RSS

About That Articvle V Convention

02 Oct

As a trainer for Level 1 of the Center for Self Governance and the Chair of the Cape County Tea Party, I’m a constructionist / originalist when it comes to the Constitution.  Therefore, when talk of an Article V Convention comes about, I feel that my support of the Constitution must extend to the Convention as well.  If I support the brilliance of the Founders in the creation of this republic and the limitation of the Federal Government, I must support them in their correct prediction that the Federal Government would become and out-of-control behemoth (the rottweiler), and the people would have but one arrow left in their quiver: The Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments To The Constitution.

a_Constitution-Day[1]

However, I think those who advocate the current effort at a Convention are wrong to believe that they can limit the topics of the proposed amendments at the Convention… …at least that’s the way I read the Constitution.  Congress can only call the Convention, and the Convention is for Proposing Amendments… …no qualifiers… …no adjectives.

I also feel any application by a state that attempts to limit the topics of the convention is invalid.  Missouri has called for an Article V Convention only if it’s for a Balanced Budget Amendment.  Congress can only open a Convention for Proposing Amendments (sans specific topics). Therefore Missouri’s application is self-invalidating as soon as a Convention opens for Proposing Amendments.

But, I’m no constitutional scholar like BHO… …I’m just a computer geek.

Here is some more information received from my friend Karen on the Constitutional Convention:

The proposed “Article V Convention” is nothing new.  It was first proposed by Ford and Rockefeller in 1963.  It has been tried multiple times in my lifetime, with each attempt given a different name.  Conservatives have succeeded in blocking it each time. History of these attempts are archived here.

The main source of financial backing and stealth support from the left speaks to a focused effort to manipulate and exploit a convention, should it ever take place.

An Q&A discussion of the subject by a Constitutional scholar, and an in-depth article with references, using the Framer’s original source documents can be read here.  If there are questions, there is a place to contact the author.

It should be noted that since the 1787 Convention of States, the rules for using this method have not been changed.  The 2/3 ratification rule does not apply to this alternate method.  Still, only 9 states are required for ratification, as originally stated.

The framers did not follow the rules in the Articles of Confederation that said all 13 states must agree in order to ratify a new Constitution.  Since we were governed by men of integrity when it came to content of the Constitution, we dodged a bullet.

How will those rules be changed, if the ones financing and promoting this new Convention of states are in control?  Will they insist the old Convention rule of ratification by 9 states be enforced?

Like I said, I support the idea of the Convention, but the Conservatives and Libertarians better be ready for the Progressive cancer that will invade its proceedings.

Advertisements
 
4 Comments

Posted by on October 2, 2014 in Amendments, Constitution

 

Tags: , ,

4 responses to “About That Articvle V Convention

  1. Rick

    October 3, 2014 at 8:06 am

    Missouri is not asking for only a balanced budget amendment. Please refer to the House Concurrent Resolution 41 (http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills141/billpdf/intro/HCR0041I.PDF).

     
  2. Ken

    October 3, 2014 at 10:01 am

    What is very interesting about your article is that you seem to speak with a “forked tongue”. You say you are in favor, but then the only links to “constitutional scholars” you list are to those that are vehemently opposed, so much so that they are not honest in certain of their comments. In fact, not only are they not completely honest, why don’t they operate under their real name? After all, they should be proud of their “constitutional scholar” status. Publius Huldha? Seriously? Why is she afraid to use her name?

     
  3. Lee Presser

    October 3, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    This is Article 5.

    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.

     
  4. Heidi C.

    October 4, 2014 at 7:37 am

    Any other suggestions? Elections? Good, but not good enough.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: