Let's Leave the Constitution "As Is"; Exposing the Fallacious Argument
The article discusses the fallacious argument by those who such we don't need an Article V Convention because the Constitution is fine "as is" by Bill Walker
(libertarian)
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
"We have problems in this country caused by government officials not obeying the Constitution. We don't need a convention. All we have to do is obey the Constitution AS IS."
This statement is said repeatedly by countless opponents to an Article V Convention as the basis for opposing a convention. A discerning person can easily spot the fallacy in it.
The problem with this statement is that if we obey the Constitution "as is" this includes a call for an Article V Convention. Article V exists within the Constitution "as is." Article V mandates Congress shall call a convention "on the application of two-thirds of the several state legislatures" which means if the states have submitted applications for a convention call, Congress must call a convention. Thus, there are two states to the Constitution vis--vis Article V, a state where the Constitution mandates a convention call and a state where it does not mandate a convention call. Both are part of the Constitution "as is". However, the choice of what state the Constitution is in depends not on the whim or caprice of an individual or movement, but on whether or not the states have exercised their Article V rights to compel Congress to call an Article V Convention. It is irrefutable the applications to cause a convention call exist, indeed, more than exist. Those who advocate the above statement of obeying the Constitution "as is" while simultaneously urging a convention not be called when the Constitution mandates it be done, deliberately ignore the fact that because of the number of applications, the current state of the Constitution "as is" is that Congress must call a convention. Once Congress does so and a convention is held only then are the applications discharged.
Once the applications are discharged, the Constitution automatically reverts to its "non convention" state (until the states again apply) at which time the "as is" argument presented by these opponents becomes valid. Then the question would be, "shall we hold another Article V Convention?" and those opposed to doing so and having the states submit new applications for a convention call would say, "the Constitution is fine as is. We don't need a convention." Then they would not be disloyal to the Constitution as they are now by urging its overthrow, they would simply be suggesting the states not submit new applications, which automatically precludes a convention call. Moreover, there is nothing disloyal in that given that the state of the Constitution is in the "insufficient number of applications to cause a call" state.
Therefore when one of these Article V opponents states we should obey the Constitution "as is" but then says we do not need a convention they are in clear and obvious conflict with the present state of the Constitution. The states have already determined we do need a convention. Otherwise, they would not have applied for a call in such overwhelming numbers. Given these facts it is clear these opponents really don't want the Constitution obeyed "as is." What they mean to say is, "We don't want to obey the Constitution as is. We want the right to veto the Constitution "as is"." In the final analysis what these constitutional hypocrites seek is the Constitution obeyed, not "as is" but as they see it and what they see is a Constitution where the language is outright ignored and vetoed by the government. They seek the destruction of the Constitution of the United States by establishment that it be disobeyed "as is" but as they (or someone else) wants to be "obeyed".
They are right about one thing. Congress has vetoed the Constitution and that is very wrong as well as a federal crime. We need to obey the Constitution, all the Constitution, "as is" and in this case that means forcing Congress to call a convention because the Constitution, "as is" says they have to do it. Obviously, those who urge the Constitution be obeyed "as is" while saying "we don't need a convention" are misstating real support for the Constitution. The conclusion is obvious. These so called supporters of the Constitution really do not want the Constitution obeyed "as is". They want it obeyed as THEY see the Constitution, ignoring whatever provisions of it they do not agree with. Thus they are identical to the very people they condemn for doing the exact same thing. They are constitutional hypocrites and as such, must be rejected least we travel down the path not of constitution obedience but anarchy for if each may choose that which they will obey, the ultimate will be all will obey none.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
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: Ross Williams
Date: 2009-12-29 08:55:23
Therefore when one of these Article V opponents states we should obey the Constitution "as is" but then says we do not need a convention they are in clear and obvious conflict with the present state of the Constitution.
You're not much of one for rational construction of an argument, are you?
The allowance for a thing does not imply an obligation to the thing.
There is no fallacy in saying that the Constitution would be all we need if it were actually enforced.
Nice try Ross. Really good try. But it is not snivelling when the Constitution in precise and specific language states that an action shall be taken by Congress upon and as a result of the action of the states. That is part of the Constitution "as is."
In short, the Constitution presents and demands an obligation of a thing, that is a convention call by the Congress. There is a fallacy in saying "the Constitution would be all we need if it were actually enforced" WHEN it is coupled with an argument that despite the requirement of Article V that provision (and only that provision) should be ignored or not enforced.
In short, the statement is correct but the manner in which it is used is not. The statement is used by those stating not to suggest Article V be enforced but it NOT be enforced and it is clear you also believe this sentiment. So, in fact, what you are saying is that despite any obligation of the Constitution, it must not be obeyed.
In short, you clearly don't support the Constitution. You support selective enforcement of the Constitution making you clearly a constitutional hypocrite. Either you obey all the Constitution, all of it and enforce it "as is" or you advocate the government can veto any part of it and that is just plain wrong.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2009-12-29 13:17:03
So, in fact, what you are saying is ...
Do not EVER tell me what I am saying. This is not debatable. If you have questions, then you may ask me and I will clarify. But this habit some self-righteous people have to axiomatically divide the world by false dichotomy into two artificial groups is annoying, self-serving propogandizing.
Knock it off.
The Constitution contains a clause allowing the executive to negotiate treaties, but requiring the Advice and Consent of the Senate; if the President were to not negotiate a treaty, would you claim that the Constitution was not being completely enforced? that it was being selectively enforced? Would you claim that those who argued against negotiating a treaty with Nation A for whatever reason were against "obeying the Constitution"? Are those who advocate against a Climate Treaty trying to trash the Constitution? Are you suggesting that we must have a Climate Treaty because the Constitution allows us to make such treaties?
You'd better not be, because that would be irrational and dogmatic nonsense.
Because -- as I said -- an allowance for a thing does not convey an obligation to that thing.
The Constitution allows for a Constitutional Convention; it does not require one.
The Constitution allows for amendment; it does not require amendment.
The Constitution allows for Congress to authorize the minting of coin; it does not require the minting of coin.
There is a difference between allowance and obligation that you do not comprehend, and you are making your lack of comprehension [embarrassingly] public.
You are all hot on the need for a Constitutional Convention, and you may have a good point for such buried somewhere under your delusion palaver. But -- and pay attention to me, here -- you are going to get nowhere, and very quickly, by poutingly claiming that those who don't see the need for a Constitutional Convention are enemies of the Constitution willing to parse it and shred it.
"There is no fallacy in saying that the Constitution would be all we need if it were actually enforced."
Ross, if the Constitution WERE enforced we would have an Article V Convention which you obviously oppose.
Isn't it funny about hypocrites. You have no problem being one until it's pointed out then you get all worked up. I will tell you what you are saying, really saying, anytime I choose. Remember, you came to me on this page, I didn't seek you out. You're the one saying the above quote then arguing that just because the Constitution allows for something (a convention call) doesn't mean we have to obey it. Wordage may be different than others like you but you're still saying we should scrap the Constitution by allowing the government to veto it and you really are saying "I only support the Constitition so far as I agree with it."
Now as to your treaty argument. Nice try again. Trying to draw me into the climate treaty. Nice try. Sorry. Your example is pure bunk. Obviously there is a choice as to whether a treaty is negoated between the United States and any nation. HOWEVER WHAT YOU IGNORE IS THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTION MANDATES THAT ONCE THE TREATY IS NEGOATED IT BECOMES LAW OF THE LAND. In other words, the United States assumes the obligations of that treaty whatever it is. There is no option in this in the Constitution.
Now AS THE STATES HAVE APPLIED IN SUFFICIENT NUMBERS TO SATISFY ARTICLE V (I'm writing this in nice big letters so you can read them) then to use your own language the Constitution "conveys" an obligation to the Congress and on the Congress to call a convention. You maintain with your sentence that somehow even though the Constitution allows for a convention call THAT STILL SOMEHOW DOES NOT JUSTIFY OR MANDATE THAT AN ACTUAL CALL MUST BE MADE. YOU ARE TOTALLY INCORRECT. IT DOES MANDATE A CONVENTION CALL.
As to proof, read the four Supreme Court rulings and Federalist 85 on our website. The Supreme Court has stated four times if the states apply, Congress MUST call.
Allow me to quote one of the four cases, U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931):
"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. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses; or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the STATES, MUST call a convention to propose them." [Emphasis and Caps added so I'm sure you see the actual language]
By your logic, any part of the Constitution has no force of law or effect whatsoever. I've seriously never heard a more stupid position than the one you are advancing. By your logic, i.e., "the Constitution allows for Congress to authorize the minting of coin; it does not require the minting of coin" the Constitution allows for the existence of the federal government, and the states but it does not require they exist. In short, the Constitution allows but does not exist.
Article V precludes your argument. It states emphatically and catagorically that if the states apply, which they have, a convention must be called, that does exist. In short, it is you who is embarrassing themselves in public because it is you who shows they can't read even a partial sentence of 22 words inside a public document.
As to not getting somewhere. Let me ask you a question since you say I can. How can you argue that those who oppose obeying the Constitution are not enemies of it? You present a logic that is beyond comprehension--it's called anarchy. The law allows for something but that doesn't mean we have to have it. Conclusion: we therefore have the right to ignore that law. That is anarchy. Each person is a law unto himself.
Like I said nice try. The Constitution mandates an action by Congress as a result of a constitutional action of the states. You say even though of this specific language I and anyone else who supports obeying the Constitution should accept that those like you who believe it should be scrapped (for that is the ultimate goal of those who believe in anarachy) should not be branded for what they are. Naturally. How else can you succeed at your goal if you are found out before you have?
Your very words prove you are willing to "parse and shred" the Constitution. Let me repeat them again, "an allowance for a thing does not convey an obligation to that thing." I'd love to have show me in law where that is advocated. In short, just because the Constitution mandates an action, YOU SAY there is no obligation to do it. So I guess you support the government violating the Bill of Rights--correct? After all, an allowance for a thing (the rights given people in the first ten amendments) does not not convey an obligation to that thing (the government actually obeying those amendments and not violating the rights prescribed) Hence if you were arrested you would have no objection to the government forcing you to testify against yourself, not allowing you to cross-examine witnesses, denying you consel and so on--by your logic you have to say "yes, that's right." Allowing of something does not convey obligation.
As to the need for a convention. If you take time to look around, its need is obvious. We have an out of control national government and the only thing powerful enough to do the job of controlling is the amendment system and because the government will not do so itself, it falls a convention to do it.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-05 14:09:48
Ross, if the Constitution WERE enforced we would have an Article V Convention which you obviously oppose.
Mr Walker: If you would be so kind as to pull your head out of your ass, then maybe we could have a discussion. But I've read as much of your swill as I can and cannot bring myself to be polite to such an obvious ideologue.
I do not oppose a Constitutional convention, I do not favor one. I "nothing" a Constitutional Convention.
The fact that you cannot make your argument without resorting to dishonestly characterizing the person who calls you on your strident and dishonest use of language is, well, your problem - not mine.
You're the one saying the above quote then arguing that just because the Constitution allows for something (a convention call) doesn't mean we have to obey it.
I have never said that, you liar, and you cannot find anything close to that coming from me.
I have said that just because the Constitution allows it does not mean we are obliged to do it. "Not obliged to" does not equal "must not".
The more you insist that anyone correcting your strident self-righteousness is really the strawman you've created the less likely you are to get any kind of polite reception anywhere else on anyTHING else.
You.
Are.
Wrong.
Get used to it.
The Constitution allows for amendments, but it doesn't require them.
The Constitution allows for presidential impeachment, but it doesn't require them.
The Constitution allows for warfare, but it doesn't require it.
The Constitution allows for treaties with foreign powers, but it doesn't require them.
The Constitution allows for a constitutional convention, but it doesn't require one.
Period. End of discussion. Get off your equivocative soapbox and stop rationalizing why black is white and up is down.
If the states get together in sufficient unanimity and decide a convention is in order then fine: gotta have one. If they don't, then it is not required to have one.
You may be right that the "need" exists; I haven't addressed that. I don't care to. I'm perfactly happy with you believing the need exists. Pester your state lawmakers to your heart's content.
But the second you start with the irrational crap which only seeks to divide for the sake of showing what a simpleton you are, then I'll call you on it.
And once again, do not EVER tell me what I mean. I will tell YOU, and if you have questions, then you ASK for clarification.
Well gee Ross, four months later and you respond. And here I was holding my breath all that time.
Simple point to respond. The states have applied. That is public record. Therefore there must be a convention.
And sorry, the Constitution mandates certain actions and gives certain powers. I seriously doubt given your written statements that anyone can persuade you to the fact that a Constitution must be obeyed. You live in some fantasy world. I suggest a chill pill. In any event, beyond stating what even a third grader knows about obeying the law, you're not worth anymore in time of response.
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.
