Topic: Constitutional Issues
Article V Convention Time Many people know about the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution yet very few really know about the 5th Article to the Constitution. There's a power provided to the people through their states which allow a significant check and balance opportunity.by Gary Wood
(conservative libertarian)
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Before we actually discuss Article V it's important we read it. Here's the text;
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.
In general Article V allows either Congress or the people through their states to hold a convention for the discussion and action for changing the U.S. Constitution. Some confuse the ability to amend our constitution with the document being a living document. It is not living, there's no call for altering the meaning of the document through any means other than that which is stated in Article V.
Changes can be from any extreme from adding to, deleting from, or abolishing all together our supreme law of the land. Beyond the Congress holding a convention one can be requested by two-thirds of the states and Congress "...shall call a convention." No where in the article does it give our representatives an option of either calling a convention or not when two-thirds request one be held. It provides a direct means for the people to insure they hold control over the Constitution whether the Congress agrees to hold a convention or not.
Many feel we are today faced with a time in our history a convention must be held. Action has long been taken by the states yet our Congress is ignoring their application. Luckily we have grassroots organizations helping press the issue. Visit 'Friends Of the Article V Convention' for in-depth information about what has been happening and where the states and people stand today in our efforts to hold a convention now.
Initially reading through the text most of us come away with more questions than answer regarding the utility of Article V. Some of the questions may be; What is the history of an Article V Convention? What did the Founders intend when they added a convention? Why was it created? What is meant by the word "peremptory?" Instead of writing an entire book focusing on the potential answers we're having Bill Walker, a Co-founder of the Friends Of the Article V Convention, as our guest tomorrow night on our March of Liberty Radio Show. (If you can tune in live you can chat or call-in your questions, if not there'll be a podcast download or archive stream available.)
There's many responsible reasons we've reached a time for holding an open, direct convention. Whether Congress wants to accept their responsibility or not the people still can demand this critical meeting. We're at the point in our history we'll either collapse into a socialist oligarchy or we can restore our Old Republic. There's the four boxes; ballot, juror, soap, and cartridge...there's also the Article V Convention. Join us the 13th at 7pm EST and then lets discuss it and write more articles.
If you enjoyed this article give it a thumbs up, bookmark it to your favorite social site from the drop-down menu and suggest it to a friend. Thanks for taking the time to visit Nolan Chart, do come back often for the latest from all political views.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gary Wood only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gary Wood 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.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-08-10 07:30:13
Hi Gary,
I have alluded to the Article V convention option in a few of my past articles. Mainly just as an on-going effort to keep our options on the table when topic is: how to take our society from "here" to "there" after someone proposes their vision of Utopia.
Lots of people write about politics as if it were mathematics where you can simply assume a convenient starting place and proceed from there. Article V provides a real mechanism for taking us from here to there but is it a safe mechanism? I'm not convinced.
When Article V was crafted and approved the members of congress were cut from a different cloth. To be specific in my concern, I'm not sure opening a convention is a good idea for Liberty when both parties leaders embrace socialistic views about the role of government and money and when most members of congress are corrupt, having harnessed the power of government to line their own pockets.
Most Americans behave politically as if it is appropriate for their faith and their prejudices to be codified at the Federal level. This paradigm keeps American's from practicing tolerance and compromise and finding ways to work out their differences on a community basis. Instead, every issue is routed higher into the legislative hierarchy. This moves the issue into the hands of professional politicians, big media and less-public power brokers. Likewise, this paradigm diminishes the options for individuals to participate. Once an issue is pushed up into the realm of professionals, ordinary citizens can no longer make their case directly to their opponents.
Today, this sad, destructive perspective about the role of government is pervasive. Both parties operate to ensure this remains what the public accepts as the normal and proper process for resolving differences of faith, philosophy and lifestyle. I believe these things should be left for individual communities to work out. That means one town may have bars and nightlife while the next might have a 9pm cerfew and no alcohol sales what-so-ever. The variety of choice is the power of the people; the oppression by government only limits these choices and pits neighbor against neighbor. Making our world homogeneous can only be accomplished by force and oppression of variety.
So long as this environment exists I would expect the outcome of and Article V convention to be a very bad thing for the principles I live by:
1. The Rule of Law
2. Individual Liberty
3. Limited Government
4. Free Enterprise
5. Freedom to Defend the previous 4 principles against all enemies both foreign and domestic.
I do not see anyone in the government or in any positions of power and influence who I would trust to defend these principles during a modernization of our Constitution.
I can't tune in for your show but I look forward to continued discussion on the topic after the 13th.
You've clearly stated some of the major concerns in holding a convention. Although I believe the intent was to provide the people an additional tool outside the four boxes today's leadership is not one I trust to carry out the convention. Significant sweeps in Congress and a complete organizational change from positions of title to true representation would be necessary for me to feel comfortable about it. I'm sorry you can't join us live, your views would be well presented. However, if you get a chance listen to the archive of the show. I'll try and get an article up soon regarding the discussion from our show. We're looking forward to hearing from Bill Walker.
My biggest worry about a convention is that Article V sets no limits on what amendments can be entertained: just as with the original Convention, anything can be done including throwing out the entire document and starting over.
While I don't expect that to happen, I do have serious doubts about the entire Bill of Rights (the Second and Fourth amendments in particular) making it through undamaged.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-08-11 12:28:55
I agree with the art 5 convention process, but the problem is not the constitution save for some of the later ammends. The problem is our servant government chooses not to follow the social contract we the people made with it.
Unless the 17th ammend is overturned then an art 5 convention would never work in our favor, but onlu further enslave us to this congress.
Now if we staged an art 5 convention made up of only patriot representatvies from each of the many states, we would only be construed as subversive revolutionary/islamo-fasicits jihadist terrorists and end up in Gitmo or Nevada.
So we will all have to wait for the pending economic crash to make the apathetic masses wake up and smell the shit we've been getting shoveled, only then, once the masses become uncomfortable will any real change occur.
What would changing our Constitution do to stave off a socialist oligarchy? The problem isn't with the content of the Constitution, it is that it is ignored by the "politicians" who, in doing so, violate their oath of office. A con con would only open the door for the oath breakers to conform the Constitution to their socialistic, imperialistic agenda.
Furthermore, there are dangers of a runaway convention.
From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9
The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1) and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. (2) They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3) and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order(4) and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)
Citations:
(1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v. Fredericks; 11 So. 472
(2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v. Hill; 14 N.W. 738
(3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v. Jackson; 6 W. Va. 613
(4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v. Autry; 91 p. 193
(5) Texas (1912) Cox v. Robison; 150 S.W. 1149
The history of the 1787 Constitutional Convention also indicates that, once a Con-Con is convened, the delegates to that convention could expand the agenda beyond its original purposes, dictate their own rules for the ratification of proposals, and therefore circumvent the fairly strict requirements of Article V. In 1787, before the Constitution was ratified and while a few state officials were still uneasy about certain parts of it, there began a movement to reopen the convention. JAMES MADISON, the prime motivator of the first convention, was horrified by the mere suggestion of reconvening. In a letter to George Turberville, he said:
"Under these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second".
So should we all tremble for the result of a second.
I have read with interest the comments above and will reply to each in turn. Most of these individuals have posted these identical arguments on other sites. They were refuted before and will be again here. It is interesting that so few people are making these comments anymore. Perhaps the facts presented by FOAVC along with the fact criminal actions by the government are involved may have persuaded all but a few, such as the above, that obedience to the Constitution and resolving any issues in doing so clearly trumps any objection to the contrary especially when the alternative proposed by those who raise such objection is to continue to allow government criminal action and disobedience of the Constitution, clearly a very disloyal American position. Those considering voting for the above candidate should, I think, carefully consider that the position of this candidate is to disobey the law.
Let us first address Fire Eater. Please notice that except for one person of the above, there is no citations, references or texts of material by any of these people. Unlike FOAVC which has set the gold standard in this regard with literally hundreds if not thousands of pages of documentation, these small critics harp fear without a shread of proof. Gentlemen, you should know that even the John Birch Society, of which I suspect you are either members outright or share sympathy with, has begun backing down from its position. I have email from the president of that organization John McMannus just received within the last few days, indicating that when pressed to prove their assertions, they lack documentation. I have not published this email as of yet because Mr. Mannus is currently conducting research on his position and I am willing to allow time for this to occur.
To Mr. Fire Eater. The convention call is peremptory meaning it must occur. You talk of safety, suggesting that a convention is unsafe because of the composition of the members of congress and the general political makeup of officials today. Are we then to imply those that have committed criminal acts as officials are safe? Apparently you believe so for there is complaint by any of these people as to the criminal actions of the members of Congress which they have admitted. To you, such actions are safe. Such actions are permissible.
You list a set of principles you live by. I will comment on whether I personally agree or disagree with you on these. But what I do see is someone who himself does not believe not in his government officials, but his form of government. You make the mistake that an Article V Convention would be comprised of those currently in power. This is incorrect. The language of the Constitution makes it plain that no one in power could be a delegate to a convention. They would have to surrender their office by resignation before becoming or even seeking the office of delegate. Further, as the issue of criminal action would clearly be discussed, it is unlikely, given that very few individuals who have run for office with a history of criminal activitity in office are elected to office, that these individuals would be elected.
To Mr. Dance: You have made a mistake in history. There has never been an Article V Convention. You forget that the 1787 Convention was authorized under the Articles of Confederation not the Constitution. The language of the Articles of Confederation is considerably different from that of Article V. Primarily, the Articles ALLOWED for \"alteration\" of the Articles of Confederation meaning they could in fact be completely changed. The Constitution does not. It only allows for amendments meaning the original document must remain.
Now there have been over 500 conventions held in this nation at the state level and in countless countries around the world since 1787. None of them have ever done anything you discuss. You mention repealing the Second and Fourth Amendments. I challenge to produce one shred of written evidence showing support for this by anyone. I challenge you to show one application by the states and there are 600 plus of them where these are discussed. There is not one application to repeal ANY part of the Bill of Rights meaning at the minimum even if a convention were to support such an amendement proposal, its chance of ratification would be nill meaning it would not happen. Yet you mention a fear which you yourself say will not happen and then justify vetoing the Constitution based on issue you yourself admit cannot happen. Such illogical fear is ridiculous and it is time you and your cohorts either became loyal Americans and began proving your points with actual documention as FOAVC has or at least begin making positive proposals to solve the issues you have advanced as any loyal American would do.
To Patrick Henry: While I cannot agree with everything Mr. Henry has written it is clear of all those making comments, he understands the concept of Article V and as he states, supports it. We appreciate his support. By the way, for his information, the 17th Amendment would be on the table at a convention because it was never addressed in a convention and, if one reads the applications, which are on our website, you will see the states not only wanted direct election of senators but the president and vice president as well. Thus an amendment written by the Congress and by a convention would not be the same. Hence, the convention may choose to revisit the issue in the light of the fact Congress did not fully address what was asked. In ad
To USAF Vet Dan: We have met before on other sites. He has presented these same arguments before. Now I will give him credit that unlike the other opponents he does at least attempt to provide citations of his point of view. However, I would point out that all of his citations are state rulings and that while Corpus Jurus may be correct as to a constitutional convention, an Article V Convention is simply not a constitutional convention. It is by direct, obvious and clear language, which has been affirmed by at least FOUR federal supreme court rulings, a limited convention. It can only propose amendments to the Constitution. It is not empowered to write a new Constitution. It cannot control or issue commands to anyone. It cannot legislate, make judicial or even executive rulings. In short, it is as powerless as it can get because its proposals can be rejected entirely by a very small minority of people in this state.
Now let us address the little trap he presents in the words \"expand the agenda beyond its original purposes,\". The obvious fact is the convention\'s agenda will be set in part by the some 600 applications from all 50 states, by the delegates themselves and by requests of citizens. Then these delegates will process, debate, vote and ultimately decide on these submissions. That is its agenda and that is what it will do. As to dictating rules for ratification, I suggest that such actions already have been taken by Congress in setting time limit for ratification. A convention may or may not do so but to blame a convention for something Congress began is clearly misdirected at best.
Now to history reference. The letter Mr. Madison wrote referred to the attempt by opponents to the original Constitution who wanted to have a second convention to work on points they objected to BEFORE the original proposed Constitution was ratified by the states, in sum, defeat the Constitution. He was referring not using Article V, which he supported in several letters, but to the idea of holding a second convention in order to prevent the Constitution. Instead he favored and later authored amendments to the current Constitution called the Bill of Rights which is what most of the objections were about. In short, Article V was used to address concerns and, just for the record, the rest of the Constitution remained intact.
I appreciate all of these citizens have concerns about an Article V Convention. What they lack however is a loyal American attitude to solve the issues they themselves raise. Not one of them who has objected to the issues of Article V have proposed a single solution to the issue. Rather than support our form of government, these people, which includes a candidate to congressional office who apprently has no issue with vetoing the Constitution thus committing a crime should he be elected, instead advocate overthrow that Constitution.
Frankly, I am disappointed with these citizens and thier questionable patriotism. Loyal Americans may disagree with the Constitution but they realize they have the power to change it and and and duty and obligation to solve any issues that may arise in regards to carrying out its mandates. Americans who are not as loyal or not loyal at all simply use the protection of the Constitution while working to tear it down by suggesting or advocating it be vetoed. Thus they join the government itself in its belief that the Constitution should be disobeyed. I find it interesting the opponents to this always cite \"limited government\" as a reason not to hold a convention then advocate, by implication, a totally unlimited government not even limited by the Constitution which they obviously do not support.
________________________ Jahfre Fire Eater wrote: To be specific in my concern, I'm not sure opening a convention is a good idea. ________________________
Doesn't matter. It is the law. After all, above, you wrote . . . ________________________ Jahfre Fire Eater wrote: So long as this environment exists I would expect the outcome of and Article V convention to be a very bad thing for the principles I live by: 1. The Rule of Law ________________________
Otherwise, what you really live by is SELECTIVE Rule of Law. If the states can not propose amendments as authorized by Article V, then Congress controls the Constitution. Forget the likelihood of ever getting the most requested amendments such as Term-Limits, Balanced Budget, etc. ________________________ Jahfre Fire Eater wrote: I do not see anyone in the government or in any positions of power and influence who I would trust to defend these principles during a modernization of our Constitution. ________________________ I won't argue the level of corruption, irresponsibility, and incompetence in Congress. But the voters are culpable too. What do the voters expect when they give Congress 9% approval ratings (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance), but repeatedly reward Congress with 85-to-90% re-election rates (http://One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm)? Besides, you appear to be forgetting that it requires 3/4 of the states to ratify any proposed amendment.
________________________ George Dance wrote: My biggest worry about a convention is that Article V sets no limits on what amendments can be entertained: just as with the original Convention, anything can be done including throwing out the entire document and starting over. While I don't expect that to happen, I do have serious doubts about the entire Bill of Rights (the Second and Fourth amendments in particular) making it through undamaged. ________________________ That fear is not justified, because it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendment.
States are not likely to hand over more power for Congress to abuse.
____________________ Patrick Henry wrote: Unless the 17th ammend is overturned then an art 5 convention would never work in our favor, but onlu further enslave us to this congress. ____________________ I'm not sure I follow, since senators don't ratify the amendments proposed at an Article V Convention (the states do).
However, I agree that the Constitution doesn't need vast changes. But there are a few very important changes needed, and Congress is violating their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution by blatantly ignoring these 607+ Article V applications (http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm) by all 50 states.
___________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: What would changing our Constitution do to stave off a socialist oligarchy? ___________________ Perhaps we would not have a $9.6 Trillion National Debt, and $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, had the states been allowed the opportunity to pass a BALANCED BUDGET amendment (one of the most requested amendments)?
___________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: The problem isn't with the content of the Constitution, it is that it is ignored by the "politicians" who, in doing so, violate their oath of office. ___________________ I agree 100%. The voters are culpable too for rewarding incumbent politicians for it with 85%-to-90% re-election rates (http://One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm).
___________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Furthermore, there are dangers of a runaway convention. ___________________ False. It requires 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendment, and there is no historic evidence of a runaway convention. States have over 500 Constitutional Conventions and they were not runaway conventions. In recent years, Constitutional Conventions have been held in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
___________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: The history of the 1787 Constitutional Convention also indicates that, once a Con-Con is convened, the delegates to that convention could expand the agenda beyond its original purposes, dictate their own rules for the ratification of proposals . . . ___________________ False. The 1787 Constitutional Convention was not under the rules of an Article V Convention, and a runaway convention did not occur.
___________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: So should we all tremble for the result of a second. ___________________ So, we should allow the violation of Article V of the U.S. Constitution?
What we should fear are those that willingly and knowingly choose to promote the violation of the U.S. Constitution. What we should fear are those that promote more SELECTIVE enforcement of the U.S. Constitution.
Congress is blatantly violating Article V and has been for over a century. They have gotten away with it for a long time by hiding the hundreds of applications in dusty volumes in a myriad of printed Congressional Records. But that negligence will not go unnoticed any longer, now that FOAVC (http://FOAVC.ORG) has uncovered 607+ Article V applications (http://FOAVC.ORG/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm); far in excess of the number required. Several of the applications in the Congressional Records even admit that Congress has failed to call an Article V Convention on many occassions (as far back as 1907, and perhaps earlier).
Lastly, I do not think Article V is the cure-all to what ails America.
The nation has many serious problems (http://One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressToDoLis.htm) that are growing in number and severity, seriously threatening the future and security of the nation. The real problem is more basic. (1) The government is too corrupt, irresponsible, and incompetent. (2) The voters are too complacent, apathetic, blindly partisan, blindly loyal to THEIR party, irrationally fearful and hateful, ignorant, and lazy.
The problem is NOT only politicians, but the majority of voters that repeatedly re-elect incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
