Rand Paul wants Balanced Budget Article V Convention
This alternative method of amending the United States Constitution has never been used. by George Dance
(libertarian)
Friday, January 21, 2011
Rand Paul wants Article V Convention on Balanced Budget
Method of constitutional amendment has never been tried, but has been endorsed by 32 states.
The Cincinnati (Ohio) Enquirer and the Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal reported on January 20 that newly elected U.S. Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul is supports calling an Article V convention to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).
The papers' source was a statement by David Williams, president of the state Senate and a candidate for governor. Williams said that he intends to introduce a resolution on the subject when the state legislature reconvenes in February. He added that Rand Paul will appear before both the Senate State & Local Government Committee and the full Senate to support the resolution.
"Our Founders, in their enduring brilliance, provided the states with a mechanism to amend the Constitution should the U.S. Congress fail to act. Congress has not acted on a Balanced Budget Amendment despite the overwhelming feeling of the American people that it would help put our nation's fiscal house in order. I am grateful that Senator Williams is introducing this resolution and is joining me in fighting to balance the federal budget," Paul was quoted as saying in the statement. (1)
"My view is this amendment is long overdue, and I appreciate Sen. Paul for lending his voice to this effort," Williams added. (2)
"The U.S. Constitution requires Congress to call a convention to consider proposing an amendment if two-thirds of the state legislatures ask for one," noted the Courier-Journal. "An amendment has never been proposed in this fashion." (2)
Article V conventions are so-called because they are authorized by Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which authorized two methods of proposing amendments:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ... (3)
Balanced budget requirements, notes online encyclopedia Wikipedia, form part of the constitutions of Germany and Switzerland, and of all U.S. states except Vermont. No such amendment binds the U.S. federal government, despite the effort of many advocates through the years including Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1798:
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. (4)
Balanced budget amendments have been proposed in both Houses of Congress since the 1970's. Online encyclopedia Wikipedia notes that one such amendment "was approved by the senate (by a vote of 69 to 31) on August 4, 1982, but supported by an inadequate majority of the House of Representatives (with a vote of 236 to 187) on October 1, 1982." "In March 1995, a Balanced Budget Amendment passed the House of Representatives and came within one vote of passing the Senate.""Recently," adds the encyclopedia, "a Balanced Budget Amendment has the support of several legislators, including South Carolina Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, who introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution in 2007." (4)
However, "since Congress has never had the necessary two-thirds majority in both houses to propose a BBA, a movement began in the 1970s to get a two thirds of the state legislatures to petition Congress to convene a constitutional convention (Con-Con) for proposing a BBA as provided in Article V of the Constitution." (5) Notes Wikipedia::
Between April 29, 1975 and January 29, 1980, 34 petitions from 30 different state legislatures were submitted to Congress on the subject of a Balanced Budget Amendment. The participating states were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
Since 1980, two additional state legislatures have petitioned Congress for a convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment, bringing the total number of participating states to 32.[9] If two additional state legislatures were to petition, then the required two-thirds majority of states would be reached (34 out of 50 states) and some contend that Congress would be required to call a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment." (4)
"In December 2008," the encyclopedia adds, "the Ohio legislature considered making Ohio the 33rd state to petition for a convention on the subject, but decided against it." (4)
However, sweetliberty.org (which opposes the calling of a Constitutional Convention) reports that 3 states Alabama, Florida and Louisiana rescinded their calls." In addition, "The Nevada House of Representatives "purged" its resolution. However, since both chambers passed the resolution, it is questionable whether the one-chamber purge would be accepted as a rescission." (6)
Indeed, some proponents of an Article V convention question whether state petitions for a convention be rescinded, since Article V does not explicitly give the states any power to do so:
In both Hawke v Smith and United States v Sprague, the court stated Article V is plain in meaning and requires no rules of construction. Thus, there are no implied powers. As noted in Hawke, when acting in the amendment process, states operate under authority and limitation of Article V not their own state constitutions. Article V grants no authority for either Congress or the states to rescind applications. Therefore, such rescissions are unconstitutional. (7)
Many other details of an Article V convention seem equally vague, equally susceptible to interpretation. When it looked as though such a convention might happen in the early 1980's, Wikipedia notes:
Many people were appalled at the concept; some constitutional scholars suggested that such a body could not be limited to its ostensible purpose and could largely rewrite the Constitution, perhaps removing or reducing the Bill of Rights, a fear that backers described as being totally groundless, since any proposed changes would still have to be approved by three quarters of the states, which would presumably doom any attempt to end basic constitutional freedoms.
Detractors also noted that there was no mechanism in place by which to select delegates to any such convention, meaning that the states might choose to select them in a way which tended to subvert democracy. Backers also produced their own constitutional scholars stating that limiting such a convention was perfectly constitutional, that it could be limited to whatever purpose the states had called it for, and that states would be free to select the delegates to represent them, as was the case in 1787. (4)
Fears like the above have led some conservative groups to reject not only the Article V convention but the very idea of a BBA itself; including, notes New American, including The John Birch Society, which has been adamantly opposed to a BBA for over 30 years... "members of the JBS have been working closely with state legislators for about 30 years to convince them against calling for a Con-Con for any reason due to the risk of putting into motion an inherently risky constitutional convention process that could lead to bad amendments." (5)
On the other hand, reports New American, "More than 80 groups have signed up to be part of the campaign for the Balanced Budget Amendment, including national groups like Americans for Tax Reform, Young Americans for Freedom, and a variety of local grass-roots organizations like Tea Party groups and College Republicans from across the country." As well: "According to a Washington Post poll, more than 60 percent of Americans are in favor of the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. (5)
Among the latter is Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who argue that only the threat of a convention will prompt action on the issue at all:
At the same time, popular support for a constitutional convention can also spur Congress to take action on reforms that are currently being ignored. The prospect of another constitutional convention prompted Congress to adopt the Bill of Rights. Other movements to call conventions resulted in the direct election of Senators nearly a century ago, and major budget reforms in the 1980s. Today's convention movement could keep the pressure on Congress to bring the Balanced Budget Amendment to the floors of both houses, and then to the states. (8)
(1) Amanda van Benschoten, "and Paul, David Williams team up on balanced budget amendment", Kentucky Politics blog, cincinnati.com, Jan. 20, 2011.
(2) Stephenie Steitzer, "Rand Paul to appear before Senate to back balanced budget amendment", Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal, Jan. 20, 2011. Web, Jan. 21, 2011. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110120/NEWS01/301200071/1008/Rand+Paul+to+appear+before+Senate+to+back+balanced+budget+amendment
(3) The United States Constitution", U.S. Constitution on-line. Web, Jan. 21, 2011. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5
(5) Raven Clabough, "Newly Elected Congressmen Lead Push for BBA". New American, Nov. 10, 2010. Web, Jan. 21, 2010. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5160-newly-elected-congressmen-lead-push-for-bba
(6) "States With a Standing Call for a Constitutional Convention,' Constitutional Convention, sweetliberty.org. Web, Jan. 21, 2011. http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm
(7) Bill Walker, "My Article V Speech At Cooley Law School", Nolan Chart, Sep. 19, 2010. http://www.nolanchart.com/article8017.html
(8) John Cornyn, "Power to the People -- How to Balance the Budget", Fox News, Sep. 13 2010. Web, Jan. 21, 2011. Http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/13/sen-john-cornyn-constitutional-convention-balanced-budget-obama-founders/
The Cincinnati (OH) Enquirer and the Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal reported on January 20 that newly elected U.S. Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul supports calling an Article V convention to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).
The papers' source was a statement by David Williams, president of the Kentucky state Senate and a candidate for governor. Williams said that he intends to introduce a resolution on the subject when the state legislature reconvenes in February. He added that Rand Paul will appear before both the Kentucky Senate's State & Local Government Committee, and the full state Senate, to endorse the resolution.
"Our Founders, in their enduring brilliance, provided the states with a mechanism to amend the Constitution should the U.S. Congress fail to act. Congress has not acted on a Balanced Budget Amendment despite the overwhelming feeling of the American people that it would help put our nation's fiscal house in order. I am grateful that Senator Williams is introducing this resolution and is joining me in fighting to balance the federal budget," Paul was quoted in the statement as saying. (1)
"My view is this amendment is long overdue, and I appreciate Sen. Paul for lending his voice to this effort," Williams added. (2)
"The U.S. Constitution requires Congress to call a convention to consider proposing an amendment if two-thirds of the state legislatures ask for one," explained the Courier-Journal. "An amendment has never been proposed in this fashion." (2)
Article V conventions are so called because they are authorized by Article V of the United States Constitution, which outlined two different methods for proposing constitutional amendments:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" (3)
Balanced budget requirements, notes online encyclopedia Wikipedia, form part of the constitutions of Germany and Switzerland, and of all U.S. states except Vermont. No such amendment binds the U.S. federal government, despite the efforts of many proponents throughout the years -- including Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1798:
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. (4)
In modern times, BBA's have been proposed in both houses of Congress since the 1970's. Wikipedia notes that one BBA "was approved by the Senate (by a vote of 69 to 31) on August 4, 1982, but supported by an inadequate majority of the House of Representatives (with a vote of 236 to 187) on October 1, 1982." Again, "In March 1995, a Balanced Budget Amendment passed the House of Representatives and came within one vote of passing the Senate."
"Recently," adds the encyclopedia, "a Balanced Budget Amendment has the support of several legislators, including South Carolina Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, who introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution in 2007." (4)
However, "since Congress has never had the necessary two-thirds majority in both houses to propose a BBA, a movement began in the 1970s to get two thirds of the state legislatures to petition Congress to convene a constitutional convention (Con-Con) for proposing a BBA as provided in Article V of the Constitution." (5) Notes Wikipedia:
Between April 29, 1975 and January 29, 1980, 34 petitions from 30 different state legislatures were submitted to Congress on the subject of a Balanced Budget Amendment. The participating states were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
Since 1980, two additional state legislatures have petitioned Congress for a convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment, bringing the total number of participating states to 32.[9] If two additional state legislatures were to petition, then the required two-thirds majority of states would be reached (34 out of 50 states) and some contend that Congress would be required to call a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment." (4)
"In December 2008," Wikipedia adds, "the Ohio legislature considered making Ohio the 33rd state to petition for a convention on the subject, but decided against it." (4)
SweetLiberty.org (which opposes the calling of a Constitutional Convention) counters that "3 states -- Alabama, Florida and Louisiana -- rescinded their calls." In addition: "The Nevada House of Representatives 'purged' its resolution. However, since both chambers passed the resolution, it is questionable whether the one-chamber purge would be accepted as a rescission." (6)
Indeed, some proponents of an Article V convention question whether state petitions for a convention can be rescinded at all, since Article V does not explicitly give the states any power to do so:
In both Hawke v Smith and United States v Sprague, the court stated Article V is plain in meaning and requires no rules of construction. Thus, there are no implied powers. As noted in Hawke, when acting in the amendment process, states operate under authority and limitation of Article V not their own state constitutions. Article V grants no authority for either Congress or the states to rescind applications. Therefore, such rescissions are unconstitutional. (7)
Many other details of an Article V convention seem equally vague, equally susceptible to interpretation. When it looked as though such a convention might happen in the early 1980's, Wikipedia notes:
Many people were appalled at the concept; some constitutional scholars suggested that such a body could not be limited to its ostensible purpose and could largely rewrite the Constitution, perhaps removing or reducing the Bill of Rights, a fear that backers described as being totally groundless, since any proposed changes would still have to be approved by three quarters of the states, which would presumably doom any attempt to end basic constitutional freedoms.
Detractors also noted that there was no mechanism in place by which to select delegates to any such convention, meaning that the states might choose to select them in a way which tended to subvert democracy. Backers also produced their own constitutional scholars stating that limiting such a convention was perfectly constitutional, that it could be limited to whatever purpose the states had called it for, and that states would be free to select the delegates to represent them, as was the case in 1787. (4)
Fears like the above have led some conservative groups to reject not only the Article V convention but the very idea of a BBA itself; "including," notes New American, "The John Birch Society, which has been adamantly opposed to a BBA for over 30 years.... members of the JBS have been working closely with state legislators for about 30 years to convince them against calling for a Con-Con for any reason due to the risk of putting into motion an inherently risky constitutional convention process that could lead to bad amendments." (5)
On the other hand, New American also reports: "More than 80 groups have signed up to be part of the campaign for the Balanced Budget Amendment, including national groups like Americans for Tax Reform, Young Americans for Freedom, and a variety of local grass-roots organizations like Tea Party groups and College Republicans from across the country." As well: "According to a Washington Post poll, more than 60 percent of Americans are in favor of the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment." (5)
Among the latter is Paul's fellow-Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), who, though he advocates a BBA passed the traditional way through Congress, argues that support for an Article V convention is needed to achieve that goal:
At the same time, popular support for a constitutional convention can also spur Congress to take action on reforms that are currently being ignored. The prospect of another constitutional convention prompted Congress to adopt the Bill of Rights. Other movements to call conventions resulted in the direct election of Senators nearly a century ago, and major budget reforms in the 1980s. Today's convention movement could keep the pressure on Congress to bring the Balanced Budget Amendment to the floors of both houses, and then to the states. (8)
--
Sources:
Photo: United States Senate candidate Rand Paul, at a town hall meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, Nov. 7, 2009. Photo by Gage Skidmore. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Courtesy Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rand_Paul_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg
(1) Amanda van Benschoten, "Rand Paul, David Williams team up on balanced budget amendment", Kentucky Politics blog, Cincinnati.com, Jan. 20, 2011. http://cincinnati.com/blogs/nkypolitics/2011/01/20/rand-paul-david-williams-team-up-on-balanced-budget-amendment/
(5) Raven Clabough, "Newly Elected Congressmen Lead Push for BBA". New American, Nov. 10, 2010. Web, Jan. 21, 2010. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5160-newly-elected-congressmen-lead-push-for-bba
(8) John Cornyn, "Power to the People -- How to Balance the Budget", Fox News, Sep. 13 2010. Web, Jan. 21, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/13/sen-john-cornyn-constitutional-convention-balanced-budget-obama-founders/
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 12
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of George Dance only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
George Dance 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: Mark Vogl
Date: January 22, 2011 08:44:23 AM
To get 3/4's of the states to support this would be an amazing feat. Why? Because of the funds the states received from the Federal government. Any tightening of the purse strings would impact all the states. I strongly support a Balanced Budget Amendment..if the government had to raise taxes as it spent, spending would decline sharply, or incumbents would be thrown out. So I support the concept. But as a political initiative I am not sure how far it would go. And I do have one other concern. If the Convention were called, would it be only for a specific stated purpose, or could it be used an opporutnity to wreak havoc on the Constitution in areas not addressed by whatever legislation it takes to do this?
Posted By: George Dance
Date: January 22, 2011 09:24:38 AM
You make some good points, Mark. How many state governments could maintain their own balanced budget guidelines? The ratification fight could become very messy (like the Equal Rights Amendment fight and the Meech Lake amendments up here), with fierce battles to pass in the 16 non-petitioning states and equally fierce ones to rescind in the states that pass it. Which raises the question of whether rescissions are constitutional: Bill Walker says they're not, but others say they are. There's no way to keep the fight from spilling into the courts, and up to SCOTUS, who will have to rule on all of this.
The fear that a Constitutional Convention could rewrite the constitution wholesale or make its own changes (say, watering down or eliminating the Second or Fourth Amendments) is a real fear, among Libertarians as much as among Birchers (maybe because we've both got money from Koch 8). The only precedent available is the Convention that was called to 'modify the articles of Confederation,' and gave the country a whole new Constitution instead. Most scholars say that a convention can be limited, and the calls for a BBA Convention all assume it can. But not if, as Walker says, SCOTUS has ruled there are *no* implied powers. Because Article V allows congress to call a convention to propose amendments; it does not allow congress to tell the convention what amendments it can and can't propose.
These are all serious concerns. In fact, I think I might go back and incorporate some of this in my article.
Posted By: Bentree
Date: January 22, 2011 09:24:55 AM
John DeWitt
Massachusetts, October 27, 1787
"The most effective series of articles denying the need for a stronger central government came from an unidentified Massachusetts anti-federalist in a series of five articles that appeared in the Boston American Herald, under the pseudonym "John DeWitt", in honor of the the seventeenth century Dutch patriot who had defended the liberties of the people against an oppressive central government.
To the Free Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
In my last address upon the proceedings of the Federal Convention I endeavored to convince you of the importance of the subject, that it required a cool, dispassionate examination, and a thorough investigation, previous to its adoption -- that it was not a mere revision and amendment of our first Confederation, but a compleat System for the future government of the United States, and I may now add in preference to, and in exclusion of, all others heretofore adopted. -- It is not TEMPORARY, but in its nature, PERPETUAL. -- It is not designed that you shall be annually called, either to revise, correct, or renew it; but, that your posterity shall grow up under, and be governed by it, as well as ourselves. -- It is not so capable of alterations as you would at the first reading suppose; and I venture to assert, it never can be, unless by force of arms. The fifth article in the proceedings, it is true, expressly provides for an alteration under certain conditions, whenever "it shall be ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress." -- Notwithstanding which, such are the "heterogeneous materials from which this System was formed," such is the difference of interest, different manners, and different local prejudices, in the different parts of the United States, that to obtain that majority of three fourths to any one single alteration, essentially affecting this or any other State, amounts to an absolute impossibility. The conduct of the Delegates in dissolving the Convention, plainly speaks this language, and no other. --Their sentiments in their Letter to his Excellency the President of Congress are -- That this Constitution was the result of a spirit of amity -- that the parties came together disposed to concede as much as possible each to the other -- that mutual concessions and compromises did, in fact, take place, and all those which could, consistent with the peculiarity of their political situation. Their dissolution enforces the same sentiment, by confining you to the alternative of taking or refusing their doings in the gross. In this view, who is there to be found among us, who can seriously assert, that this Constitution, after ratification and being practiced upon, will be so easy of alteration? Where is the probability that a future Convention, in any future day, will be found possessed of a greater spirit of amity and mutual concession than the present?" John DeWitt
I do not believe that there can be a singular focus if the convention is called, danger, danger. It is easy to lose control of a revolution therein lies the problem. The apparent civilized attempted revolution may result in the same upheaval as the more uncivilized.
Posted By: OneSovereignCitizen
Date: January 22, 2011 02:43:37 PM
Official U.S. Voting Unit
Since the Article V Amendments Convention as never been utilized, perhaps an initial amendment with minimum contentiousness would be better than the Balanced Budget Amendment, such as an Official U.S. Voting Unit, that does not have a secret proprietary code (ES&S/Diebold controls up to 80% of the voting units, tallying equipment and secret source code) for counting ballots and/or tallying the vote. A paper trail is absolutely mandatory. It's a no-brainer that private ownership and control of voting through proprietary code creates a potential Devil's Playground.
Once an amendment like this is proposed and ratified, future amendments should be somewhat easier.
Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: January 22, 2011 06:11:33 PM
Since I am mentioned in some of the responses of this article, I will make some comments. First of all, I must say overall the article is very objective and informative. This is refreshing given some of the earlier articles of a few years ago discussing a convention. As I've said previously, the debate has shifted in the past few months.
Up until then, the debate was over the "Why" of a convention. Why should a convention be held? The so-called arguments of the JBS were the main reasons people believed a convention was a danger. But time has proven these so-called arguments to be nothing but lies. As the lies have been exposed and the real facts revealed, the fear has fallen away.
Now we are entering the second phase. The "How" phase. How shall a convention be held? Under what terms? What shall be discussed and so forth. Again public record will ultimately prevail and prove the statements I've made, such as are referred to in the above comments. I make it a point to quote only official public record. In this case, court rulings. My point however is not to debate or argue the matter of no implied powers for a convention.
The final phase of course will be the "When" phase, when Congress is actually forced (and that's the word) to obey the Constitution and call a convention. So far no one (outside a few) has actually confronted Congress as a body or individual members of Congress. Sooner or later this will happen. When it does such that the matter becomes a major public issue, a convention call will occur shortly afterward.
What I wish the author had pointed out was the states have applied in sufficient number to cause a convention call and that the government has admitted the basis of such a call is a simple numeric count of applying states with no terms or conditions. This admission by the way is official and formal in a court of law. The over 700 applications can be found at www.foavc.org.
The point I'm making is that the author admits he needs to make changes in his article as the result of my comments, but misses the most important comment: Congress is required to call now, not at some unspecified time in the future. Thus, the matter is no longer theoretical.
Therefore any article writing about proposed amendment issues whatever they may be should take this fact into account. But again, the article is very good as written.
Posted By: Kurt
Date: January 24, 2011 09:35:03 AM
This seems a lot of work and constitutional risk for nothing. Almost every state has a balanced budget amendment; almost none have a balanced budget. This is useless legislation. There are no penalties for representatives for not sticking to a balanced budget — why would reps worry about this amendment to the Constitution when they don't follow any of the other ones? Plus any Congress can always resort to the infamous "off-budget" spending. Let's face it, the only way Congress will do what's fiscally correct is when voters vote out of office anyone who votes for any unconstitutional spending.
The state-initiated Article V amendment process is not a self-destruct button. It is what sold the Constitution to the states because it guarantees the states' ultimate authority over the federal government. Read Federalist Nos. 43 and 85 (available on our website).
A state-initiated Article V amendments convention is not a constitutional convention in the sense of a general convention that is necessarily going to generate a new constitution. It merely gives the states the same power that Congress has to propose amendments. Read Federalist No. 43 (available on our website).
When they debated the language of Article V, on September 15, 1787, the Founders rejected language that would have authorized the states to call an general convention four times--and the last two rejections were unanimous to send a clear message. Read Elliot's Debates (available on our website).
Alexander Hamilton closed the Federalist papers with the argument that the states should not convene a second constitutional convention, but should instead use their amendment power under Article V to correct any perceived overconcentration of power in the federal government. Read Federalist No. 85 (available on our website).
In 1799, James Madison advocated the states using the Article V amendment process to repeal the Alien and Sedition Acts. Read his Report on the Virginia Resolutions (available on our website)
In 1830, James Madison advocated the states using the Article V amendment process to vindicate their sovereignty against an overreaching federal government, rather than nullification. Read his Letter on Nullification (available on our website)
The bottom line is that the whole debate about the state-initiated Article V amendment process being capable of generating a new Constitution is a complete anachronism and contrary to all law and fact at the time of the founding. No one had that fear at the time of the founding. Quite the contrary, Patrick Henry argued strenuously against ratifying the Constitution because he and other antifederalists believed that Article V made it impossible for states to rewrite the Constitution.
"My view is this amendment is long overdue, and I appreciate Sen. Paul for lending his voice to this effort," Williams added. (
