Has the current Administration NOT become tyrannical?! Was the Article V provision from the Founders (allowing for Convention of States) NOT he caveat provided for The People to be able to remedy a ‘government out of control’?! 🤔
An Article V Convention of States would be a disaster because it would lead to long and costly legal battles, uncertainty about how our democracy functions, and likely economic instability. It could also lead to a runaway convention.
We must STOP repeating what we have heard. Instead, we must look to James Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 to find out why the convention method of getting amendments was added to Article V.
The Framers agreed that the purpose of amendments is to correct DEFECTS in the Constitution. So they discussed who should have the power to propose amendments. James Madison proposed on Sep. 10, 1787, that Congress alone have the power to propose amendments, either on their own initiative or at the request of 2/3 of the States. But George Mason objected that Congress might not agree to amendments which were needed to correct the defects; and argued that it was contrary to all Principles of Republican gov’t to forbid the States from proposing changes to the Constitution. So the convention method of getting amendments was added to Article V.
No one at the Convention said that the purpose of amendments to the Constitution is to rein in the federal gov’t when it violates the Constitution. The Framers were not silly men.
To illustrate Mason’s point [and this is my example, not Mason’s]: Our original Constitution institutionalized slavery. What if the States wanted to get an amendment which forbade slavery; but Congress didn’t agree to such an Amendment?
So when Mason spoke of “Congress abusing their power” and “becoming oppressive”, he was referring to Congress’ refusal to consent to amendments needed to fix defects in the Constitution. He was not referring to Congress’ becoming tyrannical and ignoring the constitutional limits on its own powers.
The above is a summary of a two page paper (which has exact quotes and the links to Madison’s Journal where the words were spoken.) If you want to see it, contact me.
Any amendments proposed at a Convention would have to be approved by 3/4 of the States before they became effective.
But bad amendments aren’t the danger. The danger of an Article V Convention is that a new Constitution with its own new mode of ratification can be proposed.
The Delegates to an Article V Convention would have that self-evident right, recognized in our Declaration of Independence, to throw off the gov’t we now have (and the Constitution which created it); and propose a new Constitution which created a new gov’t.
THAT is the Principle James Madison invoked to justify the Delegates to the federal convention of 1787 ignoring their instructions to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation and instead drafting a new Constitution with its own new – and easier- mode of ratification. (Madison said this in Federalist No. 40, 15th para).
And remember: Art. 13 of the Articles of Confederation provided that Amendments to the Articles had to be approved by the Congress and all of the then 13 States. But the new Constitution proposed at the federal convention of 1787 provided at Article VII thereof that it would be ratified when only 9 States approved it.
Note that the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America provides at Article XII thereof, that it is ratified by a referendum called by the President.
James Madison strongly warned AGAINST an Article V Convention because he understood that those who secretly wish to get a new Constitution would push for an Article V convention under the pretext of just getting amendments.
Those who have jumped on the COS bandwagon would do well to read the proposed new Constitution co-authored by COS Legal Advisory Board Member, Robert P. George.
Again, for the links, contact me.
“ So when
Mason spoke of
“Congress abusing their power” and “becoming oppressive”, he was referring to Congress’ refusal to consent to amendments needed
to fix defects in the Constitution.
He was not referring to Congress’ becoming tyrannical and ignoring the constitutional limits on its
own powers.”
…And your point is?
Also, the proposed amendments are limited to 3 areas: Term Limits, Reducing Federal Overreach, and Fiscal responsibility.
These are the 3 areas on which the 34 states must apply for a COS in aggregate in order to reach the 34 needed to have the convention.
And even if they did throw out a crazy amendment, you still need 38 states to ratify it! I suppose your solution is to do nothing?
The SOLUTION is to elect people to Congress that will ENFORCE the already established Constitution of the United States of America. THAT is the solution
There is no clear or agreed-upon procedure for how a COS would be convened, conducted, or concluded. The Constitution only provides a vague outline of the process, leaving many questions unanswered.
For example:
how many delegates would each state send?
How would they be chosen?
How would they vote?
What rules would govern the convention?
Who would preside over it?
How would disputes be resolved?
Joanna, I am concerned… It seems as though you have taken a perspective here that is both illogical and self-defeating for two reasons… 1) The idea that a Federal Government that was choosing to misconstrue or pervert existing constitutional principles is unlikely to be the final authorities that the Founders would choose to rely upon, and 2) a plain reading of Article V belies your position that this was intended for the purposes of making corrections to “defects” in the constitution, as it would require that the “hack Founders” just didn’t write what they thought they had.
I find your reason and rationale to read more like a position in search of support… and I will ask again, what is the alternative? If the answer is for the American People to “vote better”, that cannot be a reasoned response… and I am concerned that we are unable to learn from the past… The ugly/sad/scary truth is that the Founders afforded the citizens and the States two options to deal with an increasing tyrannical government… and I will add a third. I list these in no particular order.
1) NON-CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION: Shut up and deal with the overreach hoping it gets better with time.
2) The Article V Convention of states.
3) The Second Amendment.
In summary, our Nation is in deep despair, and in greater danger of loss than I can see at any time in our history. We are back at the “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States” that first lead to our revolution and the very foundation of this nation. Our founders, in their great wisdom (born of both miserable experience and the guiding hand of Providence), recognized the despotic nature of Government, and I believe they recognized that the tendency of human institutions (even those ordained, orchestrated, or blessed by God himself) are subject to the perversion of Man. Thus, they formally recognized the right to keep and bear arms under our Second Amendment. Yet, we must also recognize that these men had seen the horror of revolution, so it would be unwise to assume that revolution would/could be their preferred method of conflict resolution. No, the Second Amendment is the final line, and would almost certainly result in the destruction of this nation regardless the victor. Rather, our founders offered an “off-ramp” in the escalating tyranny/rebellion dichotomy. Under Article 5, we can once again trust the self-governance of the people and the divine hand of providence to maintain this “grand experiment”. I believe that, as many have so well laid out, tyranny has arrived and continues to be emboldened. We are left with three options, acceptance of tyranny, rebellion via the instrumentality of the Second Amendment, or a reassertion of the “Consent of the Governed” via Article 5. Options one and two are abhorrent to me; and thus, despite perceived risk, I must rely wholly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the administration of an Article 5 Convention.
The Constitution already provides a way to amend it through the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states. This process has been used 27 times to make changes that reflect the will of the people and the changing times. A COS, on the other hand, could open up the Constitution to radical and unpredictable changes that could undermine its core principles and values. There is no guarantee that a COS would be limited to specific topics or amendments, as some advocates claim. Once a convention is convened, it could propose any changes it wants, regardless of the original intent or scope of the call. This could lead to a runaway convention that could rewrite or abolish parts of the Constitution that protect our rights and freedoms.
I believe fully that if you were to research Article 5, you would find that there’s no RISK of anything running away. The proposed amendments must be in 3 subject areas, 34 states apply in AGGREGATE, and no matter what, proposals will need 38 states to ratify. Do not allow your fear to prevent action!
Founding father George Mason added the second part of Article 5 IN the Constitution because originally, Congress was the ONLY way to propose amendments, and he knew that Congress would NOT limit itself!
The government and our elections are compromised and it’s time for the people of the states to #reclaimselfgovernance by stepping up in support.
There’s no time to wait for those who would follow the constitution to be elected. It’s time for the people to USE the last lawful, non violent, Constitutional solution the founders gave us to bring the POWER back to the people.
If you want to learn more about how the Convention of States works, read Mark Levin’s book: The Liberty Amendments, which discusses what it is, and what it isn’t.
And lastly, COSA is a non-profit, non-partisan organization with the mission of creating the largest grassroots army of citizens for self governance- over 5 million supporters and counting.
We swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution- that oath never expires!
There is no assurance that a COS would reflect the will or interests of the people. A COS would be dominated by political elites, special interests, and wealthy donors who could influence the selection and behavior of the delegates. The convention could also be subject to external pressures, such as protests, violence, or threats from foreign or domestic enemies. The people would have little or no say in the outcome of the convention, and could be left with a Constitution that does not represent their values or needs.
If the reason you fear a COS is because it hasn’t been done since prior to the constitutional convention, the COS pocket guide explains the process, which is known and was used more than a dozen times prior to 1787.
There’s even a simulation set to happen
Aug 2-4, 2023
A Convention of States is undemocratic and unrepresentative.
There is no clear or agreed-upon process for how a COS would be organized, conducted, or ratified. There are many unanswered questions about who would choose the delegates, how they would be allocated among the states, what rules would govern their deliberations, how votes would be counted, and how disputes would be resolved. These issues could create confusion, chaos, and conflict among the states and within the convention itself. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the delegates would reflect the diversity and interests of the American people. They could be influenced by special interests, partisan agendas, or ideological extremists. They could also ignore or override the views and wishes of the majority of the citizens who did not elect them or give them authority to alter the Constitution.
Article 5 is IN the Constitution and IS the solution for our Constitutional Republic. Trust the Founders! All the concerns you have mentioned were addressed at the previous simulation.
Learn more about this method the founders gave us to put the people of the STATES back in charge!
A Convention of States is unnecessary and dangerous.
The Constitution is not perfect, but it is not broken either. It has served as the foundation of our democracy and our system of government for over two centuries. It has endured through wars, crises, and challenges. It has adapted to changing circumstances and needs through amendments and interpretations by the courts and other branches of government. It has also inspired and influenced other constitutions around the world. A Convention of States could jeopardize this legacy and put our constitutional order at risk. It could create uncertainty, instability, and division in our society. It could also invite interference and meddling from foreign powers or enemies who might seek to exploit our vulnerabilities or undermine our sovereignty.
Our Founders, being the genius’s they were did put in Article V to give the states (the People) the mechanism to make amendments. If you think Congress is going to impose term limits on themselves, I have a bridge to sell you.
The bottom line is this, if you feel our Federal Government is doing what the Founders envisioned and our system is not broken then leave it up to those in Congress that have the lowest confidence rating of any institution. The Standards set by the Founders in the passing of an amendment require that once a Convention is held and passes “recommended ” amendments these are sent back to the States where 75% (38) states must ratify in both states houses. This extremely high standard makes it virtually impossible for something radical to become an amendment. The agenda for an Article V Convention are well set in the proposals of the Convention of States movement.
The scare tactics of those opposed to doing this can be answered with a little research to get the facts. go to “conventionofstates.com”and see for yourself.
38 State Legislatures must approve any proposals that are put forth. Is this not enough protection against any radical changes?
Why not just enforce the current U.S. Constitution?
Has the current Administration NOT become tyrannical?! Was the Article V provision from the Founders (allowing for Convention of States) NOT he caveat provided for The People to be able to remedy a ‘government out of control’?! 🤔
An Article V Convention of States would be a disaster because it would lead to long and costly legal battles, uncertainty about how our democracy functions, and likely economic instability. It could also lead to a runaway convention.
We must STOP repeating what we have heard. Instead, we must look to James Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 to find out why the convention method of getting amendments was added to Article V.
The Framers agreed that the purpose of amendments is to correct DEFECTS in the Constitution. So they discussed who should have the power to propose amendments. James Madison proposed on Sep. 10, 1787, that Congress alone have the power to propose amendments, either on their own initiative or at the request of 2/3 of the States. But George Mason objected that Congress might not agree to amendments which were needed to correct the defects; and argued that it was contrary to all Principles of Republican gov’t to forbid the States from proposing changes to the Constitution. So the convention method of getting amendments was added to Article V.
No one at the Convention said that the purpose of amendments to the Constitution is to rein in the federal gov’t when it violates the Constitution. The Framers were not silly men.
To illustrate Mason’s point [and this is my example, not Mason’s]: Our original Constitution institutionalized slavery. What if the States wanted to get an amendment which forbade slavery; but Congress didn’t agree to such an Amendment?
So when Mason spoke of “Congress abusing their power” and “becoming oppressive”, he was referring to Congress’ refusal to consent to amendments needed to fix defects in the Constitution. He was not referring to Congress’ becoming tyrannical and ignoring the constitutional limits on its own powers.
The above is a summary of a two page paper (which has exact quotes and the links to Madison’s Journal where the words were spoken.) If you want to see it, contact me.
Any amendments proposed at a Convention would have to be approved by 3/4 of the States before they became effective.
But bad amendments aren’t the danger. The danger of an Article V Convention is that a new Constitution with its own new mode of ratification can be proposed.
The Delegates to an Article V Convention would have that self-evident right, recognized in our Declaration of Independence, to throw off the gov’t we now have (and the Constitution which created it); and propose a new Constitution which created a new gov’t.
THAT is the Principle James Madison invoked to justify the Delegates to the federal convention of 1787 ignoring their instructions to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation and instead drafting a new Constitution with its own new – and easier- mode of ratification. (Madison said this in Federalist No. 40, 15th para).
And remember: Art. 13 of the Articles of Confederation provided that Amendments to the Articles had to be approved by the Congress and all of the then 13 States. But the new Constitution proposed at the federal convention of 1787 provided at Article VII thereof that it would be ratified when only 9 States approved it.
Note that the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America provides at Article XII thereof, that it is ratified by a referendum called by the President.
James Madison strongly warned AGAINST an Article V Convention because he understood that those who secretly wish to get a new Constitution would push for an Article V convention under the pretext of just getting amendments.
Those who have jumped on the COS bandwagon would do well to read the proposed new Constitution co-authored by COS Legal Advisory Board Member, Robert P. George.
Again, for the links, contact me.
Joanna Martin:
“ So when
Mason spoke of
“Congress abusing their power” and “becoming oppressive”, he was referring to Congress’ refusal to consent to amendments needed
to fix defects in the Constitution.
He was not referring to Congress’ becoming tyrannical and ignoring the constitutional limits on its
own powers.”
…And your point is?
Also, the proposed amendments are limited to 3 areas: Term Limits, Reducing Federal Overreach, and Fiscal responsibility.
These are the 3 areas on which the 34 states must apply for a COS in aggregate in order to reach the 34 needed to have the convention.
And even if they did throw out a crazy amendment, you still need 38 states to ratify it! I suppose your solution is to do nothing?
The SOLUTION is to elect people to Congress that will ENFORCE the already established Constitution of the United States of America. THAT is the solution
You sound quite naïve!
There is no clear or agreed-upon procedure for how a COS would be convened, conducted, or concluded. The Constitution only provides a vague outline of the process, leaving many questions unanswered.
For example:
how many delegates would each state send?
How would they be chosen?
How would they vote?
What rules would govern the convention?
Who would preside over it?
How would disputes be resolved?
Joanna, I am concerned… It seems as though you have taken a perspective here that is both illogical and self-defeating for two reasons… 1) The idea that a Federal Government that was choosing to misconstrue or pervert existing constitutional principles is unlikely to be the final authorities that the Founders would choose to rely upon, and 2) a plain reading of Article V belies your position that this was intended for the purposes of making corrections to “defects” in the constitution, as it would require that the “hack Founders” just didn’t write what they thought they had.
I find your reason and rationale to read more like a position in search of support… and I will ask again, what is the alternative? If the answer is for the American People to “vote better”, that cannot be a reasoned response… and I am concerned that we are unable to learn from the past… The ugly/sad/scary truth is that the Founders afforded the citizens and the States two options to deal with an increasing tyrannical government… and I will add a third. I list these in no particular order.
1) NON-CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION: Shut up and deal with the overreach hoping it gets better with time.
2) The Article V Convention of states.
3) The Second Amendment.
In summary, our Nation is in deep despair, and in greater danger of loss than I can see at any time in our history. We are back at the “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States” that first lead to our revolution and the very foundation of this nation. Our founders, in their great wisdom (born of both miserable experience and the guiding hand of Providence), recognized the despotic nature of Government, and I believe they recognized that the tendency of human institutions (even those ordained, orchestrated, or blessed by God himself) are subject to the perversion of Man. Thus, they formally recognized the right to keep and bear arms under our Second Amendment. Yet, we must also recognize that these men had seen the horror of revolution, so it would be unwise to assume that revolution would/could be their preferred method of conflict resolution. No, the Second Amendment is the final line, and would almost certainly result in the destruction of this nation regardless the victor. Rather, our founders offered an “off-ramp” in the escalating tyranny/rebellion dichotomy. Under Article 5, we can once again trust the self-governance of the people and the divine hand of providence to maintain this “grand experiment”. I believe that, as many have so well laid out, tyranny has arrived and continues to be emboldened. We are left with three options, acceptance of tyranny, rebellion via the instrumentality of the Second Amendment, or a reassertion of the “Consent of the Governed” via Article 5. Options one and two are abhorrent to me; and thus, despite perceived risk, I must rely wholly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the administration of an Article 5 Convention.
A Convention of States is unnecessary and risky.
The Constitution already provides a way to amend it through the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states. This process has been used 27 times to make changes that reflect the will of the people and the changing times. A COS, on the other hand, could open up the Constitution to radical and unpredictable changes that could undermine its core principles and values. There is no guarantee that a COS would be limited to specific topics or amendments, as some advocates claim. Once a convention is convened, it could propose any changes it wants, regardless of the original intent or scope of the call. This could lead to a runaway convention that could rewrite or abolish parts of the Constitution that protect our rights and freedoms.
I believe fully that if you were to research Article 5, you would find that there’s no RISK of anything running away. The proposed amendments must be in 3 subject areas, 34 states apply in AGGREGATE, and no matter what, proposals will need 38 states to ratify. Do not allow your fear to prevent action!
Founding father George Mason added the second part of Article 5 IN the Constitution because originally, Congress was the ONLY way to propose amendments, and he knew that Congress would NOT limit itself!
The government and our elections are compromised and it’s time for the people of the states to #reclaimselfgovernance by stepping up in support.
There’s no time to wait for those who would follow the constitution to be elected. It’s time for the people to USE the last lawful, non violent, Constitutional solution the founders gave us to bring the POWER back to the people.
If you want to learn more about how the Convention of States works, read Mark Levin’s book: The Liberty Amendments, which discusses what it is, and what it isn’t.
And lastly, COSA is a non-profit, non-partisan organization with the mission of creating the largest grassroots army of citizens for self governance- over 5 million supporters and counting.
We swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution- that oath never expires!
There is no assurance that a COS would reflect the will or interests of the people. A COS would be dominated by political elites, special interests, and wealthy donors who could influence the selection and behavior of the delegates. The convention could also be subject to external pressures, such as protests, violence, or threats from foreign or domestic enemies. The people would have little or no say in the outcome of the convention, and could be left with a Constitution that does not represent their values or needs.
If the reason you fear a COS is because it hasn’t been done since prior to the constitutional convention, the COS pocket guide explains the process, which is known and was used more than a dozen times prior to 1787.
There’s even a simulation set to happen
Aug 2-4, 2023
We’ve got a country to save!
A Convention of States is undemocratic and unrepresentative.
There is no clear or agreed-upon process for how a COS would be organized, conducted, or ratified. There are many unanswered questions about who would choose the delegates, how they would be allocated among the states, what rules would govern their deliberations, how votes would be counted, and how disputes would be resolved. These issues could create confusion, chaos, and conflict among the states and within the convention itself. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the delegates would reflect the diversity and interests of the American people. They could be influenced by special interests, partisan agendas, or ideological extremists. They could also ignore or override the views and wishes of the majority of the citizens who did not elect them or give them authority to alter the Constitution.
Article 5 is IN the Constitution and IS the solution for our Constitutional Republic. Trust the Founders! All the concerns you have mentioned were addressed at the previous simulation.
Learn more about this method the founders gave us to put the people of the STATES back in charge!
A Convention of States is unnecessary and dangerous.
The Constitution is not perfect, but it is not broken either. It has served as the foundation of our democracy and our system of government for over two centuries. It has endured through wars, crises, and challenges. It has adapted to changing circumstances and needs through amendments and interpretations by the courts and other branches of government. It has also inspired and influenced other constitutions around the world. A Convention of States could jeopardize this legacy and put our constitutional order at risk. It could create uncertainty, instability, and division in our society. It could also invite interference and meddling from foreign powers or enemies who might seek to exploit our vulnerabilities or undermine our sovereignty.
Our Founders, being the genius’s they were did put in Article V to give the states (the People) the mechanism to make amendments. If you think Congress is going to impose term limits on themselves, I have a bridge to sell you.
The bottom line is this, if you feel our Federal Government is doing what the Founders envisioned and our system is not broken then leave it up to those in Congress that have the lowest confidence rating of any institution. The Standards set by the Founders in the passing of an amendment require that once a Convention is held and passes “recommended ” amendments these are sent back to the States where 75% (38) states must ratify in both states houses. This extremely high standard makes it virtually impossible for something radical to become an amendment. The agenda for an Article V Convention are well set in the proposals of the Convention of States movement.
The scare tactics of those opposed to doing this can be answered with a little research to get the facts. go to “conventionofstates.com”and see for yourself.