There is a lot of misinformation out there about the Article V. Convention. Recently, a radio listener sent me a link to Publius Huldah's latest attempt to stand against a tool the founding fathers gave to us to restore our republic. Here's my response:
Interesting article. It's not that I am not favorable of Publius Huldah, for much of the writings are very good. But I disagree on the Article V. Convention angle. Simply said, Article V. Convention is something given to us by the Founding Fathers, there is no way it can become a runaway convention because of the necessity of State ratification, and even the original convention wasn't a runaway. The State Legislatures gave the delegates the authority to have the convention and the States Legislatures later approved of the Constitution by ratifying it. Article V. Convention is only for the purpose of proposing amendments. It still takes 3/4 of the States to ratify. 14 States, or so, a very small number, can stop any amendment from becoming a part of the law of the land. The federal government is scared to death of convention because they can't control it. It would be our way to ensure the law as it is written, through amendments, clearly (more so that it already does) limits the authorities of the federal government. We must remember, also, that according to Article V., there is only two ways to propose amendments: through Congress, or by Convention of the States. To be against convention is to say that you only trust Congress to be the only ones allowed to propose amendments, and that, my friend, is a very dangerous position to take when we are seeking to limit their activities and authorities.
Interesting article. It's not that I am not favorable of Publius Huldah, for much of the writings are very good. But I disagree on the Article V. Convention angle. Simply said, Article V. Convention is something given to us by the Founding Fathers, there is no way it can become a runaway convention because of the necessity of State ratification, and even the original convention wasn't a runaway. The State Legislatures gave the delegates the authority to have the convention and the States Legislatures later approved of the Constitution by ratifying it. Article V. Convention is only for the purpose of proposing amendments. It still takes 3/4 of the States to ratify. 14 States, or so, a very small number, can stop any amendment from becoming a part of the law of the land. The federal government is scared to death of convention because they can't control it. It would be our way to ensure the law as it is written, through amendments, clearly (more so that it already does) limits the authorities of the federal government. We must remember, also, that according to Article V., there is only two ways to propose amendments: through Congress, or by Convention of the States. To be against convention is to say that you only trust Congress to be the only ones allowed to propose amendments, and that, my friend, is a very dangerous position to take when we are seeking to limit their activities and authorities.
David Barton also has an interesting piece on the Article V. Convention. Like Mark Levine, Mr. Barton used to be against convention, and has later, since, changed his mind.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
1 comment:
Like many across the country, I've spent decades observing the over-reach of our ever-expanding federal government, and more recently, with the introduction of social media, griping about it. It's time to focus on something more than just identifying the problems... it's time to pursue a permanent solution, to remove the fuel from the power brokers - it's time to impose mandatory term limits.
We have them for the presidency, and thank God for that... given today's thirst for unattenuated power, I can't even imagine the frightening possibilities. It's time to impose them on the legislative and judicial branches, as well. It's time to return the country to what the Founders envisioned, a nation of Citizen Legislators who go to Washington but for a moment to contribute their service to the honorable task of self-governance, then return to their communities to live in the world they helped to create, along with the rest of us.
It's not a silver bullet... it won't bring an end overnight to the corruption and manipulation of our electoral system by the institutional elite, but it sure as heck would make their job a whole lot harder. What the 22nd Amendment accomplished with term-limiting the Executive, a 28th could achieve by eliminating the scourge of career politicians from the Legislative, and by returning the interpretation of "Original Intent" back to the Judiciary.
It's time. There is a solution as big as the problem… http://www.ConventionOfStates.com/problem
Post a Comment