:52:27
Mr. Walker called the U.S. a "democracy." This proves how little he knows about our form of government. We are a republic (Article 4, Section 4). He made some type of specious argument about slavery and the U.S. Constitution. Within a few years of the U.S. Constitution, a number of states outlawed slavery. And the 13th Amendment was not passed by a Constitution Conventon.
Yes, other countries have Con-Cons. Most of which are unstable and socialist governments. In these same countries, a person accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent. Does Mr. Walker want to live under such a system? U.S. States d My states have Con-Cons. Masaachusetts has had a handful. But it isn't the same procedure and the results never led to a new form of government
Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: 2009-06-09 21:33:12
To Mr. Schurtleff:
First of all I find the entire discuss of whether we live in a democracy or a republic to ridiculous. We live under a form of government called the Constitution and your quote of Article 4, Section 4 as the Supreme Court has said is without merit. The words require that Congress guarantee the states a "republican form of government" but the court ruled long ago that it is entirely up to Congress to decide what that is meaning whatever form of government we now have, unless Congress says otherwise, it is a republican form of government and the guarantee applies to the states, not the federal government. As we are discussing the federal government, my term is as accurate as yours because there is nothing in the Constitution that requires or describes a "federal republican form of government."
I hardly call the issue of slavery to be "specious." I take it then you consider that 600,000 Americans dying over the issue is "specious." The fact that the 13th Amendment was not proposed by a convention has no bearing on the point that before the Civil War an attempt was made by the states to hold one in order to prevent the war in the first place. In short, had a convention been held the lives of many Americans might have been spared and I find that fact anything but "specious." I'm sorry you value human life, especially American life, so little.
Your next paragraph is so full of holes I don't honestly know where to begin. First of all your accusation that most countries that have held conventions are unstable and socialist is totally bogus. Austrailia held a convention recently and so has New Zealand. These are hardly unstable or socialist nations. Then you try the trick of diversion. Nice. Bring in the fact that in some nations the presumption of guilt is on the defendant. Ours is not that system thanks to the Fifth Amendment? Do you know of any major political movement where people are screaming to repeal the Fifth Amendment? I don't. So, given that doing so is completely ridiculous, your argument has no merit.
Then you write something that I can't even read because of typos or whatever. You talk about the fact that one state, I assume where you live has had conventions "but it isn't the same procedure." So? If you read the convention language in all the constitutions it varies from state to state and nation to nation. So what? Are you saying that just because Article V doesn't have the language of your state that somehow means a convention won't work? Be careful. Historic record shows that your state supported a convention in the constitution at the 1787 convention. So obviously they didn't see a problem writing the language of Article V and supporting it.
Finally, I notice you don't dispute that those who oppose an Article V Convention so as to bypass the Constitution then criticize others for wanting to bypass other parts of the Constitution isn't hypocrisy. I'm glad we agree on the central theme of my article.
Posted By: Lee Gonzales
Date: 2009-06-16 09:58:01
We've had 27 amendments to the Constitution ratified and become law. One- the 18th Amendment was repealed . None of these required an Article Five process calling for a Constitutional Convention to introduce them or approve or revoke them!
Yes an article V process was left open to call a convention. But easier and far safer routes still remain open. Amending the Constitution was not made easy for a reason. The amendment process requires deliberation on the part of an informed and educated people. It requires that elected officals appreciate the document by understanding what they have and not ignoring it for the sake of convenience such as ignoring Article 4, Section 4: "The US shall guarantee every state...a republican form of government, and protect each of them against invasion." Only fools think that the 25 -30 million illegal aliens don\'t constitute an invasion. Those borders are still wide open and hospitals are closing due to providing free medical emergency to aliens. Welfare offices are loaded with illegal aliens. The radical racist groups have put up a "virtual fence" sign tellilng American citizens they need not apply! Ask an American citizen who has tried to get assistance from the state amd been told that they are making too much money to apply. My musician nephew out in California has to get together with his muscians friends to scrape pennies together to buy baloney and a loaf of bread since they are confronted wiht that "virtual fence" sign that says "American citizens of hispanic decent need not apply!" This is just one example where Congress who will lbe in charge of a Con Con and set the rules should a con con be called by the num skulls like the nutty professor Randy Barnett.
Instead of attacking Phyllis Schafley and The John Birch Society look into the Council on Foreign Relations. If the Eaglew Forum or the JBS had 200 plus CFR members in the Obama administration you\'d be yelling to investigate! investigate! I would say I agree do it. but since the CFR has been in control of every administraion since Roosevelt, (FDR), you\'ll probably let that one escape you. And if the CFR is a powerful as JBS and Schafley know that it is will they just stand by and pass up an opportunity to do away with the Bill of Rights? Only the biggest fools would atttack the very organizations that have been defending the Constitution- the JBS and ladies like Mrs Schafley and ignore the organizations like the CFR whose members have been intrumental in funding, and in instigating for the abolition of US sovereignty and an end to the Constitution infavor of a new International order.
Therefore you see we -the American people weren\'t denied anything. The process off introducing amendments and of cancelling out amendments has never been denied to us.
The calls a second Constitutional Convention seem to come whenever a known "liberal" is in the white House. Clinton stirred up muddle-headed "conservatives" to call a Con Con under a "Conference of the States." It was sold to the various state legislatures in this sneaky fashion and it promoters withheld the details that a con con was really what the legislators were voting for. Knee jerk reactions at Phillis Schafley forget that her opposition to the phony "Equal rights" amendment want to deny her her right to oppose an amendment she disagrees with. The ERA advocates had 10 years in which to persuade sufficent numers of states to ratify their amendment. The ERA advocates chose the 7 year route and couldn\'t get it passed. Even when Congress granted them a 3 year extension they flopped like a dead fish.
Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: 2009-06-16 10:43:48
Mr. Gonzales:
First of all, your statement that "none of these requied an Article Five process calling for a Constitutional Convention to introduce them or approve them or revoke them!" is factually incorrect and therefore defeats much of what you say afterwards.
The public record is clear and irrefutable. Congress has been constitutionally obligated to call an Article V Convention (indeed several conventions) since 1911. See www.foavc.org. All 50 states have submitted 750 applications some 20 times the number required. If you actually read the Constitution you'll see the term used is "convention to propose amendments" not constitutional convention. Finally, your argument is completely incorrect.
The fact that none of our present amendments "required" a convention does not negate the obligation of Congress to call one once the states have so applied. Further, a simple reading of the texts demonstrates that our Constitution would have several amendments in discussion or as part of the Constitution that would greatly change our present circumstance of excessive federal government. In short, while the current amendments may or may not have required a convention (and in at least one case, the 17th Amendment your statement is refuted as sufficient applications existed to cause such a convention on that issue) this does not mean that other amendment issues that were applied for in the convention method did not have the constitutional right to have been processed under the terms of Article V.
In short sir, Congress vetoed the Constitution and as such your argument that a convention was not "required" is meaningless as the facts demonstrate a deliberate act on the part of Congress to thwart the Constitution with the specific intent of refusing other amendment issues not to become part of the Constitution because Congress politically opposed them. By doing so Congress has become a dictator of the Constitution deciding what is and is not in it when it is clear Article V was specifically designed not to allow this.
As to your part about illegal aliens. I have no comment except to note your frustration. As to your saying that this somehow proves Congress will be in charge of a convention, I'm sorry but the Supreme Court ruled long ago this is not the case. Article V does not grant Congress that authority and the courts have stated there is no implication or implied powers in Article V.
As to attacking the JBS and Schlafly, it is they who believe the Constitution can be bypassed and have publicly urged this by urging a convention not be called when the Constitution demands it be done. As to the CFR, to my knowledge it, along with litterally the rest of the political spectrum except for the above mentioned group, person and other such allies, have never advocated the Constitution be scrapped or that a body such as a convention can do so. Simply put, as such, there is nothing to attack. If you have documented proof that I am incorrect in this statement please bring it to my attention and I will be happy to add that group to the list.
My above statements regarding the actions of Congress and its refusal to obey the Constitution coupled with the public record completely refutes your statement of "The process off [sic] of introducing amendments and of cancelling out amendments has never been denied us." Obviously if a convention is not called the process of introduction has been denied to us.
As to your "second calls" portion. There is not one application by any state for a convention to write a new constitution. Second your part about Clinton is historically incorrect. The Conference of States proposal you speak of occurred in the 1980's long before Clinton was in office. I don't know if as governor he supported the issue or not but certainly he had nothing to do with as president as it had long since died before he assumed office.
As to your defense of Phyllis Schlafly and her ERA opposition, I have no comment on her efforts to do so. She clearly has a right to oppose or support any amendment proposal she wishes then as well as now. She doesn't have the right however to oppose the constitutional process that resolves these amendment proposals as this is opposition to our constitutional form of government. And she betrays herself for what she actually is when she advocates for herself the right to do so and then condemns others for doing the exact same thing.