Listen to original meaning and consider the times, we are today at a point of action and through Article V we can take such action like no other civil means allows. by Gary Wood
(conservative)
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Nullification is a single State effort known more properly as 'Resolutions of Interposition' like the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, commonly referred to as the Principles of '98. Although more States than one may launch the same type of nullification effort it is a focus on the law rather than a focus on changing, or altering, the way we govern as a country. The 10th Amendment authority, a favorite of mine, is one area the Framers and Founders provided great guidance. An Article V convention is totally different as the aim is not toward the unconstitutional law but the proposal to alter our form of government as a whole with an aim at improving our government based on lessons learned, in theory.
The decision of the US Supreme Court in 1895, declaring income taxation unconstitutional, led to the 'Soak the Rich' campaign that ended in the ratification of the 16th Amendment. This change in our form of government, combined with the 17th Amendment that same dark year of 1913, has led us toward a representative democracy economically driving toward a more fascist approach with ever growing connections between government bureaucratic agencies (essentially a fourth (and powerful) branch of government), corporations, and both private and public unions. These changes, and more, came to us through Article V. Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment is an excellent study to learn how the U.S. Congress is not always the best place for the sole power of proposing amendments. How is it we can fear a con-con when even without one we can be so far removed from the vision of our Founders and Framers?
When representation at the general level fails us so completely the Framers placed within our authority the right and responsibility to call for a convention from the State level as an alternate path. It is a check on usurpation, quite different from nullification, we fear today without consideration of the positive aspects the original meaning of the Framers contains.
It is a way to propose amendments States believe are necessary to restore federalism as well as propositions that may damage it as much as Section 1 of the 14th or the whole of the 16th and 17th. To be sure some bad proposals may well be aired during such a convention. However, sound proposals will also be aired. 34 must call for a convention and then 38 must agree to any proposed amendments that come from the convention. What if one of those wild proposals were the repeal of the 16th or 17th or 14th? Any proposed amendment must be ratified by the States before it can alter our form of governing. The Framers were not blind in their reasoning for the wording of Article V. On nonconcon.com there is the following affirmation;
"We affirm the original text of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We affirm that the nation's Charter, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution contain the foundational law of the federal union. We condemn, therefore, all legislative, executive, and judicial action that departs from the texts and intent of the Charter and the Constitution and their original meaning."
The original text of the United States Constitution reads, in part;
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, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when 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 the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. [emphasis added]
I know there are many prominent scholars and organizations opposed to this while affirming support for it at the same time since it is clearly a part of the Framers original text. I am a proud, lifetime member of the VFW, a member of the American Legion, and hold in the highest regard the Eagle Forum, JBS, NRA, Dr. Skousen, Phyllis Schlafly, and others. I also know our form of government has been so badly adulterated through the first means of proposing amendments having the States call for proposals cannot be feared as much as embraced as a possible way to restore original meaning. How do I know? By listening carefully to the Framers and Founders.
Can it be a runaway convention? Of course it can. Does that lead to a runaway move toward a country under the UN or the NAU? It is possible this can be proposed yet are we not willing to risk that battle if we can also reclaim original meaning by proposing repeals of the damning amendments that have helped lead us onto the path we currently travel? Why did the Framers include this option? How was it received in the ratifying conventions?
In Massachusetts the Hon. Mr. King talked about Article V by saying, "The honorable gentleman observed on the superior excellence of the proposed Constitution in this particular, and called upon gentlemen to produce an instance, in any other national constitution, where the people had so fair an opportunity to correct any abuse which might take place in the future administration of the government under it."
Dr. Jarvis followed by saying of Article V, "Whatever may have been my private opinion of any other part, or whatever faults or imperfections I have remarked, or fancied I have seen, in any other instance, here, sir, I have found complete satisfaction: this has been a resting place, on which I have reposed myself in the fullest security, whenever a doubt has occurred, in considering any other passage in the proposed Constitution."
In Virginia's convention there was a lively debate led by Patrick Henry, who believed the three fourths proposal was too large a number and it should be merely a simple majority. Mr. Madison voiced disapproval for a simple majority while pointing out three fourths was superior to the current Confederation which required an agreement of all States. Mr. Nicholas joined the discussion stating, "Had it rested solely with Congress, there might have been danger. The committee will see that there is another mode provided, besides that which originates with Congress. On the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states...The conventions which shall be so called will have their deliberations confined to a few points; no local interest to divert their attention; nothing but the necessary alterations. They will have many advantages over the last Convention. No experiments to devise; the general and fundamental regulations being already laid down."
Mr. Iredell, during North Carolina's conventions said of Article V, "This, indeed, is one of the greatest beauties of the system, and should strongly recommend it to every candid mind. The Constitution of any government which cannot be regularly amended when its defects are experienced, reduces the people to this dilemma--they must either submit to its oppressions, or bring about amendments, more or less, by a civil war."
Emphasis is added to each quote above to indicate the understanding of both the how and why of Article V. (The complete debates can be found in The Founder's Constitution.) There is no doubt many wise men and women who oppose a State led Article V convention do so from the goodness of their hearts with a true concern for protecting the blessings of Liberty for our Posterity. Are we to discount the wisdom of the original Framers and Founders? The blessings of Liberty, one of the six fundamental goals listed in the Constitution's Preamble, are in danger.
The 10th Amendment is an issue by issue and State by State way of fighting usurpation yet a convention can lead to restoration of original meaning just as easily as it can lead to total destruction. Three fourths of the States are more apt to ratify restoration focused proposals than destruction based proposals and we who support and affirm the original text are here to insure that is the case. Nullification is a great tool yet the ability of States to call a convention for proposing amendments is no less a tool that is available to battle adulteration and usurpation of our form of governing toward a more perfect union.
It is time all who stand in opposition of a constitutional convention due to fear of it being a runaway toward tyranny consider the reasoning State's were a part of Article V. People are able to control their State much better than their general government and it is time we think of the positive reasoning found in original resources rather than fear what we do not know voiced by modern day interpretations that lack a faith in fellow citizens. Listen to original meaning and consider the times, we are today at a point of action and through Article V we can take such action like no other civil means allows.
Other articles you may enjoy;
The Repeal Amendment is not an answer!Is it easier to empower states by creating a series of new changes to our form of government or to use the same passion, energy, and effort to repeal errors of past changes?
Are you armed and ready to combat bad government?There is a growing level of people attending firearm training courses. Several Colorado colleges are joining others across the country allowing concealed weapons for those certified as trained in the safety and use of handguns. The certification allows people to carry weapons in many public locations
Illegal aliens are not a race; In a world where words are critically important those who are supporting both amnesty and complete open borders misdirect and misinform.
A 2010 wave of Congressional freshmen; We are seeing this happening all over the country, new faces rising in the polls. There will be many new representatives in 2010. We call them freshmen yet are you a freshman citizen?
Paternalism in our federal government today; Paternalism nationally grew under Theodore Roosevelt and there were warnings it must be stopped as usurpation of power would end in oppression. That was over a century ago.
The Goal is Federalism and not States' Rights; Are the members of the 10th Amendment efforts supporting federalism or states' rights? Should we link ourselves to John C. Calhoun and the notion of secessionism and abolishment or to restoration and original meaning as intended during the formation of our country?
Restoring the voice of states; Restoring our foundation will take more than state resolutions and legislation. Restoring the voice of the states in the U.S. Congress is essential for long-term protection of self-governing freedom for our posterity.
How to spot a libertarian; The word is so connected to the Libertarian Party today many may be confused about the focus of libertarianism. This is something many in our community and across this country embrace in their daily lives.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gary Wood only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gary Wood 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: Paul Skousen
Date: February 9, 2011 09:30:42 PM
Dear Gary,
My father is W. Cleon Skousen, author of The Five Thousand Year Leap, Making of America, Naked Communist, etc., and he supports Article V and a constitutional convention of and by the states. Back in the early 1990s, a fairly good fight was started among conservatives about a Convention, for the very same reasons we hear today. My father believed, and I believe myself, that a convention can work. He sent a letter to Phyllis Schlafly in the middle of this fight, telling her "you won," and agreed that was not a good time for a convention. However, he told me directly that he sent that letter to stop the infighting among conservatives. There were other issues that needed our united effort, he said, and this squabbling wasn't helping. He truly believed we needed to exercise that right or we would LOSE it. And what better enemy of Article V could anyone ever imagine than we conservatives, we supporters of the Constitution, who have so spooked ourselves we dare not exercise it.
What we need are the right Conventional Pre-nups. That's where our creativity should be spent. How do we structure the rules that all states can agree upon so we can safely send delegations? Congress doesn't set the rules, WE do. Congress doesn't set the agenda, WE do. That's exactly the point: if the Federal government is out of control, this mechanism was ratified so the states can both bypass but take authority from the Federal government to impose necessary changes. Those who worry that Congress will set all the rules don't get it. They're the bad guys, the Founders knew it would come to this. WE the people make the rules and agenda. And once we do it, once we do a convention, that becomes the precedent for all future conventions---it's a right and power that will forever impact our country and return the balance back to where it belongs.
When the Articles of Confederation were thrown out, everyone knew they had failed, but more, there was no structure within which to implement the necessary fixes. Today we can safely do a convention within the boundaries of Article V. What gives it its authority is having Congress call it, and call it they must (see Article V, it says Congress SHALL). That gives the meeting authority under and within the Constitution. Being so authorized, Constitutional rules come into force. The Supreme Court becomes a mandatory player, sitting on top as the arbitrator should the rules be broken. With poison pills placed at each and every bend in the road, the Convention will not "run out of control" as so many fear.
It worries and bothers me that every time in recent memory when we get close enough for a convention, Congress typically puts forward an amendment that pretty achieves what we were looking for. Consider how insidious that is. In one fell swoop they pacify the states, take the very wind out of our sails, just so we won't go ahead and exercise our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Because: the Feds know that once the states stand up for their rights, the Feds lose power, and we'll feel emboldened to do it again and again. And they don't want that. Even our own Senators laugh at repealing the 17th amendment (laughed to me, anyway) because that would give them a real boss they have to report to and be responsible to.
It's time we breathed life into the rights protected in our Constitution and demand a Constitutional Convention---first up, a mandatory balanced budget OR repeal of the 17th ... and then the 16th.
Posted By: Gary Wood
Date: February 10, 2011 09:57:18 AM
Dear Paul,
What a pleasure to hear from you. I use to receive your father’s newsletter in the late 70s when I was stationed at Grand Forks AFB. The first time I read The 5000 Year Leap was '82 and I have worn out many copies over the decades since. I have also taught the 5000 Year Leap (the last time was Nov / Dec. 2010) and always enjoyed the insights he provided to those of us striving to embrace the original meaning of our founding. Over the years I have been told by many that he opposed a convention so your words clear up for me what always was an area of confusion. He was my first real teacher of the Constitution even though I never had the pleasure of meeting him.
Senators and candidates for Congress have laughed at me over the notion of repealing the 17th as well. This past election cycle I had one tell me repeal was impossible yet term limits were the answer which led me to write the article countering the notion.
It is nice to actually correspond with someone that understands the convention the way my decades of study has led me to understand it. I know many wonderful scholars that oppose the notion and I always feel like the lone voice singing out of tune with the choir.
The insidious nature of Congress stepping in each time in the past speaks directly to the challenge of allowing people to understand the 1787 Constitutional Convention was not an Article V Convention. As long as we have so many groups and respected people standing against it sparking a movement to press forward will be a challenge yet a challenge that must now be overcome. Over the years I have stayed relatively quiet when those respected voice fear of a con-con but now I am speaking out as the time is at hand and those who embrace the notion of restoring federalism as outlined in the Constitution must realize Article V is our way to accomplish more restoration than all the Resolutions of Interposition will not.
I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on how to mount a reeducation campaign among the groups such as the Eagle Forum, JBS, and others. Their leadership so fully opposes the notion that their members are convinced a Constitutional Convention would be ruinous. I appreciate your time and views.
Posted By: Walt
Date: February 10, 2011 11:01:14 AM
What we need are the right Conventional Pre-nups. That's where our creativity should be spent. How do we structure the rules that all states can agree upon so we can safely send delegations?
That's the objection I've raised all along about Article V conventions. I'm glad to see someone on the Pro-Article V side acknowledge it, if only briefly.
Congress doesn't set the rules, WE do. Congress doesn't set the agenda, WE do.
This is the argument I find most troubling. Who is "we"? How will "we" prevent such a convention from going the way the statist politicians' want it to go? The details aren't mere afterthoughts. They are essential to discuss right now. Otherwise, calling for such a convention would likely turn into an unmitigated disaster, because the politicians will almost certainly be in charge. Congress and/or the politicians in the state legislatures will see to that.
Posted By: John De Herrera
Date: February 11, 2011 09:54:24 PM
No pre-nups are needed, the delegates convened, and the gaze of the entire nation upon them will keep everything in order. Standard parlimentary procedure will keep debate and consensus in play. Here's some more education, it's an hour interview with professor Rob Natelson: http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/92949
Posted By: Gary Wood
Date: February 12, 2011 09:17:30 AM
Thanks for the feedback John.
I am listening to the interview and embed it at our HTC network as well. Discussion is a key to reaching a better understanding of all the aspects surrounding the Article V structure.
Posted By: John De Herrera
Date: February 12, 2011 02:09:02 PM
Sure thing Gary. Why don't you think about coming on the show? Just talk a little about who you are, how you see governance of late, and how you see the convention clause of Article V.
Nullification is a single State effort known more properly as 'Resolutions of Interposition' like the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, commonly referred to as the Principles of '98. Although more States than one may launch the same type of nullification effort it is a focus on the law rather than a focus on changing, or altering, the way we govern as a country. The 10th Amendment authority, a favorite of mine, is one area the Framers and Founders provided great guidance. An Article V convention is totally different as the aim is not toward the unconstitutional law but the proposal to alter our form of government as a whole with an aim at improving our government based on lessons learned, in theory.