Michael started a great discussion that has gotten pretty far off topic in the comments. This article is an attempt to refocus the discussion onto the motives behind those who advocate giving the enemies of liberty the power to rewrite our Constitution. by Jahfre Fire Eater
(libertarian)
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
This is a great discussion between those who are suspicious of the trend toward liberalism that has been going on for over 200 years and those who advocate the elimination of our Constitutional Republic in favor of a more Federalist or Monarchist Constitution. This article examines which ideology stands to benefit more from an Article V Convention.
First though, some level-setting; it has come to my attention that there are some readers who have a hard time following a conversation unless precise academic terminology is used rather than common vernacular. Sadly, this causes them to go off on a tangent with attacks based on ignorant assumptions about people they do not know. I know our institutionalized academic mills train people to think this way - narrowly - which is a great case for why these people should, and often do tend to stay in academia. The real world confuses them and distracts them from the core of any debate into those irrelevant tangents. In an attempt to help these readers be less distracted I'll only reference the event in question as an Article V Convention. Gaah, no wonder there is disagreement about the likely outcome of said convention when this kind of distraction must be countered at such early stages in the general debate. Unfortunately, the enemies of liberty tend to pursue tangents unless they can be held accountable to the core topic. Dealing with such intellectual nonsense is just another part of the struggle for the defense of individual liberty.
Why is the Article V Convention part of the law of the land? Simple, it was a necessary compromise. The supporters of Federalism and Monarchy would not accept the Constitution without this hope that their views would one day hold sway and the Constitution could be "corrected" to support their anti-Republican preference. They were not satisfied with the Article V Amendment process because it doesn't allow for sweeping change of direction away from a Constitutional Republic and the rights of the people guaranteed therein. The inclusion of the Article V Convention was necessary to stop endless attempts to amend the proposed Constitution prior to its being ratified. This compromise allowed the proposal to proceed towards ratification and has since never been exercised.
For Federalists and Monarchists - today's Democrats - now is the best time for their cause in the history of the Constitution as evidenced by the >98% turnout for the enemies of liberty. Today the Hamiltonians are definitely the top ideological dogs in the minds of the mush-brained masses. In Federalist 85, Hamilton rested his case allegedly for the Constitutional Republic but actually only for ratification with intent to later amend or re-write the proposed Constitution on his belief that, "We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." I doubt Hamilton either wanted or expected these barriers to be erected by state legislatures. Instead, he used the same tactics proponents of the Article V Convention use today to mislead people into thinking they are protected and that a happy, liberty-centric result is likely.
At a time when >98% of the electorate has just voted to uphold the status quo regarding our political parties, our money, our military, our government expansion and our global empire, it would take more than an emotional plea from a few fervent proponents to make a convincing case FOR an Article V Convention being a good thing in the struggle for the defense of individual liberty. So far there has not been such a case made by anyone in this forum; only emotional pleading and attacks.
I wonder what sorts of folks those pleas are coming from? Are they folks who think the opponents of liberty will simply lay down in th eface of their passionate minority and abandon the centuries-old pursuit of collectivism and federal power or are they folks who actually WANT individual liberty to be eliminated but use nefarious illogic ala Hamilton to get people to abandon their individual defense of liberty? Who are the people who would their future constitution entrusted to the current state legislatures?
Convoking this convention obviously provides an opportunity for the passionate amendment advocates to codify their collectivism into our Constitution as well as an opportunity for Republicans to reassert state's rights and individual rights. Given the current trends in public ideology as evidenced by the recent election an Article V Convention must be recognized as a strategy favoring the enemies of individual liberty. I'm not arguing against the likelihood or validity of an Article V Convention, constitutionally. I think it very likely one will eventually occur. I simply believe that the results will tend to redefine individuals as property of The State and to make states, thus state's rights, a thing of the past.
A much more likely outcome is for the geographical US to be splintered, ideologically, while the deep blue urban areas band together to form a single national entity. The lethal question is will the collectivist urban areas use force to subdue the advocates of Republicanism and individual liberty? How much? History shows that Democrats disdain opposition and ideological debate; they will go to great lengths to eliminate the competition executively, legislatively or judicially. Their ends justify their means. Will they kill the rest of us after the Article V Convention? No one knows, but given the documented history of this ideological split and how much Democrats fear intellectual opposition, and how they have escalated every conflict they have ever faced, only a person born yesterday would discount the possibility.
So far, no Article V Convention advocate has touched on the single most important tool the opponents of liberty can wield, COMPROMISE. It has been their primary foot-in-the-door tactic since before the USA existed in law. Once the Constitution is rent asunder the only way to come through with our nation intact is compromise. This is the unknown that the blind-faithful refuse to address because doing so is incompatible with their passion and could reveal their underlying motives in an unflattering light.
The most important unanswered question, for me, is: "What are the motives of those who would encourage the mush-brained masses to give over to the elite powers-that-be the authority to re-write the US Constitution?" I can't accept that they are all blindly optimistic in the face of the obviously unknown outcome. Therefore, they must have other motives. I challenge any advocate of the Article V Convention to make a coherent case for such an event that is not based on blind-faith and ad hominem attacks. The kind of bluster and smear debate style typical of the Huffington Post doesn't fly here at NolanChart.com when trying to convince folks to blindly trust a well-marketed fiction.
So far there have been none who took up this objective, to make a valid case for their optimistic enthusiasm, on their own volition in their comments in other articles on the topic. Will any answer my direct challenge? Put your case out there. Let's see how it burns.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jahfre Fire Eater only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jahfre Fire Eater 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: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2008-12-25 09:42:39
The central reason and justification for providing the Article V convention option was the Founders' concerns about the future failure of the federal government. The convention was a kind of escape clause or safety valve, giving citizens a way to correct and improve the Constitution if and when they felt the federal government had failed them. Every constitution must have the means to amend it; ours has been amended and mostly for very good reasons that produced improvements in it. It is sheer stupidity to believe that no more improvements can and should be made. I implore readers to go to www.foavc.org to learn the truth about the Article V convention option and why Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and their oath of office.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2008-12-25 12:51:10
Answer: The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is an open-ended constitutional convention that case by case re-writes our Constitution. My optimistic enthusiasm for the Article V Convention burns alongside the current crew of justices beholden to corporate interests.
I found your understanding of Federalist 85 and why the convention clause is part of our high law to be fascinating. I've been advocating for the Article V Convention for some time, and have never seen such an understanding.
Here is another understanding: America was originally thirteen colonies. The British had us under their thumb, we organized, and with help, threw off a long train of abuses to secure freedom (the Treaty of Paris 1783 transferred sovereign power from a European monarchy to the people of the colonies, and in turn remaking them into states).
For a short time the Articles of Confederation kept us and our new freedoms intact. Then certain citizens thought revisions were needed, and Alexander Hamilton led a group that went state to state with the idea it was time to call a convention. Most everyone agreed, and delegates convened in Philadelphia. After the first few hours they realized they were split in two: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists wanted a centralized government. Anti-Federalists were like, "We just got free from the British! A new centralized government?! It’s just a matter of time before money corrupts! And then what?! Another war for independence?!" Some representatives who had shown up turned heel right then and there, hollering at the top of their lungs evil was afoot.
After it was drafted, the Federalists had to sell this new constitution to the thirteen states because nothing had been ratified. The final rebuttal to Anti-Federalists, who thought it was a mistake to place all that power into three branches, was Federalist 85. Hamilton wrote it. He said, Look, if Congress becomes so corrupt it's no longer expressing the will of the people--if corruption ever becomes institutionalized--the states can convene to purge it.
The clause, upon satisfaction of numeric count, is peremptory, done without debate, and no Congress, Executive, Court, or private citizen can say Boo about it. The convention clause is a legal principle outside the grasp of any citizens alive at any one time--that we consent to governance, and when things run afoul we can amend. That was the final rebuttal to the Anti-Federalists, and why we ratified the Constitution and became the USA.
Now fast forward to the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s, when talk of a convention went around. It was viewed as a huge monstrosity. Americans have been conditioned like Pavlov's Dog to fear it like it some kind of Pandora's Box. But what politicians and Anti-Conventionists fail to mention is the ratification process. The ratification process--another constitutional principle--requires seventy-five percent of the country to agree before anything becomes new law. The Founders knew to get three-quarters of everyone to agree is difficult. Regardless of whether the idea is liberal or conservative, it must be popular enough to get the approval of one entire group, plus at least half of the other--75% sanctifies the popular will.
To fear a convention, is to fear open discussion, the very thing which must happen for any hope of survival. The Founders knew then what we know now, that corruption is dynamic, which is why the legal mechanism of the convention clause was placed in our Constitution. To check it should its ebb and flow distort governance for the common good.
Imagine this--Congress issues the call to the states with a date to convene (likely one year hence). The states hold special elections for delegates, and before long we'd get human interest stories of who these convention delegates are, and what they wanted to propose. They'd fly to the Capitol and the gavel would fall, calling the convention to order. We'd watch the delegates propose ideas--the good/bad/ugly--and in the process witness modern-day Jeffersons and Madisons emerge. They'd be on the news and late-night TV shows just like senators today.
After all the ideas are proposed, the gavel would fall again, end the convention, and everyone would go home. Then we'd start getting reports about which states had approved which ideas, and as soon as any one of them reached the thirty-eight-state threshold--Boom--ratification.
Whenever you debate an Anti-Conventionist, and they give the same invalid reasons---that the whole Constitution can be torn up, or that the current applications are somehow void or expired--ask them why it’s there? Why is the provision for a convention in our Constitution in the first place? Because some delegate might come up with a better idea than a Senator or Speaker of the House? Like taking private money out of public campaigns?
A simple reading of the applications directly deals with your question which is basically, "why should we have a convention?" I challenge your premise that elite powers will automatically assume control of a convention.
Let's put aside for this discussion the fact that the Constitution says we must have a convention. The consequences of establishing that the government can by whatever means, simply ignore a provision of the Constitution is so obvious and so devestating to our way of life, little more need be said. If anyone fears what a convention might do, consider carefully what the government already has done when discussing violations of the Constitution. I'm reminded of the story of the farmer hiding in his farm house to avoid the wolf which neighbors said was miles away so he sought refuge next to a very hungry bear which had come in through the back door.
The fact is that overall the states have a different political vision of this nation than does the federal government and whether we realize it or not, that vision is what everyone says they want. They are seeking a government which is responsive to their needs. The current national government can hardly be described as doing that. They want a smaller, more efficent government which concentrates not on political power, but effective results. In sum, people want to be able to refer to the government as "our" government again, not "the" government.
Politically what a convention does is present the opportunity for the people to create for themselves a new set of tools that they can then use to bring about the changes they want, require and need. I've mentioned the idea of a national initiative, referendum and recall. The effect of that amendment alone on the pompous, self-serving members of government, including the elites, is obvious.
The point is, a convention, from a political point of view allows us to take a fresh approach to government and, if there is any question of its ability to change things, then consider the fear it generates. I'm not now talking about the pseudo-fear from the extreme right generated by one extremist group, the John Birch Society who, for their own political motives, decided to oppose a political issue, a balanced budget amendment, by attacking the Constitution but they knew they could not win the political debate.
I am now referring to the fear of the political elite establishment in Washington D.C. I am, for now, the only American who can truly talk about that fear because I'm the only one, thus far, who has truly witnessed. it in action. It won't remain that way, but right now I am alone.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. As anyone who has visited the FOAVC website knows, I am the first person to file federal lawsuits directly dealing with calling an Article V Convention. I filed Walker v United States in 2000 and Walker v Members of Congress in 2004. The latter went to the Supreme Court. The government admitted it had to call, the call was numeric and not to do so was a criminal offense.
Okay fine, everybody has read that from my postings on the net a thousand times already. Heard the story been there, done that. But what most don't hear about because I don't as frequently tell about it, is what kind of reaction I received when I filed. Who I dealt with and what their reactions were.
I always had the top level attorneys from the government in my lawsuit, a privilege usually reserved for only the most important lawsuits. I dealt directly with the U.S. Attorney General's office in 2000. When I sent a letter to the Supreme Court of the United States about the effect of my court decision, I received a reply from the attorney representing the Supreme Court justices. You can read the letter in my amicus brief that I filed between the two other lawsuits. Point of the story is this: six months later I called that same attorney. I said my name. That's all. I didn't identify myself in another way and you could tell by the tone in his voice he knew exactly who I was and what I represented and I can tell he was afraid.
When I called members of Congress who don't even represent me, they knew my name, when I was involved in my lawsuits and I got instant reaction and recognition. In short, I could tell by the voices, the reaction, that what I was doing struck fear in them.
In short, the elites of Washington were scared stiff of the idea that I might suceed in my lawsuits. Now why is that? Certainly not because I am some powerful political figure. No, I am not now nor was then. They realized I represented change that they could not resist or ignore. If you try to speak to them or write to them today about an Article V Convention I will tell you what you will get from Congress---silence. They won't even reply or if they do, it will total avoidance of any question you pose. If you doubt me, we have posted letters from members of Congress on our site you can read. All are basically the same.
And if there are any further doubts of the power of a convention consider my Supreme Court lawsuit. My opponent was the top legal representative in the government outside of the Attorney General and I have direct evidence from the department of justice that the attorney general directed the case himself. The Solicitor General of the United States admitted that his clients, all the members of Congress, were criminals for the public record and before the Supreme Court. Why? Because if he had said anything else he could have faced criminal charges. I've never heard of a defense attorney ever admitting his clients were guilty of a crime under any circumstances. But they had no choice because like or not, they still realize they are not more powerful than the Constitution or an American who insists that document be obeyed. And that is what I represented--obedience, and that means control, not by the government but of the government by the people. And that scared them most of all.
Don't think for a moment think that a convention would not have an effect on Washington D.C. Just the convention meeting would cause massive changes in our government as the political elites moved, not to control, but to avoid a convention and its effects. Remember the lesson the first set of applications which led to the 17th Amendment. Congress, rather than give up its political power of amendment and thus control of the Constitution to anyone but themselves, instead threw the entire system of political porkbarrel for members of the senate under the bus. In short the very real threat of a convention was sufficent to force the changes needed at that time. But now the problem has grown so large only a fully functional convention can deal with them. Indirect democracy exercised by application will no longer do the job.
We need change. The government won't give it to us. Either we get the changes we need, and remarkably if you read the applications, what we need is what has been proposed by the states, or we will stagnate as a nation. Our form of government is nearing 250 years. True, much of the Constitution is ageless. But much of it is showing its age.
We were created as a nation under the assumption of indirect democracy and for the first 150 years or so it worked well. Not any more. For reasons too many to go into here, the assumption that all we need do is elect someone and he will carry out our wishes no longer works. Partly because there a bunch of "we" instead of a single "we" that elect someone and they don't all agree.
So, what do we need? Directed democracy. A system whereby the people to the degree they choose, can direct the operations of government between elections. This may include not only elected members but members of the beauracracy and even review of judicial rulings. We need to assume more control of a government that is clearly out of control. To do that requires a new set of tools as I said and these can only be created by amendment and only by a convention because to expect them to be created by the government would be the same as expecting an alcoholic to guard the liquor cabinet and not break in.
I trust I've provided you an answer to your question which I will sum up as, "we need change and only a convention can provide the means whereby we can get it." And unlike many I have complete faith in the American people. I believe in them. I know they can deal with and handle the problems, if any, of a convention. I know they will elected good people as delegates and that, when faced with the actual reality of a convention and enormous responsiblity that entails, they will put the good of the nation before any petty, short term political motivations. Americans are a good people and we have no reason to be fearful of our form of government or ourselves. We have every reason to be proud of our achivements and ourselves. Together, we can solve any problem. Together we can transform this nation from that of a nation of problems into a land of solution. That I firmly believe or I would not have started this so many years ago.
Everything depends on who is doing the voting. If men like Jefferson and Madison were the delegates then we could rest easy. Our constitution would be in good hands. But there aren't many men like that around today. The Democrats are mostly anti-gun socialists. And the Republicans are neo-con war mongers. How would you feel about having delegations composed of men like Marx and Hitler?
27 of the state legislatures are completely controlled by Democrats. 6 are split. 16 are Republican (Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature .) That might give some idea of where the convention would be headed. I would bet my bottom dollar that one of the proposed amendments would be; " The 2nd amendment is hereby repealed". NO THANKS!
DAVID S: YOU ARE THE TYPE OF PERSON WHO IS A SWIMMER, BUT IS AFRAID TO STICK HIS FOOT IN THE WATER FOR FEAR OF GETTING IT WET.....
SIMPLY, YOU FEAR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN. I AM A MEMBER OF THE FOAVC.( FRIEND OF AN ARTICLE COMVENTION) THERE ISNT ANY TALK OF THAT PARTICULAR ARTICLE, BUT IF ANYONE WHO WANTS TO, WILL BE VOTED AGAINST FIERCLY,INCLUDING ME, AN EX SHERIFF...I'M KEEPING MY 2 GUNS
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT MAJORITY RULES IN THE VOTING OF (ONLY) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS....THIS CONVENTION WILL MEET TO VOTE ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS...THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE RATIFIED, SO JUMP IN THE WATER SWIMMER, AND WHEN YOU COME OUT, WIPE OFF, AND GO TO WWW.FOAVC.ORG. AND READ ALL ABOUT WHY AN ART. V CONV. IS NEEDED....THEN YOU WILL SEE WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS AGAINST THOSE IN POWER WHO WANT TO MAKE US (THEIR EMPLOYERS) THEIR PERSONAL "SLAVES".
THE OTHER SIDE ARE THE ONES YOU MUST FEAR,AS WE DO...THOSE ALREADY IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESSES. THEY HAVE GONE WILD, AND AN ART. V CONVENTION IS THE BIGGEST TOOL WE HAVE, WITH OUR VOTES AS A SMALLER WAY, OF TRYING TO REGAIN OUR COUNTRY FROM THOSE MONEY HUNGRY ,GREEDY, POWER MONGERS.
READ THE FOAVC.ORG. AND YOU WILL PROBABLY WANT TO JOIN....WELCOME....
JER yes I like swimming but that does not mean I want to jump into a gator infested swamp. Please tell me what you think would come about as a result of the AVC. What amendments would be added? What sections of the current constitution would be deleted or changed? How would any of it make government officials more inclined to uphold their oath to support the constitution?
The AVC swimming hole should have a sign saying; "swim at your own risk."
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-12-31 09:44:02
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the call for an AVC based upon a specific topic? For example an AVC for the 17th Ammend ( Ipersonally thikn this is the place we should start). I understand and agree with both camps on the part of human nature. I truly beleive that both camps will be represented as they were in the 2nd CC.
However, the Constitution is a document that takes all those forces of human nature into account.
I don't believe that if we called an AVC for say the 17th Ammend only then they would be able to repeal the 2nd.
I do agree with the comment of why is the Art V even mentioned in the Constitution. IMHO it is the founders way of protecting We the People before we have to rely on the 2nd Ammend. If we do not use the tools set up for us to challenge a tyrannical governmnet then how is it we can say we are supporting the Constitution within itself. This is the means the Founders gave us! Why arent we embracing the vehicl for change if we want change.
Now I will staunchly disagree that we need direct democracy, look at what doing away with the anti-democratic camerit Senate. The founders warned us time and again of the dangers of Democracy.
What we need is a return to States Soveriegnty. I too can envision a sectional group of Republics on North America. But I do not think that this is to be feared but embraced.
I do not think that rewriting the Constitution is the issue nor the means for fear. How about we insist that the General Government follow the contract?
None of this will happen without educating and enraging the masses towards true change, but as long as the media tells the masses that the solution is infact the problem and no visa versa.
Our coming economic collapse will make the masses uncomfortable enough to want real change. We must be in a position to steer the masses towards Liberty and self reliance. This has to happen at the State level. Over the last month I have heard more and more people talk of secession, and the more I think of it, the more I think that might be our last recourse, yet we will have to rely on the 2nd to protect ourselves AGAIN from our government.
We are facing a conundrum that will rely upon the spirit of free men and woman to solve. If our numbers are small, cowardly or weak, freedom will perish from this earth.
Are you really willing to fight for it? I mean really? Ask yourselves are you willing to face the machine and dance with the elephant? If you are then do nothing, for it will come to this. If you really want to save the COnstitution and the Liberty that it grants all of us then we must defend that document with eternal and indefatigable vigilance. Talking amongst ourselves is a great way to talk about the pros and cons, yet we all agree something needs to change, but something more than talking needs to happen. We must insist that our elected officials follow the Constitution. How to do this should be the topic of discussion, plans made and the EXECUTED. Enough talking, the time for action is upon us.
If we are not strong enough today, sir, then when will we be? Will we be saddled by tyranny and oppression or will we demand the Natural Rights of Man and an obediance to the Law of the Land. Will we wake up destitute and enslaved on a continent that our forefathers conquered for us under the perverstion of a government they created for us?
The time to act is now. If you really think an AVC is not the answer, then what do you propose, the anti-conventionist have spoken as to what not to do, now give us your suggestions.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains? Forid it not Almighty God. I know not what course others may take. But as for me, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"- P. Henry
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.
