Topic: Article V Convention
Proposing The Constitution And Article V; What If They Had No Choice This article discusses the myth that the 1787 Constitutional Convention was a "runaway" convention and whether or not based on this myth a modern day Article V Convention should be fearedby Bill Walker
(libertarian)
Friday, May 22, 2009
One of the major arguments made by opponents of the calling of an Article V Convention as Congress is presently required to do is such a convention will create a new Constitution and impose new ratification procedures on the nation in order to force it to accept this new constitution just as was done by the 1787 Constitutional Convention.
Opponents base their entire argument on this historic event. Their story is simple. The Framers of the Constitution met secretly in Philadelphia beginning in May 1787. The Confederation Congress called the convention only to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, these delegates elected to usurp the Confederation Congress and states. They decided on their own authority to junk the Articles of Confederation and instead create an entirely new form of government—the Constitution of the United States. To accomplish this illegal act the delegates threw out the ratification process specified in the Articles of Confederation. They substituted a new ratification procedure implanted in the Constitution on the unsuspecting Confederation Congress and state legislatures. This new procedure was the creation of state ratification conventions designed to bypass the state legislatures. The delegates further usurped the Articles by requiring only the consent of nine states to ratify the Constitution for it to take effect instead of ratification of all thirteen states as called for in the Articles of Confederation. Only by the sheerest of luck these opponents state, did these delegates create our present Constitution. Thus, based on this historic record, these opponents say we cannot afford to risk another convention because we might not be as lucky the second time around.
An interesting story, if true. If, as the opponents to a convention contend, history teaches us a lesson we should avoid, we should do so. However, if history does not teach us this lesson, then we must avoid falling into the trap these opponents lay by heeding them. An Article V Convention call is a peremptory mandate of the Constitution. To heed these storytellers means allowing the government the authority to veto the Constitution. To take such a faithful step of allowing governmental veto of the Constitution based on this story means it must ring true.
These storytellers base their opposition to a convention on the fear an agenda of a convention cannot be controlled and cite the 1787 Constitution Convention as the sole example of this fear. They ignore the over 700 state constitutional conventions that have happened in this country since 1776 as apparently all of these went on without a hitch and therefore are no good in proving their point. To placate their fear these opponents want a constitutional guarantee that only those proposals they politically support will be the convention agenda. Interestingly these opponents never ask for a limited agenda for a convention that does not favor their political position but their political opposition. In any event, the Constitution does not give this guarantee. Instead, it demands amendments be passed not the basis of political advantage but superiority of proposal. It is not the Constitution or a convention these opponents fear; it is the lack of political advantage for themselves they resent and they use this fear of a convention which they themselves have created to mask their true intentions: give us control of the agenda of a convention for our own political ends and then we will support it.
Nevertheless, these opponents raise a valid issue that demands an answer. Did the Framers actually act in reckless disregard of the current law of the day to impose their will on the hapless Confederation Congress and state legislatures? An examination of the historic record is mandatory in order to clarify the issue. The questions to answer are these: did the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention violate the terms of alteration of the Articles of Confederation by proposing the Constitution of the United States? If they did not, and there were violations of the Articles, who actually committed them? Does historic record support the allegation we should avoid a convention because of events in 1787?
Attempts to revise the Articles of Confederation began with the first of two "conventions." The first, the Annapolis Convention, described in Federalist 40, convened from September 11 to September 14, 1786. This "convention" was entitled a "Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defeats of the Federal Government." Nine states sent commissioners to the Annapolis meeting but only five state delegations (a total of 12 delegates) actually attended the meeting. Because of this, these delegates felt there were an insufficient number of states represented to take any action other than to forward a report to the Confederation Congress and the states recommending a broader meeting be held in Philadelphia the following May.
The Annapolis meeting report recommended the "appointment of commissioners to take into consideration the situation of the United States; to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an act for that purpose, to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and afterwards confirmed by the legislature of every States, will effectually provide for the same."
This report is significant for several reasons. First, the recommendation language clearly shows in the minds of those involved in the process, the "Constitution of the federal government" and the "Articles of Confederation" were interchangeable both in meaning and in intent. Thus to revise "the Constitution of the federal government" and the "Articles of Confederation" was the identical action so long as the result was to render the final product "adequate to the exigencies of the Union." In short, the Framers were more concerned about result than methodology or terminology.
Second, the report requests "further provisions" (plural) are implemented rather than "a provision"(singular) to the Constitution of the federal government. There is problem with this recommendation. It conflicts with actual text of the Articles of Confederation, which permit only an "alteration" to the Articles. The alteration of the Articles of Confederation is contained in Article Thirteen. The relevant part of that Article reads, "...nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them [Articles of Confederation]; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State." For this reason the report recommended "an act" (singular) be reported to the Congress and the states.
Third, the Confederation Congress accepted the report’s recommendation, which is the most significant point of all. On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress issued a convention call for May 1787 in Philadelphia. This fact the Congress issued a convention call is highly significant. If the Confederation Congress or the states opposed changes in current Articles of Confederation they would have ignored the Annapolis report altogether. The convention would not have existed at all and thus could not have duped the Confederation Congress and the states as opponents contend. But the Confederation Congress did call a convention and accepted, from the very beginning of that process, as demonstrated in its convention call language, that proposal of "provisions" (plural) were required in order make the "Constitution of the federal government (Articles of Confederation)" "adequate to the exigencies of the Union."
The February 21, 1787 convention call by the Confederation Congress for the 1787 constitutional convention reads as follows: "Whereas, there is provision in the articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, for making alterations therein, by the assent of a Congress of the United States, and of the legislatures of the several States; and whereas experience hath evinced, that there are defects in the present Confederation; as a mean to remedy which, several of the States, and particularly the State of New York, by express instructions to their delegates in Congress, have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution; and such convention appearing to be the most probable means of establishing in these States a firm national government:
Resolved – That in the opinion of Congress it is expedient, that on the second Monday of May next a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein, 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."
As evidenced by its call, the Confederation Congress accepted the Annapolis Report recommendation that a convention was required to revise "the Constitution of the federal government." More importantly, the Confederation Congress assumed it had the authority under the Articles of Confederation to call such a convention. There is no written authority in the Articles of Confederation for the Confederation Congress to call a convention to propose any alteration to the Articles of Confederation. Given that the Confederation Congress was a very weak political body, it is somewhat surprising it assumed this authority. No doubt, the fact that a powerful state, New York, suggested it gave impetus to the idea.
Nevertheless, the historic record shows the Confederation Congress ignored the terms of the Articles of Confederation in order to call the 1787 constitutional convention in that there was no written authority given by the Articles for the Congress to do so. This fact leads to an inevitable conclusion. The fault lies not with the 1787 constitutional convention but the Confederation Congress for establishing the alteration procedure of the Articles of Confederation could be ignored. From the very beginning of the process with its convention call Congress, then, as now, assumed the authority to ignore the alteration procedures laid down in the governing document of the nation. In 1787, it issued a convention call it was not legally authorized to do. Today it refuses to issue a convention call it is mandated to do.
The conflict between the 1787 constitutional convention call and the Articles of Confederation is at once obvious and subtle. The convention call of the Confederation Congress as well as the Annapolis Convention which made the original proposal to the Confederation Congress, requested provisions or alterations (plural) to the Articles of Confederation (though the Annapolis Convention did request "an act" (singular)) but the Articles of Confederation only allow for an alteration of the Articles of Confederation. This technical but very real limitation placed in the Articles of Confederation means the convention call of the Confederation Congress was illegal under the terms of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles did not specify the Confederation Congress had the authority to call a convention. The Articles further did not specify the Congress possessed the authority to require that convention to propose alterations and provisions to the Articles of Confederation. Under the terms of the Articles, even if the Confederation Congress did have the authority to call a convention it could only instruct a convention to propose an alteration to the Articles of Confederation.
From the very beginning of the process however, individuals who lead the Articles of Confederation ignored its provisions in order to create a better form of government. To accomplish this, these individuals took advantage of the very errors within the Articles of Confederation that they sought to correct with the 1787 constitutional convention. Article Thirteen of the Articles of Confederation simply states "any alteration [must] be agreed to in a Congress of the United States and ... confirmed by the legislatures of every State." True, the Articles do not specify the Confederation Congress has the authority to call a constitutional convention. More importantly, a simple reading of Article Thirteen reveals there is no procedure whatsoever for any political body to propose an alteration to the Articles of Confederation. Thus, whoever or whatever decided to propose it could propose an alteration. The Confederation Congress, along with the states, simply took advantage of the silence of the Articles to call a constitutional convention.
The failure of detail of alteration procedure in the Articles extended into the ratification procedure of the Articles if such a word applies. The Articles, for example, contained no specifics of under what terms the Confederation Congress "agreed" an alteration to the Articles of Confederation. As already noted the Confederation Congress was a very weak political organization. Frequently it lacked enough members to constitute a quorum to conduct business. This fact may explain why after three days of "bitter debate" the Confederation Congress sent the proposed Constitution to the states for affirmation "with neither a vote of endorsement or condemnation." The Articles required the Confederation Congress "agree" with an "alteration" if it was to legally change the Articles of Confederation.
In fact, what the Confederation Congress did was to send the proposed Constitution to the states without agreement but without objection. In short, Congress neither agreed nor disagreed. The states in turn took advantage of this fence sitting by assuming if the Confederation Congress had not expressly disagreed, it therefore agreed as it sent the matter on to them for their consideration. As no term existed defining what agreement was in the Articles of Confederation, there was no violation in all of this. The Articles do specify that the states could only consider an alteration after Congress agreed. Hence, by sending the matter on, Congress signaled that it did "agree" with the proposal despite the fact it never actually voted to "agree" with the proposal when it came before them. If this was a second violation, the Confederation Congress (and the states) ignored the alteration provisions of the Articles of Confederation, not the convention.
If this was a violation, it happened after the convention had concluded its business and disbanded. Clearly, the convention had nothing to do with it. Yet, the convention gets the blame for vetoing the alteration procedure of the Articles of Confederation by the opponents to a convention. The fact is if there were violations, it was the Confederation Congress or the states, which did them, and even here, given there were no laid out procedures, the allegation of actual violation is doubtful. One thing is certain: the convention had nothing to do with it.
As to the affirmation "by the legislatures of every State," as with the rest of the affirmation/ratification procedure there were no specific instructions contained in the Articles of Confederation to accomplish this. Therefore, under the terms of the Articles of Confederation so long as the state legislature "affirmed" the alteration to the Articles of Confederation the method of accomplishment was entirely up to the state legislature. Consequently, so long as the state legislature agreed with the procedure, such as the use of a state convention used to ratify the new Constitution, the terms of the Articles of Confederation were satisfied. Obviously, by calling the conventions at the state level, and ultimately binding themselves to the result, the states agreed with the procedure set forth in the Constitution and satisfied the terms of the Articles.
Contrast this loose, unspecified amendment/alteration procedure of the Articles of Confederation with Article V of the Constitution. If Article V is obeyed, which it is not being currently by Congress; Article V is vastly superior to Article Thirteen. Article V of the Constitution contains a very specific proposal and ratification procedure. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, Article V specifies exactly who can propose amendments to the Constitution and by what terms they may be proposed, a two-thirds affirmative vote of the proposing body. (This is true because of the 14th Amendment, which specifies equal protection under the law meaning in the case of amendment body proposal if one body (Congress) must propose by two-thirds vote, the other body (a convention) is equally bound.) Article V specifies an exact procedure of ratification. Two procedures of amendment ratification, state convention or state legislature but both requiring a three-fourths affirmative vote of all states in order for a proposed amendment to become part of the Constitution are called for.
Convention opponents have made much of the fact that the Framers of the Constitution in Article VII of the Constitution specified the Constitution took effect with only the affirmation of nine states. Beyond the obvious fact that no state legislature voted against the Constitution, which included this provision in it, meaning that all the states affirmed the principle expressed by the Framers in Article VII of the Constitution as to the number of states required to make the Constitution valid, there is precedent in the Articles of Confederation for this authority.
Two of the Articles of Confederation, Ten and Eleven, permitted nine states to act instead of the customary thirteen. Article Ten provided for a "Committee of the States or any nine of them authorized to execute ... such of the powers of Congress of the United States ... shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with." Article Eleven allowed for admission of other colonies to the Articles of Confederation if "agreed to by nine States." Article Eleven is the more significant of the two articles regarding the Constitution. Clearly, the states were being called upon to "join" a new form of government and thus "leave" the old form of government even though technically the Constitution was an alteration of the original government, authorized by the terms of that original government, with that original government remaining in place only in a new form.
Nevertheless, under the principle established in Article Eleven of the Articles of Confederation, it required only nine States for this "joining" to occur. Therefore, this principle of nine state affirmations originated not by the Framers of the Constitution but was an integral part of the Articles of Confederation. The Framers merely copied the Articles of Confederation in drafting Article VII of the Constitution to comply with the principle laid down in the Articles of Confederation.
There is another limit in Article V not found in the Articles of Confederation and this limit is most important in the discussion of what an Article V Convention might have the power to do. The Articles clearly stated there could be only one alteration to the Articles. It did not state the alteration was limited to only altering a part of the Articles of Confederation. Thus, by the terms of the Articles of Confederation, or lack thereof, an alteration could as easily affect a part of the Articles or the entire document as in the case of the Constitution altering the Articles of Confederation.
Unlike the present Constitution that specifies any amendment must become part of the present Constitution no such guarantee existed in the Articles of Confederation. Convention opponents always overlook this constitutional protection requiring that an amendment becomes part of the Constitution rather than the Constitution becoming part of the amendment. The few words "as part of this Constitution" in Article V dictate any amendment becomes part of the present Constitution thus permanently preventing the very action done by the Confederation Congress and the states in 1787 because no amendment proposal is allowed to replace the present Constitution. Thus amendments are limited in scope to amending a portion of the Constitution leaving the rest of the Constitution unaffected and untouched. A new Constitution, proposed by a convention or by Congress, therefore is impossible because it would have to replace the current Constitution and thus could not be "part of this Constitution." Such an act is therefore unconstitutional, as the original Constitution and its ratified amendments, as they have become "part of this Constitution," must always remain intact.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 85 explained the reasoning for this assurance contained in Article V, "The moment an alteration is made in the present plan, [the Articles of Confederation] it becomes, to the purpose of adoption, a new one, and must undergo a new decision of each State. To its complete establishment throughout the Union, it will therefore require the concurrence of thirteen States. If, on the contrary, the Constitution proposed should once be ratified by all the States as it stands, alterations in it may at any time be effected by nine States. Here, then, the chances are as thirteen to nine in favor of subsequent amendment, rather than of the original adoption of an entire system."
While Hamilton was addressing in Federalist 85 the advantages of adoption of the Constitution in regards to future amendments as opposed to retaining the Articles of Confederation, his comments regarding altering the Articles of Confederation clearly show the Articles required a vote on the entire plan by all the states each time a single alteration was desired. In short, the alteration procedure in place for the Articles required a completely new Articles of Confederation each for change to them even if the change only affected one article (or even a few words of one article) of the Articles of Confederation.
As noted by Hamilton this lack of protection of the original instrument legally allowed simultaneous change of the entire instrument as in 1787 creating an entirely new instrument with a single alteration. The Constitution has a better idea: a proposed amendment can only affect a portion of the Constitution because an amendment can only be "part of this Constitution." The rest of the Constitution remains intact and unaffected. Thus, if, at some point, an amendment is repealed the original language of the Constitution replaces it. An example would be the repealing of the 16th Amendment, federal income tax. If repealed, there would still be national taxation but taxation based on the constitutional language already in the Constitution effective from the enactment of the Constitution until amended by the 16th Amendment. Thus, Article V is much more than simply an amendment procedure. It protects the Constitution from being replaced contrary to what convention opponents allege. The fact is the Framers saw this danger and stopped it.
The Framers added yet another protection for a convention always overlooked by its opponents. Unlike the Articles of Confederation which didn’t allow for, let alone describe the powers and authority of a constitutional convention, the Framers crafted very careful language not only describing what type of a convention was allowed under Article V but the limits of its powers. Article V describes a "convention to propose amendments" as the only convention that can be called by Congress. Therefore the Framers removed the authority assumed by the Confederation Congress from the current Congress to call a constitutional convention and authorized it only to call a "convention to propose amendments" or an Article V Convention. The "part of this Constitution" language further limits this convention in that it cannot propose anything but amendments and these amendments become "part of this Constitution." Thus, the Framers permanently removed the possibility of convention called by Congress to propose amendments assuming the power to write a new constitution as such action would violate Article V and therefore be an unconstitutional act.
This fact of lack of protection however served as an advantage to the 1787 constitutional convention. Without it, the Framers could not have created the Constitution. The call by the Confederation Congress requested "alterations" to "federal Constitution" which was in direct violation with the term of "alteration" used in the Articles of Confederation. The Framers faced a decision: present a series of alterations per the call of the Confederation Congress, each of which would have to be voted on by all the states and therefore might result in any of the proposals being defeated or obey the terms of the Articles of Confederation.
The Framers realized the only solution to this problem was to ignore the congressional call, which specified alterations in violation of the Articles of Confederation and instead submit a single alteration as commanded by the Articles of Confederation. However, they also took care to ensure that should multiple issues arise in the Constitution, no such conflict would ever happen again; they allowed for the proposal of "amendments" rather than "amendment." Had they not done so, the Bill of Rights, proposed as a group of amendments, would have never existed. Of course, each amendment was still required to be ratified separately, thus guaranteeing each would be considered on its own merits. Therefore, in order to comply with the Articles of Confederation, the Framers created a single alteration: the Constitution. They submitted this single alteration proposal to the Confederation Congress as required by the Articles of Confederation. In this they returned to the original report recommendation of the Annapolis meeting, that the convention submit "an act" as to "render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union." At this point, their business concluded, the convention, and any responsibility it might have as regards to future events of ratification or affirmation terminated.
The opponents of a convention stated that the 1787 convention was a "runaway" that is, that the convention completely ignored its instructions from Congress and acted on its own authority to create the Constitution. History shows this allegation to be entirely false for several reasons. First, Congress instructed the convention propose alterations and provisions to improve the Articles of Confederation. There is no historic record but that the convention did nothing but this task. Indeed, the convention acted in total compliance with the Articles of Confederation producing, as specified by that document, an alteration to the Articles. Despite a congressional resolution to act contrary to the specific language of the Articles, the Framers refused to do this. Second, there is no authority in the Articles of Confederation giving the Confederation Congress the authority to instruct the convention on anything, as there is no authority in the Articles giving the authority even to call the convention in the first place. Third, the creation of the convention was in the form of a resolution rather than a law. A resolution has no force of law. The resolution called upon the states to convene a convention meaning the Congress recognized from the beginning that a convention was, a state power, and not a power of the national government. The intent of this state power, then as now, was to balance the national power of alteration/amendment procedure. There is no record that any state legislature instructed the convention in any form. The conclusion: based on the historic record the allegation that the convention was a "runaway" is entirely false. The best that can be made of such a charge is that the convention, as instructed by the Articles, chose to obey them rather than obey instructions from the Confederation Congress, which were in conflict with the Articles of Confederation.
The Confederation Congress, again in violation of the Articles of Confederation, sent the proposed Constitution to the states without an agreeing vote. However, the Congress did not disagree. The state interpreted this action as an agreeing vote. Had they felt otherwise, clearly they would not have authorized the state conventions to vote on the Constitution. As there was no prescribed method of affirmation for the states, they were free to create the conventions called for in the Constitution. The historic record is clear. All the state legislatures held such state conventions that in turn voted to affirm the Constitution. As final step, each state legislature accepted these votes presenting two opportunities for legislatures to defeat the new Constitution. No state legislature did so.
The Articles of Confederation clearly allowed for proposal of a single alteration to the Articles of Confederation. The 1787 Constitution Convention produced a single alteration proposal, which it submitted to the Confederation Congress. The Articles of Confederation stated if the Confederation Congress agreed and the states affirmed this alteration was valid. Congress did not disagree and sent the matter to the states all thirteen of which affirmed it. The historic record shows the convention did not violate the Articles of Confederation. Violations of the Articles of Confederation, if any, were by the Confederation Congress and the states and given the circumstances of the lack of specificity of the Articles, this is even doubtful. Thus, any assertion, based on so-called historic evidence that a convention might be a threat to this nation, is entirely false.
The examination of the historic record surrounding the events leading to the adoption of the Constitution shows that contrary to the myth told today by Article V Convention opponents, the only group that actually obeyed the terms of the Articles of Confederation was the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Both the Confederation Congress and the states ignored the terms of the articles during the process but lack of specific instructions makes it difficult, at best, to say either group did anything outside the authority of the Articles. The anti-constitutional opponents have twisted history in order to thwart the Constitution. Their sole argument, the 1787 constitutional convention is a threat, when historic record is closely scrutinized, is insupportable. History does not show a convention is a threat or that it acted outside its authority to propose a new constitution. Quite the contrary; the convention acted in full compliance with the Articles of Confederation. The fears are groundless.
In sum, the historic records prove the allegations of the danger of an Article V Convention are unfounded. Instead, the events that the opponents point to with such fear were a result of the actions of the Confederation Congress and the states that may have violated the Articles but which history shows they probably did not. The reason these political groups were able to do what they did was the Articles of Confederation contained no specific instructions as to the alteration procedure described in them. This lack of specification in the Articles makes it doubtful that even these two groups actually violated anything. This lack of specific alteration procedure no longer exists in our form of government. The current Constitution, which has a very specific, detailed procedure, laid out for passage of a constitutional amendment and more importantly thwarts any such action of that which happened in 1787 because those who did so in order to give us our Constitution saw to it that it could never happen again. In short, the Framers of the Constitution saw an open door in the Articles of Confederation through which they could act to correct the defects in the Articles and did so. However, the Framers closed that door behind them with the passage of Article V.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 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.
A constitutional convention is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. What is it that you hope will come about as a result of an Article V convention?
Bill Walker uses half information and fraud to push a Article V con con. This is a serious mistake and anyone that loves liberty should see through his scheme.
Many, many legal scholars including supreme court justices have issued legal opintions that demonstrate that Bill has no idea what he is talking about.
The information I quoted is public information and historic record. I stand by what the public record states.
I challenge Robert to produce one opinion by any Supreme Court Justice or legal scholar where they quoted the material as I have done and then arrived at any other conclusion than what I have stated. Please notice I said "quoted the material" in other words cited the actual public record and then by simple reading of it arrived at a different conclusion than what is presented. The public record is clear. The only "violation" in the entire process was that the Confederation Congress authorized "alterations" instead of an "alteration" to the Articles of Confederation and the convention, as specified by the Articles of Confederation ignored this mistake and instead, as requested by the Annapolis Meeting, produced "an act" to change the Articles.
If, as Robert contends, I have only show "half" information and "fraud" then why doesn't he present it in his comment? Show the people where I have done so. Present the other half of the material or prove deliberate fraud on my part. I challenge him to do so and I can guarantee he won't be able to do so. The reason? Because I have not done as he as said.
You make an assumption about my advocating a convention that to do so implies I have an agenda I am trying to advance. If so, it is as follows: the Constitution is the law of the land. I am trying to ensure that law is obeyed where, to date, it has not been. The Constitution requires there be a convention. At this convention proposed amendments will be discussed. Some may be advanced by the conveniton for possible ratification. I have no way of knowing or controlling which measures they may be. Most likely they will come from the 21 issues already submitted by the 50 states in their 750 applications to Congress for a convention call.
If I have an agenda it is my firm belief that the American people have a right to a convention and to use it and avail themselves of that method of amendment proposal so as to permit resolutions of issues currently before us which our present Congress is either unwilling or unable to face and resolve. Given that in most circumstances the states saw these issues and applied for amendment issues sometimes decades ago in order to resolve them and that because they have not been resolved and thus been allowed to continue to cause an ever greater burden to us, I feel it is time we used the method in the Constitution given to us by the Framers to resolve those problems.
Frankly, given that no other alternative tried thus far has satisfactorily resolved these issues which are clearly systematic in nature meaning that they remain regardless of what political party is in power, I believe that this alternative which is both legal and constitutional should and must be used as the Constitution gives us no choice.
Not to do so places our entire form of government in grave danger. Once it is established the government can veto the Constitution at its political discretion, it will veto that document. Once that happens, we will have no rights whatsoever and be subject to a government that will rule us by fiat. I wish to avoid what will be the obvious response of the American people to such an intolerable political situation and solve these problems peacefully and constitutionally.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-05-23 16:01:45
amazing work bill. congratulations and thank you.
in answer to what we need out of the convention: an effective national standard for voting and voter registration. with that, in time all other problems will be washed away.
The constitution defines our government and limits it's power, to keep it from becoming oppressive. It also protects all of our rights. The constitution is vitally important if we want America to remain the land of the free. Even though I think there could be some improvements to it, I still believe it to be the best protection of our rights.
You propose an article V convention which could radically alter the constitution, or even destroy it completely and all of our rights along with it. And you offer no hint as to where you think it might end up. Can you understand why the rest of us might be apprehensive about that?
Holding such a convention just for the sake of doing it with no clear understanding of objectives is dangerous. It puts all of our rights at risk for unknown objectives. When you refuse to say what you hope to achieve it does nothing to improve our comfort level.
Whoa! Stop the Presses here David! I am not the all powerful being you think I am. I have not proposed an Article V Convention. Let's get accurate here, shall we? What I have said is the Constitution requires a convention when two thirds of the states apply and as they have I support the Constitution being enforced and obeyed by the government, the states and the people. You obviously oppose obeying the Constitution otherwise you position would be you have concerns about a convention that you know need to be worked out but you are determined to see these are resolved so as to obey our Constitution.
As to your concern, I suggest you read the first couple of paragraphs of the above column, the part about wanting assurances which actually means you want to control the agenda of a convention and only then will you support. Fair enough. On my authority to propose a convention, I hereby guarantee to you that the convention will completely behave itself and that it will not propose any amendment that you do not personally agree with. You have my personal guarantee on this. Feel better?
Now can we get serious? I see I'm going to have to lead you by the hand on this one. First, unless you have proof of statements you make don't make wild accusations you can't back. I'll ram them down your throat. Now you've said a convention could "radically" alter the constitution or even destroy it. Quote me in the Constitution where the convention has such power or cite to me one court ruling, state or federal law or any other authority acting in their official capacity that backs up your statements. A convention can only propose amendments as again I wrote in the above column. You did read it, I assume.
Second, it is obvious you have not read the 750 applications from all 50 states and looked over what will become the agenda of the convention. There are some 21 amendment issues from right to life to repeal of federal income tax. You can read these at www.foavc.org.
Now I expect that anyone who is going to argue this issue with me has taken time to have read all that I have written on the subject or done on it at the very least not to mention the comments and statements of the courts and the Framers of the Constitution. This includes all the legal work in FAQ 9.1 including a 885 page legal brief submitted to the federal courts. It includes all the articles I've written for Nolan Chart.
The reason I expect this from anyone is that it is not my job to make them or you comfortable or warm and fuzzy. The Constitution is a law and it is either obeyed or it is not obeyed. There is nothing comfortable in that nor should there be. The states have applied for a convention. In doing so they have advanced numerous amendment issues that will result in major changes to this form of government. They will result in more liberties for the American people--such as the federal initiative, referendum and recall amendment--to use one example.
So in sum David, realize I am not your mother. I'm not going to hold your hand in this. Do your own research. Read the applications, the history, the federal lawsuits and so forth and don't expect me to spoon feed you on the Constitution and the fact it should be obeyed. If you want to know what will be on the agenda of a convention, go out and find out. Look it up in the public record if you don't want to believe our material. Learn to think for yourself. That's the main problem in this country; everyone has stopped thinking for themselves and is content to let the government do it for them and the government never has been good at thinking, period.
Bill your attitude grows more and more confrontational as the debate goes on. I've said nothing rude to you but you seem to be looking for a fight.
You may be right in your claim that the constitution requires a constitutional convention based on the fact that 2/3 of the states have applied for one. But our government routinely violates the constitution:
W suspended habeas corpus in the enemy combatant cases. There is no constitutional provision for him to do so. And his assumed authority to imprison anyone indefinitely by simply calling them enemy combatants is a threat to the freedom of all Americans.
The government took $700 billion form the treasury and gave it to the crooked bankers who caused our current financial mess. There is no constitutional authority to do that. Every American has been robbed of $2300 because of TARP.
There is no constitutional authority for the Federal Reserve to even exist and yet it does. And it operates in secret and is answerable to no one. Its monetary policies have destroyed 95% of the purchasing power of the US dollar since 1913.
There is no constitutional basis for Social Security or Medicare and yet they exist. The unfunded future liability of those two programs exceeds $40 trillion. David Walker the former Comptroller General has publically stated that could bankrupt America.
The government routinely starts wars without a declaration of war by congress. That's unconstitutional too. And government has in the past used military conscription to man those wars. That seems to me like a violation of the 13th amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude.
All of the things I've mentioned are of great concern to me. And they are the result of government not abiding by the constitution. If we wanted a constitutional amendment to fix that what would it say? Would it say; "The constitution means what it says. Obey it."? That seems obviously redundant and if government doesn't obey the rest of the constitution why would they obey that?
In short I'm willing to fight against those constitutional violations which I see as dangerous, but not necessarily the one you are fighting for.
David, you talk about me being confrontational. Let me give you a clue. If you don't want me to be confrontational stop saying things like "constitutional convention" rather than Article V Convention or convention to propose amendments. The Constitution does not permit a constitutional convention and it irks me and I become confrontational when people say otherwise. especially when I've proven the point in the very article they are commenting about. I expect people to read before upchucking the usual bilge of the JBS. And speaking of that, I'll make another challage to you. Send the references JBS uses to prove its points other that are actual public record or court rulings and things like that. I've never seen one. As to Article V, use the correct language or live with the fact I will be confrontational.
You then say I "may be right". David, I am right. Period. The government has stated officially I am right. The Supreme Court has stated I am right in cases it has decided. There is no "may" here. When people try this it irks me and I become confrontational. Why? Because it shows they lack a basic knowledge of the subject they are so sure about. Either it is two-thirds of the state legislatures which cause a convention call or it is not. And when people simply refuse to read plain English written in their Constitution, it irks me and I become confrontational.
Then you list the usual suspects about actions of the government being unconstitutional. I'm going to correct you. You talk about habeas corpus "in the enemy combatant cases." I assume therefore you are not referring to Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the Civil War which he did and which was unconstitutional. I assume you mean Bush. Well sir, read your 14th Amendment. Immunities and protections such as habeas corpus are extended only if 1) you are in the jurisdiction of the United States and 2) are a citizen of the United States. The combatants are not citizens of the United States and therefore not entitled to protection under the Constitution. No violation of the Constitution.
You talk about TARP. While I agree with you politically about TARP as to the fact it is a bad move, I'm sorry Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 U.S. Constitution: No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by Law;. TARP was an appropiration bill. No violation of the Constitution.
You then discuss the Federal Reserve. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regualate Commerce...among the several States." Banking is part of commerce and therefore subject to government regulation and of course the "necessary and proper" clause at the end of Section 8 completes the fact the Federal Reserve is authorized by act of Congress. No violation of the Constituiton.
You talk about Social Security and Medicare. Section 8, Clause 1, "to provide for the common dfence and general welfare of the United States..." And please don't try and get me on this one. I actually checked this out with the U.S. Government myself. No violation of the Constitution.
Then you mention starting of wars by Congress without a declaration of war. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, "To declare war, grant Letter of Marque and Reprisal..." The Congress has the authority to grant letters of reprisal meaning the United States can act militarily in reprisal without having to declare war. No violation of the Constitution.
Now, given that I've proven all that you've said is incorrect where that does leave us? Oh yes, all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V Convention. Article V of the Constitution mandates a convention call. Congress has refused. Violation of the Constitution as admitted by the government itself in public record.
It is one thing to believe the government has violated the Constitution and another to prove it. The fact is, while I do not agree with the actions the government has taken, they are in fact, constitutional, except for not calling an Article V Convention.
Looks like you're going to have to make a choice here and this is why I'm most confrontational. People such as yourselves seem to believe the Constitution is a bunch of individual statements that can be ignored or obeyed as one chooses to do so. "I'm will to fight against those consitutioanl violations which I see as dangerous, but necessarily the one you are fighting for" is no more than saying I only support that part of the Constitution I agree with.
It's one Constitution and you as an American should be ashamed that you view in any other light than it all must be obeyed. That attitude makes me real confrontational and when someone such as yourself states it, that they only support a part of the Constitution but not all of it, I get real confrontational. Why? Because that kind of attitude sooner or later will lead to the distruction of the entire Constitution.
It's real easy to be a loyal patriotic American when what the Constitution states is something you agree with. The tough part about being a loyal patriotic American is supporting something in the Constitution you don't agree with.
With regard to habeas corpus violations; Jose Padilla is an American citizen and he was apprehended in the US while deboarding a plane. He was imprisoned without charges. That is a constitutional violation. If government can do that to him they can do it to you or me or any American. That is dangerous.
The 10th amendment states that the federal government has only the powers given to it by the constitution. The constitution does not give the federal government the power to give money to bankers or buy bank stocks or tell Paulson to spend it at his discretion.The term the "general welfare" does not give congress power to do whatever someone considers to be in the interest of the general welfare. See the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist 41 by James Madison, the father of the constitution. The specifics of those powers are spelled out in the rest of Article I section 8, and giving money to bankers is not one of them. Nor is Social Security or Medicare.
Congress also has no authority to delegate it's duties to the Federal Reserve.
PS I prefer to keep the conversation on a civil level but I am as capable of crudeness as you are.
David, you need to get your facts straight. I'm not going to get into the details of Mr. Padilla's case except to point out he was held as a material witness by the government and there is no habeas corpus attached for being a material witness. I'll grant that Mr. Padilla was denied attorneys but the right to counsel only applies if Mr. Padilla was actually charged with a crime. He was not. He was a material witness and therefore not charged with anything. The courts have many times rules people may be detained as material witness in an ongoing investigation and given that Mr. Padilla had traveled to countries such as Iran and so forth and had associatied with known members of Al-Queda, I'd say he cooked his own goose. In doing that he became a witness. Further, when Mr. Padilla was charged with a crime, he was, as far as I can determine, afforded all rights including habeas corpus.
Besides, what are you complaining about? It's you who supports the government vetoing the Constitution remember? You who said you only support certain clauses of the Constitution being followed. You don't support Article V so you don't support the convention. Somebody else in the government didn't support the habeas corpus clause with Padilla. What's the difference? Once, as you have, established the government can veto the Constitution, then you have no basis on which to complain which parts they choose to veto.
As to the 10th Amendment. Read the language again. If you check your history you'll find the word "expressly" was deleted from the original text of the amendment so that it read not, The powers expressly not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... and instead simply reads "the powers not delegates to the United states by the Constitution. That one word makes all the difference in the world. Without the word "expressly" the amendment actually is quite weak because with it, it would mean the actuallwritten words in the Constitution. Without it allows for implied powers and therein lies the problem. What you complain about are implied powers of the government based on expressed language.
As to your other comments, I'm sorry but the courts disagree with you. The power to regulate commerce has for years been approved by the courts and the purchase of private property by the government has been accepted for years. Just never on this scale. Besides, what's your problem? You are the one supporting the right of the government to veto the Constitution, remember? How can you complain about vetoing the Constitution and then support the government vetoing the Constitution by disobeying Article V?
Seems to me the only real complaint you have is a debate over which parts of the Constitution should be vetoed by the government. Once you conceed the government can veto any portion of the Constitution, then it is clear the right to do it to whatever parts is in the hands of the government which is something you support.
Frankly David, I really don't see any consistency in your argument. On the one hand you state the government should veto the Constitution by not calling a convention when it is required to do so. It has done so by refusing to obey Article V. You support that. There was a court case in 2000 which affirmed the right of the government to do this under the political question doctrine. I didn't hear anybody complain when I sounded the alarm then of the dangers of allowing that for the first time in history the courts had ruled that under a completely bogus doctrine the government could veto the Constitution. All I got was bored yawns.
And now, just nine years later with the government acting in full compliance of a court order, here you all are complaining the government is doing exactly what you support just with other sections of the Constitution. They believe in the same principle as you have expressed "I'm willing to fight against those constituional violations which I see as dangerous, but not necessarily the one you are fighting for." The only difference between you and the government is which principles they support and which you support. But the fact is you and government agree totally that the Constitution can be vetoed. As such I just don't see where you have a right to complain at all. Please clarify for me how it is you can support something then complain when that what you support is done by the very group you say should have the right to do it.
Now you people who have been anti-convention started all this back in the late 80's sewing the seeds (and I do not know if you personally did this, but the movement you support certainly did) of the idea that a part of the Constitution was to be feared and therefore not obeyed meaning the government should not obey it when it was supposed to. Those seeds took root and sprouted and now they are in full bloom. What was the biblical line---As you sew, so shall you reap?
Posted By: Teri M. Owens
Date: 2009-05-26 12:08:40
David S.,
I mean no disrespect, but I personally don’t think Bill Walker is very credible on this issue and I wrote an article analyzing some of his claims from prior assertions by him and his organization, FOAVC. You can find it in the blog section of [link edited for length]. I detect a definite pattern of obfuscation in his writings and comments and reading the current post carefully, I didn’t think it provided an examination of the historical record as promised and thus can’t accept his conclusion.
To set your mind at ease, Congress has not failed in its duty to call a convention pursuant to Article V because there isn’t an authentic national movement to convene one. Two thirds of our state legislatures have not applied for a convention. Prior state legislatures have no-doubt sought this avenue (for widely different reasons), but the current legislative bodies are not bound by those prior petitions because they do not express the will of the people who would be sending delegates to the convention.
Article V is very vague and people of good faith can disagree on its meaning based on the plain language. But the plain language only offers the four corners of the document to understand its meaning and often can be twisted to represent any conclusion. The letter of the law in this case is discerned through an examination of the intent of its framers, thus revealing the spirit of the law. That has been the prevailing sentiment in viewing the petition requirements under Article V, which is why I suspect Congress has failed to keep an accurate record of historical petitions. If there is an authentic national movement for a convention under Article V by the petitions of two-thirds of the States, there will be a response by Congress.
No doubt the vague language has caused many schools of thought on this regarding contemporaneous petitions or petitions seeking the same type of amendment along with a whole host of other questions. And it cannot be denied that Congress consistently ignores the intent of the founders in its interpretation of the Constitution (for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of its acts). This is the reason that states are rescinding their historical con-con petitions per their sovereign authority under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. I hope that helps clarify David, and I hope you will support our efforts.
Teri M. Owens. Permit me for those who do not know who Teri M. Owens is to introduce her. She is a member of the John Birch Society in Ohio. Notice she didn't mention that fact. JBS never does.
Ms. Owens states she doesn't believe what I wrote. Please notice as with all JBS comments, there is no proof of her statement, only her opinion both here and in her site. FOAVC uses public record as the basis of our statements. Therefore, to refute that requires public record. Ms. Owens, nor JBS, provide none.
Ms. Owens now purports to change the language of Article V adding the word "authentic" to it. She says there is no "authentic" movement to call a convention so this justifies the government vetoing the Constitution. She states, without any authority quoted, her opinion, her personal opinion, that current legislative bodies are not bound by those prior peititons because they don't "express the will of the people who would be sending delegates to the convention." I suggest Ms. Owens read Hawke v. Smith 253 U.S. 221 (1920) in which the Supreme Court made it clear that the legislatures acted under the authority of the Constitution and not their state constitutions when they acted under Article V. I could go into great detail but I assume everyone can read the decision. Unlike Ms. Owens, I provide references just as I did for the above column.
I would also point out to her that if she is correct, that all the Tenth Amendment movement will end in about two weeks when most state legislatures end their sessions. With them then, according to Ms. Owens, any and all resolutions will terminate and no future legislature will be bound by them. You can't have it both ways Ms. Owens. Either the states when they use the Constitution as the basis of their actions operate under the authority of that document or they don't. And please don't embarass yourself by saying the Tenth Amendment movement isn't effected by the same argument you present for Article V. Of course, the fact is unlike Article V where Congress is required to act, there is no such operational clause in the Tenth Amendment. Congress is not required to do a single thing. That's what Article V is for so the states can call a convention, propose amendments and deal with government excess.
Ms. Owens states Article V is very vague. The United States disagreed with her opinion in U.S. v Sprague 282 U.S. 716 (1921). The Court said, " The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true." Ms. Owens then says the letter of law is "discerned through an examinination of the intent of its framers, thus revealing the spirit of the law." For the information of Ms. Owens who obviously has not read the framers, in Federalist 85 Alexander Hamilton described a convention call as "peremptory" and stated that the government has no option as to issuing a call once the two-thirds mark has been reached. So I guess that means that Ms. Owens is saying a convention call is "peremptory" and therefore neither the states nor the Congress have any choice in the matter. Thus, according to Ms. Owens' own words, the "spirit of the law" as well the letter in this case are identical. A convention call is peremptory. For those who do not know what that words means, it means "absolute, no option, etc. In otherwords you gotta do it no ifs, ands, buts or the opinion of Ms. Owens and the JBS. Thanks for the support Ms. Owens in pointing out that the framers believed a convention must be called if the states apply which they have by the way. If you doubt that statement I suggest reading the applications themselves where the states make this statement themselves.
As to her comment about the authentic national movement, there have been at least four different amendment issues, including the one JBS opposes, balanced budget, each on thier own, as the public record shows, to cause a convention call on that issue alone. Funny, I do have to agree with Ms. Owens. Congress has responded. It has refused to call and as the public record shows even went to far as to compile the applications on at least two occasions showing that it clearly knows about the applications. By the way if I haven't mentioned it yet, you can read the applications for a convention, all 750 of them from 50 states at www.foavc.org.
There is no vague language in Article V. If there was it was settled by a recent federal court case. Ms. Owens completely ignores Walker v Members of Congress in which the government admitted the convention call was based on a simple numeric count of applying states with no other terms or conditions and was peremptory on the members of Congress. Further the government admitted to refuse to call was a criminal offense on the part of Congress. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.
Now let's take a look at her logic at the end of her statement. The states are rescinding their historical con-con petitions (even though Article V does not allow for such recsissions as that would be a term or condition which the government has already agreed does not exist in Article V.) So her logic is that Congress consistently ignores the intent of the founders in its interpretation of the Constitution" and therefore the states are supporting this action by rescinding applications when Article V doesn't allow them to do so.
Hence just like David Ms. Owens supports the government vetoing the Constitution but she objects to the government vetoing the Constitution. Again, I don't see the consistency of the argument. Ms. Owens complains the government is vetoing the Constitution but then urges that the government not obey the Constitution.
If you want to know if Ms. Owens is correct, ask her to provide references that back up her position. Ask her to provide court rulings that support the government's right to veto the Constitution. I'm not referring to the references on her site of opinions of private citizens. Like FOAVC, I'm asking for court rulings, official acts and so forth. Anyone can make a personal opinion. But the fact is the public record backs me up and Ms. Owens has neither proved nor even attempted to prove this.
Finally, notice that Ms. Owens doesn't provide one bit of proof concerning my examination of the historical record. No references citing historical documents. No correction of the record based on public record. Nothing to actually prove what she states. Just her opinion. JBS always operates this way, long on opinion but no proof of fact. Just her opinion which I assume she assumes is sufficent to disprove me on her word alone. Well, Ms. Owens, it isn't. Either back your statements up with public record, court records and so forth like FOAVC does or realize we are ultimately going to prevail because we present the truth and you can't refute it.
True, you can lie about it. But the problem is you're getting caught.
You forgot Article I, Section 8, Clause 10: "To define and punish ...Offenses against the law of Nations..."
You were the one who brought up the declaration of war. I merely responded regarding to that specific point but that doesn't mean that only one part of the Constitution applies to the situation If you recall the Congress did pass a measure based on the fact that the government of Iran had violated several U.N. resolutions and gave the authority to the president to respond to this.
Funny how you and everyone else is ignoring the point of my article which is there is nothing to fear from a convention and that it did not operate or act outside the authority of the Articles of the Confederation. Both you and Ms. Owens don't want to discuss this point primarily because, I suppose, it really punches a hole in your arguments when your primarily argument is disproved. Brings into question your entire position.
So, can you and Ms. Owens please get back on subject? Let's disucss the fact that the convention acted properly. You provide evidence it did not and I'll refute it. We both use public record. I've given mine. Now it's your turn. What do you say?
Or we can just continue on as we doing, my quoting public law, record and so forth and disproving you at every turn. Your choice I suppose but the fact is ultimately you will lose because you can't beat the facts and that's all I use.
And by the way I will point out that you've haven't done this at every turn...back up your positions with actual proof. Anyone can give an opinion; let's see you give proof.
Posted By: Teri M. Owens
Date: 2009-05-26 16:42:48
It really is a waste of time to engage Bill Walker...
He and his organization are attempting to impose a "new" interpretation on Article V and accuse Congress of 200 years of dereliction of duty in their goal to bring about a convention at all costs. I've yet to see this new interpretation supported by the intent of the founders.
Nothing he said in response to my post proved his assertion. A peremptory call yes - when 2/3 of the state legislatures make application for one. Not a single state legislature has made application for one this legislative session, in fact one has already rescinded all of its prior calls to make sure errant interpretation of Article V doesn't plunge them into a convention they don't want. There is no current desire amongst 2/3 of the states to introduce an amendment by convention.
Bill Walker claims to have the support of public records and tosses around Supreme Court decisions...etc., but if you read my article - "Can we trust Friends of the Article V Convention" at http://stoptheconcon.com, you can clearly see that the source documents DO NOT support his conclusions revealing much deception on his part.
He even repeats the same false assertions in response to my post that were previously debunked in my article. He obviously relies on the fact that most people do not have time to check the references and study the issue.
Mr. Walker of course goes right into insults, attacking the author because he cannot win on the facts. He lost all credibility and consequently his intentions are called into question.
In my opinion FOAVC has succeeded in causing a great deal of noise and confusion and has accomplished nothing of legislative substance whereas the John Birch Society and its allies have shown consistent leadership in state legislatures nationwide getting tangible results by educating them about the truth of Article V and protecting our unique Constitutional system of government.
Again, I really believe it is a complete waste of time to have a dialog with Bill Walker, he does not engage in honest debate, but rather obfuscation and insult. Get the facts at http://www.stoptheconcon.com and help us work toward protecting our Constitution.
Notice how Ms. Owens twists what is stated. She admits a call is peremptory meaning there are no terms or conditions then asserts a condition and term. Now Ms. Owens I'm going to say this as politely as I know how. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a case in 1920 that specifically states that when states apply for a convention they opperate under the authority of the federal Constitution, not state constituitons. Therefore, the fact the present state legislatures "don't want one" doesn't mean a thing as they are bound by the peremptory terms of Article V.
As to the states not wanting a convention, if that's true how do you explain that since the late 1960's the states have submitted 500 applications for one?
As to your article, let's get specific. You say in your article we don't prove that conventions must be elected. Ever heard of a thing called the 14th Amendment? Equal protection under the law? Well, the courts have and they stated conventions must be elected and they did not exclude the proposing convention in their statement.
As to relying on the fact most people don't have the time to check references, that's your trick not ours. We bury people in facts. Go to our webpage and read FAQ 9.1 for example. You'll find hundreds of links to federal laws, court opinions and so forth all supporting and referencing our statements. Go to your webpage and see what references you provide. None. No public records. No court opinions. Nothing. Now who is providing facts and who isn't.
The dirty little secret is you're mad because the last "great" argument your side had, that the 1787 convention was a runaway just got torpedoed and notice, all I used was public record to prove my case.
Then you ask people to join to to "protect the Constitution." The lies the John Birch Society has told about an Article V Convention are so many I can't list them all here. But our site does. We debunk an audio from one of your members, showing over fifty lies and mistruths made by this JBS member. We show that you have lied regarding the so-called Burger Letter to the point that no one can believe anything about it excpet for the fact that according to public record we prove Burger actually supported an Article V Convention. The list goes on and on and the funny thing is you figure this pack of lies somehow does this nation a service.
Since when has being the leader in the movement to overthrow the Constitution by encouraging the government to veto it been a service to this nation. Make no mistake about this. You can lay the blame of the government not obeying the Constituiton be it the Tenth Amendment, the 2nd Amendment or whatever right at the feet of the John Birch Society and people like Teri Owens. She admits the call is peremptory then does everything she can to see that it is thwarted by the government not calling it.
In short Teri Owens stands for the government vetoing the Constitution then complains when her efforts succeed just not the way she'd like because the government chooses to veto, along with Article V, the rest of the Constitution. She can call that an insult if she wants. It is the truth. It's what she's said and if she doesn't like someone pointing out what she said and putting her feet to the fire for doing so, maybe she shouldn't say it.
Oh yeah and by the way, the government has officially agreed with our position twice. Can Ms. Owens say the same of her position even once?
The Article V Convention could have disastrous consequences, IF the state legislators are not aware of their rights and allow the U.S. Congress to run roughshod over them. The fears of special interest influence out of D.C. may be unfounded, as it could make it more difficult for lobbyists to accomplish anything with the herd of cats that is the mass of state legislators around the nation. The key to the anti-liberty lobbyists is centralization of powers, not decentralization.
I do not feel, however, that the state legislators are ready for a Convention at this time. Yet, there are movements to inform and empower state legislators on the topic of states' rights, most notably, perhaps, being the Patrick Henry Caucus.
I forgot to mention. To read all about the lies of JBS regarding a convention, all you need to do is go to the link above entitled "More Articles by Bill Walker" and click on it. I've done a whole series of articles (none of which Teri Owens has ever refuted) complete with links and facts and documentation itemizing their lies about a convention.
To Mr. Jones:
Well, ready or not here it comes. Mr. Jones you need to check your facts about the state legislatures not being ready for a convention and not knowing about Congress. First of all, you need to actually read the applications at www.foavc.org. The first mention of federal government excess of power was made in an application in 1832. Second, the states saw the problems we are now discussing and made applicaions to stop it decades in advance of them. The facts are indisputable and irrefutable. We are in this mess not because of a convention or the states but because Congress refuses to obey the Constitution.
And Terri Owen supports that. She supports Congress not obeying the Constitution and us being in this mess we are in. Everytime the government vetoes the Constitution she supports it and JBS, no matter what they say to the contrary, supports it because they want to deny us the solution to the problem. Like it or not amendments work especially if they are written so that they can be enforced whether the government likes it or not. But Teri Owens and the JBS wants this right of the people to be able to alter its form of government denied us and for us to remain subjects of the government rather than citizens.
Third and finally Mr. Jones, as factually shown on our website in our references. There have been nearly a 1000 conventions held in the world since 1776. Even England is talking about a convention and its government, upon which is based, is nearly a 1000 years older than ours and even they see the need for a convention especially after seeing how well the Scottish Convention worked.
The point is this, of these 1000 conventions, nearly 700 of them have been state constitutional conventions and that is the proper term to use because that is what they were designated by the legislatures (and Ms. Owens don't try the obvious: the Constitution, as stated above in the article designates the limited purpose and name of the convention which, everytime you misstate it you show your contempt for the Constitution; a convention to propose amendments or Article V Convention). Thus, the state legislatures are literally twice as prepared as anyone else in the world to hold a national convention if for no other reason they've had more practice at holding conventions than anyone else.
And if you want to see how safe a convention is, start naming the countries or states that right now either are planning, discussing, have held or will hold conventions throughout the world. I bet you can't think of one because they so innocuous outside of the state or country they are held in, people don't even realize they happen.
Bill, I am a registered member of FOAVC. I do support your efforts, and I have reviewed the applications and do believe that there is an obvious breach of the U.S. Constituiton's Article V petition requirements. I even gave this a much needed thumbs up, for that reason alone.
However, it occured to me that there is growing momentum for states' rights since I joined. This is most certainly a vast improvement, because state legislators are waking up.
I'm just stating that it might be most prudent to see that the cards are well stacked in favor of those who hold our Constitutional rights dear to their hearts.
I do, and have always believed, that if the state legislators do not "put their game faces on" when planning for a convention, the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the President will chew them up and spit them out. The Federal government will perceive a sense of weakness on the behalf of the states, and will exploit it in order to achieve a power-grab. The attitude must shift from a "beg for the o-so-gracious and benevolent federal government to grant me my rights" to a "these are my natural rights, now back off" attitude.
The good news is, the state legislators outnumber the federal legislators, and all they need is to be empowered and informed.
Also, when I said that the state legislators "are not ready," I meant that they are not philosophically ready. I wasn't referring to the numbers of applications. We're way past the ready mark in that regard.
There must be a definite understanding by the states that the federal government was a product of and servant to the states, not vice versa. Even now, the attitude is not quite perfected, as the state of Montana is now, curiously, awaiting to see what the Supreme Court (hint: branch of the Federal government) has to say about a firearm rights protection law that the Montana legislature already knows is Constitutional. What will they do if the Federal government says, "Nope, sorry. Try again"?
But, as I stated, the states' rights movement is growing rapidly. Strength in numbers and all that. :)
Well now that you've explained your statement about not being ready I fully agree with what you've said. The JBS has had a free hand for the last 30 years and with just public record nearly all, if not all, is biting the dust bin as the real facts emerge.
I agree wholeheartedly the states are not ready philosophically even though they continue to submit applications for a convention call. It is for this reason that while I do believe using the Tenth Amendment is the wrong approach, i.e., the wrong part of the Constituiton to achieve what the leaders of the movement say they want, I am encouraged that there is a movement at all in this regard and I agree it is growing.
Sooner or later the desire to actually do something is going to overcome the resistance implanted by the JBS at the state legislature level. How long no one can say but it will happen. The excesses of the federal government simply continue to grow and the states, acting through Article V, are simply the only game in town constitutionally capable of changing the course of events, as was intended when Article V was created.
In many ways this movement mirrors our history towards getting independence. At first the colonies were fractured and had the attitude of "please sire, please we beg you to favor us." Later it became, "Look King we got a problem and you need to solve this or there's going to be real problems." Still later it was, "Don't want to listen King? Okay...make my day."
Frankly I think the states are going to quickly get away from the Charles Dickens version of "Please sir, I want some more" for the states asking Congress to have equal footing under the Constitution and soon are going to get agressive. But you are right. They can't be in this for the bluff or Congress will run right over them. In for a penny, in for a pound.
To be honest, as I have written before even if the JBS was right about a convention doing what they suggest, and they are not, that convention could still be controlled. All you do is pass a law making such an action illegal in the state where the convention is held and arrest all the delegates at the first sign of them doing anything outside of proposing amendments. In fact, given the specific letter of Article V I'd be willing to argue that current federal law is enough to deal with the situation. It's against the law for federal officials (and convention delegates will be federal officials) to publicly advocate overthrowing our constitutional form of government let alone actually doing it and writing a new constitution and trying to enforce it by fiat I think would qualify as a violation under the terms of the law.
What has always bugged me about the JBS is not so much they lie though I personally loath liars, but the fact that instead of attempting to find solutions to what they perceive as issues of a convention, they instead merely are content to destroy the Constitution by establishing it may be vetoed by the government. In this way they figure they are "protecting the Constituiton." Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Now I've just made a proposed solution, one I've made many times and not one JBS member has ever said that simply arresting those who would attempt to do what they say they fear so much thus stopping the effort dead in its tracks wouldn't work.
Maybe if JBS spent less time telling lies and more time seeking solution, they really would get credit for "protecting the Constitution" because in the end that's what the Constitution is about--providing us the means whereby we can have solutions to our problems using various guarantees and procedures within that document.
One final comment about Teri Owens and then I'm going to move on. If you go to her website you'll notice two things. First of all none of the members of her organization are identified. FOAVC posts the actual names of our membership on our site.
Second, and this is probably the most important point. Go to her blog about me and FOAVC and try to post a comment. Ms. Owens has turned comments off on her page. Now Ms. Owens asks who do you trust meaning we are supposed to trust her and not trust FOAVC.
FOAVC uses public record that can be verified by anyone, anytime, anywhere including the references used in this column. We have a blog page as well as several other pages including an email address that people can use to contact us directly to ask questions about an Article V Convention. All of our material is open to comment in our blog page; we do not prevent comments though of course we monitor them for inappropriate material such as Spam, foul language and so forth.
In short, we are open. If anyone believes we have cited a public record incorrectly or represented it incorrectedly in our citations they are free at any time to check our work.
Teri Owen's site does not even provide an email where she or any member of her organization may be contacted. However, if you check on her references she does cite you'll find they all lead to only one source: the John Birch Society. She does not quote public record, just JBS opinion.
According to our research, this organization has a total of ten members. That was the number of people that showed up last year at a committee meeting of the state legislature to protest the Ohio state legislature considering an application for a convention.
An Article V Convention is your right. It allows you to make changes to your government in a legal, constituitonal manner that cannot be achieved by the usual methods of voting for a specific political candidate.
The purpose of the JBS campaign should be obvious to all: the JBS wants people to accept the idea that the Constitution can be vetoed and that they are powerless to do anything about it. Their argument is based on the false premise that a convention will do nothing but attempt to write a new constitution and more importantly that everyone effected by such an action has no right to do anything about it. Once this becomes embedded in the mind of the people it is a simple matter for a small organized radical group of individuals such as JBS for example to swoop in, do the very thing they warn against and take over having conditioned everyone that if such an action occurs, they have no choice but to accept its outcome.
Think about it: do you really want ten people in Ohio telling you what parts of the Constitution will be enforced when they won't even allow comments in rebuttal on their site and do you really trust someone who does that sort of thing?
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.
