… of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants. Federalist No. 1 (5th para), Alexander Hamilton.
Those who have read Article I, §8, clauses 1-16 of our federal Constitution know that it delegates only a tiny handful of powers (over the Country at large) to the federal government.
They also know that, for the last 100 years, the federal government has violated the Constitution by usurping thousands of powers not delegated.
So what do we do about it?
- The silly answer of the convention lobby The convention lobby says that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the solution is to amend the Constitution. Now think about that: When a spouse violates the marriage vows, is the solution is to change the marriage vows? When people ignore speed limits, is the solution to change the speed limits? When people violate the Ten Commandments, is the solution to change the Ten Commandments?
Of course not! The solution is obedience: to the Constitution, the marriage vows, the speed limits, and God. But the convention lobby moves from silliness to insidiousness: They say we can only get the amendments we need at an Article V convention.
- Why do they want a convention? From the beginning, the enemies of our Constitution wanted to get rid of it: On Aug. 31, 1787, George Mason said “he would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands;” and if it wasn’t changed to suit his views, he wanted another general convention.
Such demands for another convention were made throughout the ratification process, and continued after our Constitution was ratified by the ninth State on June 21, 1788. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, among others, addressed these demands in their writings.
A convention is the vehicle for getting a new Constitution. Today’s enemies of our Constitution are spending vast sums of money to buy an Article V convention. Their hirelings are propagandizing the People and are pushing State Legislatures all over our Country to apply to Congress to call a convention. Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amendment:
- Congress proposes amendments and sends them to the States for ratification; or
- Congress calls a convention if two-thirds of the States apply for it. Our existing 27 Amendments were obtained under the first method. We’ve never used the convention method because until recently, Americans understood the danger.
James Madison wrote in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and if there were another convention, “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” would strive to be delegates and would have “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country. Alexander Hamilton “dreaded” the consequences of another convention because he knew that enemies of our Constitution wanted to get rid of it: Federalist No. 85.
The same goes for today. If there is an Article V convention, our enemies will have the opportunity to get rid of our existing Constitution and impose a new one.
Different factions already have new Constitutions in hand or in preparation in anticipation of an Article V convention. The globalist elite [the Bush family, et al] want to move our Country into the North American Union (NAU). Under the NAU, Canada, the United States, and Mexico merge, and a Parliament is set up over them. Until recently, a copy of the Task Force Report on the NAU was posted at the website of the Council on Foreign Relations; now one must purchase a copy. The globalists need a new Constitution for the United States which transforms us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the NAU. To get this new Constitution, they need an Article V convention. See this brief commentary . Now that you see what’s at stake, let’s return to the claims of the convention lobby.
- The Revisionist Account of the federal convention of 178 The convention lobby claims that, at the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted, our Framers gave us the Article V convention as the “solution” to federal usurpations. E.g., Michael Farris wrote:
George Mason demanded that this provision [the convention method of proposing amendments] be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government. [boldface mine]
But Mason didn’t say that. Nor did any other delegates say that. They weren’t silly men; and they understood that amendments have a very different purpose.
- Our Framers said the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787, and kept a Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up—here it is. Madison’s Journal shows what the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments: • Elbridge Gerry said on June 5, 1787, the “novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision.”
- George Mason said on June 11, 1787: The Constitution now being formed “will certainly be defective,” as the Articles of Confederation have been found to be.
“Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent … ” [boldface mine]
- Alexander Hamilton said on 10, 1787 amendments remedy defects in the Constitution. Other primary source writings of the time show:
- useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13th para).
- “amendment of errors” and “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience (Federalist No. 43 at 8.)
- If “… the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates …” (Washington’s Farewell Address, page 19)
That’s what they really said.
Amendments can’t “rein in” the federal government when it “violates its constitutional limitations” because when it does so, it is ignoring the existing limitations on its powers. We cannot fix federal usurpations of nondelegated powers by amending the Constitution to say the federal government cannot do what the Constitution never gave it the power to do in the first place! And look at recent history: The 1st Amendment didn’t stop them from banning Christian speech in the public square. The 2nd Amendment didn’t stop them from regulating the sale of firearms. The 4th Amendment didn’t stop them from spying on us without a warrant. The 5th Amendment didn’t stop them from regulatory takings. The 10th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping thousands of other powers not delegated.
Now let’s look at the words of George Mason which the convention lobby has twisted and taken out of context in an attempt to justify their absurd and ruinous claim.
- The Dispute over the proper role of Congress in the amendment process Under the Articles of Confederation (ART. 13), amendments had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States.
The dispute at the federal convention of 1787 was whether Congress—under the second Constitution then being drafted— should have any power over the amendment process.
Madison wanted Congress to propose all amendments, either on their own initiative or at the request of two thirds of the States. On Sep. 10, 1787, he proposed this wording for Article V:
The Legislature of the United States, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution … But Mason said the States should be able to propose amendments without having to depend on Congress. On Sep. 15, 1787, Mason said, respecting Madison’s proposed wording: As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind, would ever be obtained by the people, if the government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.
Now remember! Mason agreed with the other delegates that the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution. Mason’s concern was that Congress might not agree to amendments which would be needed to correct defects.
Continue Reading at fairfaxfreecitizen.com