A Question of Accuracy--Shall the John Birch Society Decide The Constitution?
This article discusses questionable references used by the John Birch Society in its opposition to an Article V Convention by Bill Walker
(libertarian)
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Recently Mr. Tom Deweese of the American Policy Center led an effort to prevent the state of Ohio and its citizens from exercising their constitutional right to apply for an Article V Convention. Based on comments Mr. Deweese has made, it is clear he is quite proud of the fact he has denied the right of alter or abolish to the citizens of Ohio. Mr. Deweese has stated in numerous articles he believes an Article V Convention could overthrow everything Americans hold dear in this country by rewriting the entire Constitution if it so desires. He describes a convention that will set out to destroy every civil right Americans enjoy, remove constitutional amendments by fiat and be controlled by powerful forces in Congress. In short, Mr. Deweese describes a situation so terrible, so unthinkable, and so frightening that only mad men would use it. This is exactly his purpose.
The only problem with his prophecy of constitutional Armageddon is Mr. Deweese, whose sympathies clearly align with the John Birch Society, provides no evidence of his claims. Yet, Mr. Deweese, on his say-so alone, apparently expects us to abandon the Constitution and its form of government (which includes an amendment convention) and follow him down whatever path he plans for this nation. He does not say what that plan is, but it certainly does not involve obeying the Constitution as it is written. Thus, Mr. Deweese advocates the very same thing he says a convention will do.
Take for example his recent tirade in his January 17, 2009 column entitled "Preserving the Constitution; The Battle To Stop The Constitutional Convention." . This column is a typical attack ad on the Article V Convention—long on accusations, short on proof. On December 24, 2008 in his own American Policy Center blog Sledgehammer, Mr. Deweese wrote, "Thirty-two (32) other states have already called for a Con Con (allegedly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution). 34 states are all that is required, and then Congress MUST convene a Convention. The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a Convention. If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction." [Emphasis in the original].
Total destruction. That is pretty heavy. Mr. Deweese is saying if 34 states apply for an Article V Convention, it will destroy the entire United States. Mr. Deweese says, "34 states are all that is required, and then Congress MUST convene a Convention." He also says in his January 17, 2009 column, "Today, we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Do you trust them to produce a document [referring to the present Constitution] of such magnitude? ... They [Pelosi and Reid] are itching to get their hands on the old parchment."
However, the facts about Congress’ desire to call an Article V Convention instead raise an entirely different question. If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are "itching" to get their hands on the old parchment, what are they waiting for? Mr. Deweese fails to mention the fact that all 50 states have submitted over 650 applications for an Article V Convention and continue apply for a convention to this day. We have the texts of these applications to prove our statement available for anyone wishing to read them at our website (www.foavc.org/). We have photographic copies taken from the Congressional Record of the texts of the applications by the states showing where the states themselves have demanded Congress call a convention because the proper number of states has applied for a convention. In short, based on these facts alone, if Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid were "itching" to get their hands on the old parchment, all they have to do is issue a convention call. The states have applied. The facts however show a convention call is the last thing either politician (or anyone else in Congress for that matter) wants to do. (And for the record not one of the applications request removal of any right currently enjoyed by Americans. Indeed, the evidence shows the states wish to increase the rights of Americans.)
Thus, the public record of the applications defeats Mr. Deweese’s main argument—that we are only two states away from a convention. The public record shows Congress is no more disposed to obey the Constitution than he accuses a convention will be. But what gives Congress to right to disobey the Constitution? This action of congressional disobedience is a clear and present danger. However, Mr. Deweese appears to have no problem with Congress running constitutionally amok vetoing clauses as it pleases. Instead, he focuses on what a convention might consider in its agenda saying, "the subject matter cannot be controlled and we have no guarantee that we can win state ratification fights if changes to the Constitution are offered."
News flash Mr. Deweese. The same exact arguments hold true if Congress proposes an amendment to the Constitution. The states have no say as to what language Congress might propose in an amendment and no vote is ever guaranteed until it is taken. But as he expresses no doubts regarding a congressional proposal, it appears Mr. Deweese places all his faith in Congress meaning he believes Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will do right by us if they propose an amendment in Congress, but, if Harry and Nancy decide to call a convention suddenly all the terrors of the universe will descend upon us...controlled by Harry and Nancy of course. Now if you can figure out that schizophrenic logic, please let me know.
How do I know Harry and Nancy do not want to call a convention? Because in 2006 their attorney of record, the Solicitor General of the United States acting in his official capacity acknowledged before the Supreme Court of the United States that a convention call was based on a simple numeric count of states (which Mr. Deweese himself admits), that there were no other terms or conditions regarding the call, that the call was peremptory (a legal term meaning Congress must call—which Mr. Deweese also admits), and to refuse to call was a federal criminal offense by the members of Congress. In short, Nancy and Harry would rather go to jail than call a convention. So much for the idea, they are "itching" to call an Article V Convention. Two federal lawsuits have been filed concerning Congress’ refusal to obey the Constitution. In both cases, the government opposed Congress obeying Article V. Thus, their opposition is a matter of public record. All details of the lawsuits can be read on our site.
Mr. Deweese tries to raise the specter of convention delegates being controlled or selected by Congress. There is no legislative authority granted in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution giving Congress such authority. Further, in 1798, the Supreme Court put any such notion out of the ballpark. In Hollingsworth v Virginia, 3 U.S. 378 (1798) the court said, "And the case of amendments is evidently a substantive act, unconnected with the ordinary business of legislation, and not within the policy, or terms, of investing the President with a qualified negative on the acts and resolutions of Congress." [Emphasis added] The court then continued, "The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution."
Any control of a convention would be in the form of legislation enacted by Congress aimed at regulating the proposition of amendments by a convention, thus making the convention a rubber stamp controlled by Congress. The Constitution demands all legislation proposed by Congress be presented to the president (for possible veto) before it can become law. As legislation as discussed deals with the proposition of amendments in that such legislation would control how and what a convention would propose, the Supreme Court makes it clear the president cannot participate. If the president cannot participate, Congress cannot propose legislation to control a convention because it cannot be constitutionally enacted as law. To do otherwise allows the president (via the use of his veto) exclusive control of the entire amendatory process of the Constitution, i.e., a dictatorship. This is why the court in 1798 removed the president from the amendatory process. In doing so the court separated legislative control by Congress from amendatory proposal meaning the two are separate constitutional powers. This also explains why amendatory proposal has such high standards of ratification (3/4th of the states) as well as 2/3rds proposal by either convention or Congress; to ensure any amendment has been well vetted before becoming part of our Constitution.
Mr. Deweese also fails to mention another fact. Any amendment that is ratified can be rescinded, as was the case of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution by the 21st Amendment. Thus, we have a safety valve built in the Constitution even if an amendment is ratified that is not, in the end, to our advantage.
As to electing delegates, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in Hawke v Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920) when it said, "conventions call for action by deliberative assemblages representative of the people, which it was assumed would voice the will of the people." In other words, the court has said that conventions must be composed of delegates elected by the people. Given that the 21st Amendment was ratified by state conventions consisting of delegates elected by the people, this is an indisputable fact.
Mr. Deweese would have everyone believe there are no laws or court rulings to control a convention. I respectfully disagree. Anyone wishing to discover how much law actually applies to a convention should read the first legal brief filed in 2000 regarding an Article V Convention. In sum there are over 208 Supreme Court decisions addressing every aspect, every issue, every problem Mr. Deweese raises. Does Mr. Deweese refer to these Supreme Court rulings and refute them? No, he simply chooses to ignore them.
Mr. Deweese perpetuates the myth about the 1787 convention, that it met in secret (which it did) and no body outside knew what it was doing. Again, a false statement. The reference for this can be found in our video we recently released. In it we quote the February, 1787 convention call of Congress in which Congress instructed the convention to "report to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union." Thus, Congress instructed the convention to make whatever changes it felt necessary to the Articles of Confederation to improve the government (which the Constitution certainly did) and preserve the Union (which so far it has) and report those suggestions to Congress, which the convention did. Further, if one carefully reads the Articles of Confederation, you will see that parts remain in the Constitution meaning the convention "grandfathered" the Constitution. Thus, when the 13 states voted to ratify the Constitution, they also ratified the changes to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles did not require a separate vote by the legislatures to ratify the Constitution and change the Articles of Confederation. One ratification vote did double duty.
Given these easily checked facts and comparing them to the rhetoric of Mr. Deweese, it is obvious his fears are groundless. He presents no evidence to support his claims, no references that any of the dire predictions he makes have ever happened at a convention. Given the fact there have been well over 600 state conventions in this nation alone not to mention hundreds in other countries, surely at least one of them would have done what Mr. Deweese alleges a convention might attempt. In short, the public record shows conventions to be a safe way to bring about constitutional change when the government is not disposed to do so. Mr. Deweese presents no evidence to the contrary to refute this statement. He merely spouts fear and expects that to suffice as his "evidence."
Finally, in his January 17, 2009 column, Mr. Deweese discusses the so-called Burger letter, which he states "is a major and damming piece of evidence against a call for a Con Con because it verifies our fears that states cold not control the subject matter discussed at the convention." The fact is this so-called Burger letter is the only source quoted by opponents to a convention. Mr. Deweese ignores of course, as does this so-called letter said to be "written in 1983 by Chief Justice Warren Burger" (quoting Mr. Deweese in a January 12, 2009 column), the real power of ratification by the states. We at FOAVC pride ourselves in accuracy and verifiable, referenced materials such as we have shown in this column. We believe the Burger Letter may not be authentic because statements made in it, as well as facts surrounding it, don’t match up with easily verified public record. We have released a video on You Tube summarizing our concerns about this letter. Such a letter may exist. We only question whether Warren Burger was the person who wrote it.
We question the authenticity of the so-called Burger Letter for the following reasons:
---The letter, according to Mr. Deweese and other sources, was written in 1983 and describes Chief Justice Warren Burger as "retired." Fact: Burger served on the Supreme Court from 1969 to 1986.
---The letter refers to Burger as chairman of a committee. The committee did not exist until 1985, two years after the date of the supposed letter.
---The source of the letter was Doug Kelly a known John Birch Society operative not Phyllis Schlafly the supposed recipient of the Burger letter.
---The letter says Justice Burger spoke on the issue of an Article V Convention "many times." Because he was active on the court at the time of the letter, it is unlikely Burger would have made such statements, as it would have compromised his judicial objectivity.
---Burger states there is no way to control the agenda of an Article V Convention. This statement, if made by Burger, shows a complete ignorance regarding the ratification procedure put in place by Article V specifically to control any agenda of either Congress or a convention. Does it make sense a chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States would be that ignorant about the Constitution?
---In the letter Burger perpetuates the myth about the 1787 convention acting on its own to create the Constitution. As we have shown in this column, public record disproves this claim. Would a chief justice of the United States make such an obvious blunder so easily checked in public record?
---Burger mentions state rescissions made in 1983. Fact: the public record clearly shows there were no rescissions submitted to Congress in the year 1983.
Please note Mr. Deweese does not refute one question of accuracy we raise in our video in his column. Indeed all he does is make reference, (without link) to a post by Phyllis Schlafly in her webpage which created the file on January 19, 2009. (Doesn't it stand to reason that a letter said to have been written in 1983 (or 1988) would be in a file dated BEFORE the issue of its authenticity was raised as it had to existed since that time?). At this point, we believe the John Birch Society will have to produce much more than this to be believed.
We at FOAVC as well as many other Americans realize there is a great need for an Article V Convention. We have many systematic problems that only can be resolved by a convention. If there is going to be a debate over a convention, shouldn’t both sides at least have enough respect for the Constitution and America to present the facts as they truly are instead of presenting half-truths? Mr. Deweese and others like him may have legitimate concerns about a convention. But instead of working to resolve them, they resort to what can only be described as fear mongering. We invite all to come to our website at www.foavc.org and learn the facts and truth about an Article V Convention. Then decide.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
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.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2009-01-21 06:09:55
I also urge people who seek the truth and who see themselves as loving and respecting our Constitution to spend some time at www.foavc.org to learn the whole story about why we the people have been deprived of what the Founders knew we would need to use someday. Opponents to an Article V convention are so hypocritical: they express support for the Consitution, but then oppose demands that Congress faithfully implement Article V.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-01-21 06:27:26
I can't help but notice that you skated over the most obvious point where such a convention is concerned. Given the current political climate, the overwhelming tendency will be for such a convention to greatly expand government power, not to contract it. The overwhelming tendency will be to restrict recognition and protection of human rights, not to expand such recognition and protection.
So while I can understand your insistence that such a convention is supported Constitutionally (although I can't say I've studied the question very deeply), I am amazed that you don't seem to give a damn about the practical consequences of holding such a convention. Perhaps you approve of codifying more socialism into the Constitution?
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2009-01-21 07:29:35
The only thing to fear about a convention - that only has the power to propose, not ratify amendments - is fear itself. If you have supreme confidence in the current political system that I see as a two-party plutocracy, then I can understand reluctance to trust the wisdom of our Founders and oppose a convention. Otherwise, you should think positively, recognize that hundreds of state constitutional conventions have not wrecked states, and put some faith in the convention system for having the potential to propose needed amendments that Congress will never have the courage to propose.
Codifying socialism? I would suggest first before making such a comment the author study more deeply, which he says he has not, the issues being brought for discussion.
I would hardly call having, for example, repeal of federal income tax, term limits, a federal referendum, recall and initiative amendment, balanced budget, review of Supreme Court decisions by the states, repeal of unfunded federal mandates, control of the boarders by states as well as the federal government, removal of the electoral college, sharing of federal revenues by the states, removal of federal control from state schools, return of state legislative apportionment to state control, allowing prayer in schools, the funding of private education by the states, a right to life amendment, term limits on federal judges, a line item veto and a prohibition against flag burning to be a socialist movement by the states. If the author feels such proposals are socialist, he is entitled to his opinion.
My political understanding of those who advocate such things is that they are generally considered to be conservative proposals, not liberal or socialist proposals. Certainly the above issues will not increase the power of the federal government and a simple reading of the public record proves my point.
Now as to new measures being politically proposed. I'm sure at a convention they will be. But they will face the same political problems as do all amendment proposals: 2/3rds approval in a convention (and frankly if, with all the red states in the country, and the agenda on the public record that will be discussed, if the conservatives cannot get at least a third of the delegates to a convention they don't deserve to be there) followed by 3/4th approval by the states, meaning a constitutional amendment politically is not the same thing as electing a president or even a Congress.
Different process, different political rules, different political issues. What I will discuss in a future column is why those supporting this political proposals are the very ones who are most opposed to accomplishing them.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-01-21 10:15:16
congratulations mr. walker, you hit it out of the park--a fantastic piece of american political writing, as great as any other, federalist papers and all. we should thank mr. deweese for throwing such a pitch.
excellent work. much thanks from a fellow compatriot.
Apparently, another attempt will be made in this session of the Ohio legislature to secure a legislative call for a constitutional convention, purportedly to seek a balanced budget amendment. If you live in Ohio, use every means of communication at the disposal of you, your family, your friends, and those you hardly know, to urge members of your legislature to drive a stake through the heart of this menace to the Republic.
In December, 2008, an effort was turned away in the Ohio House by well prepared, wise witnesses who pointed out the dangers of such a convention. If the legislature, by some strange turn of events, should this time passsuch "call", then do as Frazier once warned a fleeing suitor of Rebecca on Cheers, "Run, run, as fast as you can" and seek cover from the fall out. In all the years of our history, including the threat to the Republic posed by the Civil War, has there been such a pernicious weapon to be launched atour Constitutional form of government.
There are some myths that are posed by those who seek a constitutional convention. They can, and must be dispelled, by those who can still read and understand. ( See Full Article )
APC NEWS RELEASE: Tom DeWeese Threatened by Con Con Proponents
On Sunday, January 11, 2009, Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center (APC) received a letter from a Bill Walker, purporting to be co-founder of an organization called "Friends of the Article V Convention," a group supporting a called for a Constitutional Convention. DeWeese and his APC activist group have recently stopped a "Con Con" call in Ohio.
Walker's letter contends that information DeWeese used for his arguments against a Con Con were fraudulent. Specifically, Walker sited a letter from former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger written in 1988 to Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly, which states in part, "I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda." DeWeese has cited the letter as expert opinion on the dangers of calling a Con Con for a specific purpose, such as the Ohio Resolution which simply wanted to discuss a balanced budget amendment for the Constitution. ( See Full News Release )
Posted By: Andrew Horning
Date: 2009-01-21 10:58:45
Oh my... You quibble over symptoms and ignore the disease.
Our only siginificant problem is that politicians break the laws that protect us from them. And they do that because we ask them to.
Our constitutions, both state and federal, are perhaps flawed in some ways, but still better than any other social contracts ever signed into law. And if you understood a tenth of the problem as it really presents, you'd demand that politicians keep their oaths of office and obey the constitutions, as written.
After all, the constitutions can be amended. You ought to ask why this process hasn't taken place.
Read amendments nine and ten. Consider that legislative, executive and judicial acts depend upon authority; they do not create it. And all authority under the Rule of Law established in our Constitutions (the Law of the Land) rests solely in the black and white of the constitutions, as written.
Read them before you throw them out. Learn why we have an electoral college and limitations on power before you call such things antiquated. And then read any history book to see what our human default state actually is in the breach of such precious laws as we now destroy.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-01-21 12:27:19
Conventionists and Anti-Conventionists:
Some think the Article V Convention is just what the country needs in the face of institutionalized corruption (lobbyists/campaign funders drafting legislation that members of Congress sign off on), others fear it.
In other words, through fear or ignorance, some patriots would deny the most profound and fundamental principle of our Constitution. The convention clause is part of our high law for a reason.
Because the requisite applications for the Article V Convention are ON RECORD, to be Anti-Conventionist today is to be Anti-Constitutionalist. To convoke the Article V Convention is to obey the Constitution we have!
The subjective fears of Anti-Conventionists are preventing this nation from coming together to propose amendments our pseudo-aristocracy on Capitol Hill never will.
Ask yourself, why has the Congress not proposed any amendments for so long?
Tom Deweese and other Anti-Conventionists, somehow, are incapable of trusting in the approval of 38 states for change.
Think of this nation as two nations: pre-convention and post-convention. The ratification process will make politicians talk about things they'd rather not. The ratification process, post-convention, would revive the Constitution. Sounds like something good to me.
Can I guarantee an anti-liberty amendment won't be passed? What a wonderful trap question. If I say no, then of course everyone comes in and says I can't guarantee it won't happen so we shouldn't hold a convention. If I say yes, then I'm asked to provide proof and when I can't I'm discredited because I can't prove my point.
Before we play Perry Mason with the Constitution, I ask what type of amendment can be described as anti-liberty? Give me an example, not by title, but by actual text and then I can do a Google search and see just how many people are out there right now ready to pounce on the Convention, proposals in hand, ready to get the amendment through.
So I put it to you first: define your term and provide an example of it then I'll be happy to try. Oh, yeah one cavaet. It has to be one of the 650 plus already on file at www.foavc.org where the text of the applications and thus its agenda is already public record and has been for many years. Because otherwise as we all know unless it gets state support for ratification it hasn't a chance of becoming part of the Constitution and the states are not likely approve something they have not asked for in a convention previously.
Remember all 14 states have to do is pass a simple state law that states that unless an application shall have been proposed by action of a state legislature previous to the calling of the convention, it shall be a negative ratification vote by the state regardless of mode amendment ratification proposed by Congress. That limits the agenda to what has been proposed by the state legislatures previously. And they can pass this law between the time a convention is called, the delegates are selected and the convention is held. In short, if the state legislatures even suspect such an amendment might be proposed they can shut it down even before it is...if it gets past a convention with its 2/3rds vote.
After all what you really asking is....can you guarantee to me that the people of this country will be in favor of removing their liberties by official, written vote taken at a convention and will stand by while this is done? This is why I asked you for the text. If you are discussing the First Amendment for example, an amendment must read (based on the language of the 21st Amendment): The First Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed. The amendment would then have to state "Congress shall make such laws as it deems necessary to regualte an establishiment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof; of abidging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to peition the government for redress of grieances."
Unlike the usual political actions in Washington you have to state exactly what an amendment will do. I think you can see by my example, what kind of reaction it might get. And remember, it has to have up to 3/4th of the people wanting this to happen as reflected by their representatives taking that action.
So just quote me some language where the states have asked or proposed an amendment to remove, limit, reduce, or otherwise stymie any liberty in the Constitution and we'll take it from there.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-01-21 22:39:20
what is wrong with some of the people at this site?
to call a convention IS to obey the constitution we have. the applications are on record. do you get that? by holding our first Article V Convention we are obeying the Constitution in the most profound sense.
and in case you haven't noticed, anti-liberty has been on the menu of all three branches for the past several years, and it doesn't look like it'll disappear anytime soon. the supreme court IS an open-ended con con without the safeguard of ratification.
so strange, here we are with the house on fire, about to lose the republic once and for all, and no one wants to trust the consensus of 38 states. stop looking at the "con con" as the rewriting of the constitution, and start looking at it as bringing together 38 states for a 28th Amendment.
i realize there are operatives on the internet, so if you Anti-Conventionists are simply doing a job, i say good luck with it because there's still a chance the Constitution will come to town and you're position will be squashed like a bug.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-01-22 11:24:29
Well, I'm glad you appreciate the nature of the trap, at least. What you don't seem to understand is that I didn't create the trap. It's inherent in the scenario you're arguing for. The reality is that we live in a country where the majority of the people are ready and willing to give away their liberty in pursuit of false, temporary security primarily because their political leaders tell them it's necessary. So long as that's the case, calling for an Article V convention while pretending that it will only support pro-liberty stances is just plain irresponsible.
Those who argue that the convention must be called no matter what the consequences in the world in country in which the Constitution is routinely violated under the argument that the Constitution must be upheld are asking to have their butts handed to them by the opposition.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-01-22 12:11:47
our butts handed to us.... happen to have been paying attention to what the banks are doing with the billions of dollars "we" gave them?
the people are not ready and willing to give away their liberties, they have no one on the horizon to lead the charge in the right direction. and if someone did, do you think they'd get much coverage in the mainstream media? the convention itself breaks the status quo of the privatization of government. privatized government has an inevitable result. you think the special interests making their way about the national legislature are finished with us yet? those same forces fear a convention. the convention is a RIGHT. if we don't use it, we lose it.
"Those who argue that the convention must be called no matter what the consequences in the world in country in which the Constitution is routinely violated under the argument that the Constitution must be upheld are asking to have their butts handed to them by the opposition."
So, the logic of this writer is that we are safe so long as we allow the Constitution to be violated but when the Constitution is upheld, we are in danger? Hence, it follows the more we allow the Constitution to be violated, the more "safe" we become. Therefore, by this logic, we are the safest when no portion of the Constitution is obeyed by the government or honored by us. In short, the writer urges we give up such liberties as is necessary to permit us safety because the safe thing to do is not stand up for our Constitution but bend over to those who wish to take our liberty because he assumes that it will always be those who wish the Constitution obeyed who will be defeated by those who do not. Hence, as they remove our liberties we become ever more safe.
By the same logic, are we to assume all those who commit a criminal action will always prevail over those of us who demand that the law be enforced? Such would be the position of this writer. He would have us believe that we would all be entirely safe if those elements who wish to break the law are unopposed by any of us wishing to enforce it.
Hence, would we be safer if President Obama declared tomorrow he was terminating all elections called for under the Constitution depsite the language of the Constitution to the contrary and intended to rule entirely by fiat? If a member of Congress declared next week he was assuming the control of the Congress and by-passing President Obama altogether because he can no longer support his policies, would take bring us ultimately to the safety so advanced by the above writer? If a military commander were to stage a coup and overthrow the government because he opposed the actions President Obama was taking regarding the war on terrorism, would we be even more safe?
There is no question a convention is part of our liberties--an important part. With it we can control the government and set its policies. We can create new tools which will extend our resolve to do so far beyond the moment of the convention itself. Without it, we can do more than beg the government to heed our entreatments which, as specified by the Constitution itself, it is neither obligated nor bound to do. The writer forgets that point. The First Amendment, for example, only provides for the right of the people to petition the government; it does say the government has to respond. Only by use of a convention can we compel the government to obey by passage of amendments specifically mandating such action. That is why unlike all other provisions in the Constitution, the Founders referred to the convention call as "peremptory". They realized with this single clause of the Constitution, all other rights could be enforced if ever needed.
The Founders, who designed the Constitution, were quite aware of the issue of safety when they did so. One of them said "Those who sacrifice their liberty for a bit of safety deserve neither liberty or safety." I believe I have the quote correct.
Frankly, I can't think of a better response to the above comment than this of over 200 years ago from a man who clearly understood the issue of governments obeying the law and consequences of what happens when the populace does not stand up for their rights when a government does not obey the law.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-01-23 02:25:20
the final point, the individuals who people government are getting easy questions wrong because of special interest influence. we all like to think we'd do a better job under such a system. does that mean we all go over a cliff and lose something really special? time for a convention so some readers at this site can make their way
For the past few weeks I have basically been stalked by a guy named Bill Walker, promoting himself as an expert on the Constitution, specifically on the issue of a Constitutional Convention.
Walker has attacked my position on the Con Con, specifically my premise that once such a convention has been called and the delegates are meeting there is no way to control the agenda. In making that point, I an other opponents to a Con Con have cited a letter written by Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger, in which he says, as we do, that the agenda of a Con Con cannot be controlled. ( See Full Commentary )
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-01-23 15:24:45
mr. deweese, when you say "agenda" do you not mean "consensus?" that's all the convention can do, build consensus. whatever amendment proposals that consensus generates must go to the fifty states for ratification. how is the approval of thirty-eight states a dangerous thing?
the supreme court is an open-ended con con that cannot be controlled, and the u.s. congress can only be controlled by the highest bidder.
your position is not only irrational but illogical, and you deny the constitution's most profound principle.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-01-24 14:00:36
Bill wrote: "So, the logic of this writer is that we are safe so long as we allow the Constitution to be violated but when the Constitution is upheld, we are in danger?"
No, my argument is that in an age when the Constitution is being regularly violated, it's wise to pick-and-choose when and how you're going to open the Constitution up for wholesale change in the form of an Article V Convention, rather than to just throw caution to the wind and encourage changes to the Constitution that work against the principles of small government and individual rights.
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.
