Quantcast

Categorized | News

Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box?

What if Congress calls an Article V convention to amend our U. S. Constitution? Since it is within Congress’s authority to decide how the delegates are chosen, what if they select themselves, like John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi or citizens such as George Soros, or as the Assembly of States advocates, a bipartisan group.

What if they let the states chose the delegates, the number to be determined by the electoral college system giving California 55 delegates to Virginia’s 13.  And, who would be chosen from Virginia – Speaker Howell or Governor McAuliffe and whom they appoint, legislators who are just as guilty of overreach as those at the federal level?

What if the convention meets and delegates don’t like a proposal?  Then the chair says, all in favor say Aye, opposed NO, the Ayes have it.   Next.

What if the convention changes the rules for ratification, and make the number of states needed to ratify only half of the states, or none?

What if the convention gives us a constitution that gives us rights instead of protecting our God-given inherent rights?   Any government that gives rights can take them away.

What if there is a good result from the convention?   Will legislators who fail to honor their oath of office mysteriously overnight choose to do so?

And, what if our Constitution is scrapped altogether and substituted with one patterned after that of Cuba? What then?

http://www.varight.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DC-Forum-Flyer.pdf

About Tom White

Tom is a US Navy Veteran, owns an Insurance Agency and is currently an IT Manager for a Virginia Distributor. He has been published in American Thinker, currently writes for the Richmond Examiner as well as Virginia Right! Blog.

Tom lives in Hanover County, Va and is involved in politics at every level and is a Recovering Republican who has finally had enough of the War on Conservatives in progress with the Leadership of the GOP on a National Level.

31 Responses to “Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box?”

  1. David Farrar
    Twitter:
    says:

    This is just the reason an Article V Convention should be convened. At present there are far too many “ifs” about and Article V convention to even make calling for an Article V convention possible, which would be contrary to the founders’ and framers’ intention.

    Sure there is a lot of uncertainty, but certainly not as much uncertainty that faced the us in 1787, and they succeeded. The founders and framers of the US Const. faced the same problem the present day Article V convention delegates, no matter how they are chosen, 37 states have to approve any proposal the Article V convention adopts. I don’t know about anybody else, but any constitutional proposal that is supported by 37 states should be the law of the land if justice is to prevail.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  2. Cindy
    Twitter:
    says:

    John Adams said from his intentions, “The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” That means that we cannot change the Constitution until we have a moral and religious people again. We are nowhere near having that right now. We have corruption from the highest reaches of our central government to our state and local governments. Even “the People” are corrupt. Where else do you think we get these weak and immoral politicians?

    COS is taking advantage of peoples fears and disdain for government and have created a movement based on half-truths and personsl insults against it’s opponents.

  3. Jeff says:

    The ubiquitous corruption, ignorance, prevarication and lack of character in today’s political class make calling a Convention nothing less than a suicide pact for America. Is there even one person today that possesses the wisdom and honor of Roger Sherman, Patrick Henry or George Washington?

    If you can list a defect in the Constitution that is a failure because of itself as opposed to a failure of the People to demand adherence to the Constitution or their failure to participate in self government then, by all means, urge Congress to propose an amendment to repair such defect but do not claim that the risks of a Convention are the only way possible to restore constitutional governance. The people that fail to change Congress and fail to even know the basics of their government are no palladium against the tyranny that could result from specious amendments. One would think that the people would have learned their lessons from the disasters that are the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments.

  4. Publius Huldah
    Twitter:
    says:

    David Farrar,

    We have been internet friends for a long time. So I ask you to think about each of these questions:

    1. Read the 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence. See where it says People have the right to alter or abolish their Form of government? [Keep this thought in your mind.]

    2. Are you aware that the delegates to the federal convention of 1787 had been instructed by the Continental Congress that the convention was “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”?

    3. Did you know that the Articles of Confederation required all of the then 13 States to ratify proposed amendments before they became effective?

    4. Did you know that instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, the Framers wrote a new Constitution?

    5. Are you aware that the method of ratification set forth in the new Constitution at Article VII was that only 9 States needed to ratify it before it became effective as to those 9 States?

    6. Do you not understand that there is NOTHING to prevent delegates to a convention today from proposing a new Constitution – AND that this new Constitution will have its own new method of ratification?

    7. Have you heard of the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America? Have you seen it? Are you aware that it is ratified by a Referendum called by the President?

    8. Have you heard about the proposed constitution prepared by the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA – “The Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America”?

    9. Have you heard of the Constitution 2020 movement funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law Professors all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Attorney General Eric Holder? Did you know that they want a Marxist constitution for America and that they want it in place by the year 2020?

    10. Do you understand that the condition precedent for imposing a new Constitution is a CONVENTION?
    [And remember: the new Constitution will have its own new method of ratification.]

    11. DO YOU TRUST THE DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION? DO YOU KNOW WHO THEY WILL BE? DO YOU KNOW THAT GEORGE SOROS CAN’T BUY THEM? DO YOU TRUST THEM?

    Please answer all of these questions. I have posted hyperlinks to the original source documents in my recent papers, but if you can’t find any, just ask and I’ll post the link.

    To date, no one from COS has given an honest discussion of these issues. All they have done is sling ad hominems at those who raise these questions: They say we are “fear mongers” and then they move on.

    So I am counting on YOU to address each of these in an honest & forthright manner.

    • David Farrar
      Twitter:
      says:

      Fear, is seems, is a potent pretense employed by many in the Article V debate. I have chosen to put the “fear” factor aside for the moment. That said, I have looked at the constitutions you mentioned in Questions 7, 8, and 9., and see nothing frightening in any of them to the point where a clear and present danger to our Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness would occur should they be presented to the delegates to the Second Constitutional Convention (SCC), nor even before the general voting public*…”For whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

      In 1787, unless I am mistaken, there were only 13 colonies, with 9 being the ratifying number. In fact, 75% is a general “majority” number usually recognized in most parliamentary rules of order. In 2015, Republicans will control almost 70% of the states legislatures and both house of Congress of the 75% need for ratification of any proposal making it out the the SCC.

      Q: 3. Did you know that the Articles of Confederation required all of the then 13 States to ratify proposed amendments before they became effective?

      A: Yes. Unless I am mistaken, there were only 13 colonies, with 9 being the ratifying number. In fact, 75% is a general “majority” number usually recognized in most parliamentary rules of order.

      Q: 4. Did you know that instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, the Framers wrote a new Constitution?

      A. Yes, of course –“Meanwhile, because the states were quarreling over matters of commerce, Virginie[sec] invited the states to send delegates to a convention at Annapolis to “take into consideration the trade of the United States.”

      Now did you read the Sickle* Boughey material I sent to you; entitled:”A LAWFUL AND PEACEFUL REVOLUTION: ARTICLE V AND CONGRESS’ PRESENT DUTY TO CALL A
      CONVENTION FOR PROPOSING AMENDMENTS”?

      Q. 5. Are you aware that the method of ratification set forth in the new Constitution at Article VII was that only 9 States needed to ratify it before it became effective as to those 9 States?

      A. Yes, in 17878 that was three-fourth of the 13 colonies. In 2015, that number will be 37 or 38.

      Q. 6. Do you not understand that there is NOTHING to prevent delegates to a convention today from proposing a new Constitution – AND that this new Constitution will have its own new method of ratification?

      A. Asked and answered in my post above.

      Q. 11. DO YOU TRUST THE DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION? DO YOU KNOW WHO THEY WILL BE? DO YOU KNOW THAT GEORGE SOROS CAN’T BUY THEM? DO YOU TRUST THEM?

      A. Again, asked and answered above. The fact is, if the people of 37 states think we need to change something in the US Const., as long as it is consistent with l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence, than I feel very strongly it should be carried forward

      ex animo
      davidfarrar
      * There are things in some of these proposed constitutions inconsistent with l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence, and therefore, cannot be considered in any new constitution.

      • David Farrar
        Twitter:
        says:

        Addendum

        Q. 2. Are you aware that the delegates to the federal convention of 1787 had been instructed by the Continental Congress that the convention was “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”?

        As I read the Sickle & Boughey material; they state further from the quote above:”The convention met in September 1786, but only five states sent delegates.” They were too few to reach meaningful decisions, so the convention, under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, adopted a report proposing that all thirteen states send delegates to a convention “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.”

        So, technically, there were grounds to call for a new general convention. But in our case, should any thing gets out of hand, with 70% of the convention delegates in Republican hands, they can simply vote against it.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        rcpcft propcting that all thirteen stat send delegates to n eonvention “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.”“

  5. James Kriner
    Twitter:
    says:

    Tom, thank for your article you have brought many points to light with this article that I also share, as for the comment from David Farrer this is not 1787 and the players in this new game do not have our liberty at heart.

  6. Steven Tucker
    Twitter:
    says:

    The States, not Congress, convene. Congress has no power or say in anything. Article V is the process through which we overrule Congress. All those what ifs are irrelevant.

  7. Phil Gwinn says:

    What if worms had guns?
    Birds would not mess with them.

    What if the natural order reversed and the bird, fearing the worm, starved?

    Everything listed is possible. But the question really should be: Is it probable?

    I don’t think so. But, then again, I don’t live in fear. And, if it turns out the worm has a gun… so do I.

  8. Denise Calton says:

    Congress has absolutely NO authority to call a convention of states contrary to Tom\’s allegations. Article five reserves to the states alone (not congress) the right to call a convention for the express purpose of by-passing congress when faced with an over-reaching government. Two-thirds of the states get together and call for a convention and three-fourths of the states must approve it. When that happens, congress has no choice but to put it on the calendar and that single action represents the extent of their obligation, nothing more. The states select their own delegates and MUST come together on the same subject matter and language. This provides a tight safety net practically making it impossible to have a run-away convention. I trust the wisdom of our Founders who gave us this provision and believe that a convention of states is the best rescue plan available to us.

  9. Sue Long
    Twitter:
    says:

    Who calls the convention? Article V of the U.S. Constitution states clearly that it is Congress.

    Is it a good idea ?
    James Madison himself, father of the Constitution, warned against convening a second constitutional convention. When he learned that New York and Virginia were actively calling for an Article V convention in 1788, just months since ratification of the Constitution, he was horrified. He counseled:
    If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress…. It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides … [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts … might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric…. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America. [From a letter by James Madison to G.L. Turberville, November 2, 1788.]

    Is the temper of the nation any better today?

  10. Robert Shannon says:

    Last year when I publically endorsed Rob Sarvis, first for Governor and then for the U.S Senate seat I was asked repeatedly why I did it. From confused fellow Patriots in the TEA Party movement, to the press my answer was one and the same ,each and every time.

    ” you can change the mind of an honest man/woman on a policy issue, but you can not change the mind of someone who’s opinion has been sold”

    The most relevant point in all of these discussions was raised by Cindy when she states that the Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, and watching at the local, state and federal level legislators who have taken a oath of office daily wipe their feet on our current document leaves me rather suspicious of anyone naïve enough to think amending the same piece of paper these folks wipe their feet on would make any difference at all.

    The first step in correcting our problems is recognizing we have yet to devise a system of holding them accountable once they are elected. My own efforts at making now Congressman Brat answer as to why James Carr was being excluded from the debates (if you want to even call that staged event at R-Macon a debate) is evidence of how much work is to be done . Hero Worship and political partisanship hinder any progress from being even possible.

    That actor fella–Eastwood had it right in 2012, “they are just employees, and if they aren’t getting the job done, you just have to fire them” would be a good start. Amending a piece of paper they collectively ignore won’t change a damn thing.

    First you have to take ALL OF THEM ,OFF THE PEDESTAL we have mistakenly placed them on. That might just be a good starting place.

    Bob Shannon

  11. Publius Huldah
    Twitter:
    says:

    TOM WHITE!

    Where are the other comments which have been submitted and approved?

  12. Green Jeans says:

    George Soros supports a CON CON- read the article below about the Communist organizations
    ( Soros backed) behind the Ferguson Riots and then rethink your opinion on a Con Con.

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2014120135204/editorial/rsn-pick-of-the-day/the-movers-and-shakers-behind-the-ferguson-riots.html

  13. David Farrar
    Twitter:
    says:

    One of the problems I sense with holding an Article V constitutional convention is that there are far, far too many “if” involved in actually holding one.

    The first “if” I have recognized is the very fact that there is not a prescribed time (a time certain) to have an Article V constitutional convention (AVCC), as is the case with the national consensus. I think it would be good governance to have the People speak at least once, perhaps twice, in a lifetime, or perhaps after every third general consensus. But that’s just the start. I think a clear and concise definition of when a “request” letter is sent to the US Senate from the states should also be cleared up.

    Of course, each state should be allowed to use the method of its own choosing in choosing it own AVCC delegates, as they do now with presidential electors. What can and cannot be put on the AVCC’s agenda, what parliamentary rules to be adopted, etcetera. In fact, if we can establish these rules of order by amendment, I suspect holding an AVCC in the future won’t be quite so intimidating, even routine.

    Give all a voice. Allow all the speak and all to be accurately heard; that’s my motto for holding an AVCC.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  14. joshua miller
    Twitter:
    says:

    One of the aspects of this debate is the degree to which the Federal Congress would be involved as well as their trustworthiness. However, once you understand that the Tenth Amendment is no mere truism but was a codification of promises made at the ratification conventions then it should not be long after that one realizes that the vast majority of state level politicians should no more be trusted than Federal politicians. Our answers lie not in vain and risky attempts to change the Constitution. There is no silver bullet or quick fix. But local and state level activism (nullification) based on an Originalist understanding of federalism is our next most logical step towards restoring the republic.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] VA Right! – Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box? […]

  2. […] VA Right! – Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box? […]

  3. […] VA Right! – Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box? […]

  4. […] Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –VA Right! – Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box? […]

  5. […] Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –VA Right! – Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box? […]

  6. […] Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –VA Right! – Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box? […]

  7. […] Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –VA Right! – Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box? […]

  8. […] Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –VA Right! – Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box? […]

  9. […] VA Right! – Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box? […]

  10. […] Fifth place t with 2/3 vote –VA Right! – Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box? […]

  11. […] Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –VA Right! – Article V Convention – Solution or Pandora’s Box? […]

  12. […] with unanswerable questions, and therefore best left alone. Some have literally labeled it a “Pandora’s Box,” the opening of which would unleash all manner of evil upon our beleaguered […]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Check out NewsMax!

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Submit a Blog Post!

Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

Google Ad

Google Ad

Follow Us Anywhere!

Google Ad

Archives

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
%d bloggers like this: