-->

Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Convention of the States Does Not Exist in Article V – Part 2

Using the Constitution: Article V Convention Counter Argument

Proponents of an Article V Convention are in panic mode. They demand that something be done immediately to resolve our current crisis and it must be done soon.

So, they have rebranded the original Constitutional Convention of 2011, to an Article V Convention and now, its called a “Convention of the States”. This movement has created a George Orwell’s “1984″ feel to it as the government is at constant war, the people are fed propaganda but the opposition is our own…federal government.

The theme is…let’s use the Constitution to reign in government but is it the government who has changed. Or society whose morals have been shaped by atheist universities. …but I digress. Constitutions have been used to restrain “the People” such as the Socialist Constitution of North Korea, Red China or Russia. Could we end up with a Socialist Constitution, about as much as we could get something fixed through a bunch of lawyers and politicians restructuring our founding document.

As proponents for a Convention of the States cheer for state government to come in and save the day. Let’s analysis Article V. It’s only 143 words.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the applications 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.”

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION EMPOWERS THE STATES to conduct a “Convention of the States”. Article V empowers the states with two responsibilities; States may apply for a convention and ratify any proposed amendments. Proponents say that the founders intended for the convention process to bypass Congress or empower the states but it does not such thing for a so called “Convention of the State”.

States Control the Convention. Some states are proposing laws in hopes of controlling their delegates. Once the states submit their applications, they cannot control the convention process. Proponents are trying to convince State legislatures they can control delegates with jail sentences or removal from the convention but again, they are just forfeiting their voice in this convention. If the convention moves from the appointed agenda, the only thing an entity outside the convention can do is remove it’s voice from the convention.

Congress calls the Convention . “The Congress…shall propose amendments” or “shall call a convention for proposing amendments” Some believe that States can call a Convention upon application of two-thirds of the states but that is not the case. The true case is that upon two-thirds of both “houses” or upon application of two-thirds of the several states, “The Congress” proposes amendments or calls a convention.

“Shall be part of this Constitution” Our Constitution was devised from the Articles of Confederation. When the founder’s entered the Convention, States needed to unanimously ratify proposals. We don’t need the argument of delegates changing their mandate, as the New York delegates did. Once they were finished, three-fourths of the States were needed to ratify a new Constitution…the other three states either ratified or were without a country. What’s to say that a new ratification process couldn’t be proposed in a new Constitution? They could lower ratification to 26 states, leaving the remaining 24 without a nation, then the 24 would be with a massive debt and the old government.

Hopefully, you’ll see this whole dilemma has changed about having reign in the federal government by using the Constitution, the “supreme Law of the Land” as the authoritative foundation. While our nation is in internal conflict, it is not the time to open up the Constitution for debate. …or attempt to use a document to control behavior. We might wanna be careful because that behavior they claim they want to change…may be “the Peoples”

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags:

Comments (4)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Tom Dowdy says:

    Well this is another Eagle Forum or John Burch Society effort to redirect the truth. In Fact Article V. does authorize the several states the right to apply for a Amending Convention and when 34 applications of the same subject are sent to Congress. The Congress Shall ( meaning Must) call the convention. Congress only gets to say ok states go have your convention and have it in this location starting on this date. And that is all they get to do. The states control who will go to the convention, how many commissioners they will send, the rules to be followed (meaning staying subject matter), suggesting and voting on amendment/s. Now all the nay sayers provide is lip service against An Article V Convention of States. The never give you and back up information. You can research the subject and you find there has never in all the history of the Conventions of State of a RunAway Convention NEVER. See Robert G. Natelson articles on this subject he is a legal scalar on this subject. just look him up and read. http://www.i2i.org/robnatelson.php Also look up and see what James Madison said your do know James Madison he was very strong Article V especially the part giving the states the right to request a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendment/s.
    http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm.htm The folks spreading these none truths need to step up and join in the call for an Article V amending convention. and remember a CON-CON (Constitutional Convention) happened in 1787 that is where our current Constitution came from and it will never happened again because Article V prevents it. Article V allows for amending conventions only. Now if you want to find out what actually happened during the 1787 Constitutional Convention Read this Constitutional Convention (a narrative history from the notes of James Madison) by Edward J. Larson and Michael P. Winship. Oh yes if you want to see how these nay sayers are lining up and following the most liberal Judge in our history look up Chief justice Warren Berger’s letter to Phyllis Schlafly in Jun of 1988 and you will see where all there talking points are coming from. Just to remind you this is the Judge that gave us Abortion Rights or Rove V Wade. Which by the way the lady that brought that suit Roe is now wanting it over turned. So you see my friend you spout words with out merit spreading fear and hate when you should be standing up and fighting for the only legal way we have left to rein in an out of control government.

    • Brian Evans says:

      Tom,
      I’m not asking you to buy my book, listen to my radio show or donate to my non-profit. I only ask that you (Tom) read the words of Article V and refute those words. It’s only 143 words.

      Our founding fathers ran the gamut on philosophical views. I’m sure a college professor can find something that would accommodate their view.

      States do not have control of a convention and actually, the media, would have a field day with it.

      …and your projecting abortion onto the Article V

      Which name would you prefer for me to use, Constitutional Convention (Harvard Law School), an Article V Convention (ALEC) or a Convention of the States (Mark Levin).

      You do realize that they call it by different names because they feel its “misleading to call a convention for proposing amendments a “constitutional convention.”,

      Pg 9, ALEC Handbook, http://www.alec.org/docs/ArticleVHandbook.pdf

      …and yet a Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig is calling for a Constitutional Convention (via Article V).

  2. Zbigniew Mazurak says:

    Excellent article, Mr Evans! You are exactly right: Art. V does NOT provide for any “convention of the states.” It provides for a convention which CONGRESS would call, for whom CONGRESS would set the agenda and timing, and to which CONGRESS would appoint the delegates. The same Congress that gave America a $17 trillion national debt and refuses to impeach Obama. The same Congress that confirmed Sotomayor and Kagan.

    Oh, think, you proponents of this terrible idea! Do you really think that the evil forces which run America today will let the American people step aside and set things right at an Art. V Convention? If you think that, I’ve got a bridge in Illinois to sell to you.

    The proponents of an Art. V convention really can’t do basic logical thinking. According to them, the solution to a government that repeatedly violates the Constitution is to… amend the Constitution!

    • Brian Evans says:

      Thank Zbigniew,
      There’s a large emotional buildup for a COS and its quite alarming the people who are so passionately supporting this movement.