By Douglas V. Gibbs
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but in today's society we are seeing the rise of human deviance from the rule of law.
Constitutional scholars will tell you that the rule of law is case law, a complex web of legal cases that present precedent and constitutional interpretation. I do not necessarily always trust people who have come to that conclusion because they often assume that case law is a part of the web of understanding when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. Folks that adhere to the belief that case law is a part of Constitutional Law support the ideas of implied powers, implied law, and Judicial Review - all of which are not in line with the original intentions of the U.S. Constitution, and the framers of that document.
Judicial Review is especially a sticky matter. In 1803, John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the United States at the time, in his opinion regarding Marbury v. Madison, seized the power of Judicial Review by writing in his opinion that the courts had the final say on the constitutionality of law. Considering that the U.S. Constitution is filled with limitations on the federal government, one must realize that it would not be in the Founding Father's original plans for the federal government, through the courts, to decide for itself what its own authorities are. Judicial Review does just that. The Judicial Branch is only supposed to apply the law, regardless of its opinion of the law. If the law is unconstitutional, it is not the Judiciary's job to strike down the law, it is the people's duty to vote out the people making unconstitutional law, and for the new statesmen to enact laws that are constitutional, and to repeal any unconstitutional law when necessary.
This reasoning goes entirely against what is being taught in the colleges, and often puts me at odds with "Constitutional scholars." Such is the danger of an educational system that has been infiltrated by progressives that do not care about the rule of law, but about increasing the powers of the federal government through a process of compromising the original intentions, and therefore the validity, of the U.S. Constitution.
As a person who has spent 30 years with my nose dug deep into the writings of our Founders, though I am still pursuing a degree, I have written a great number of articles on the Constitution, and I derive all of my knowledge from studying the writings of the people that were there, not the interpretations by a bunch of legal scholars who have disregarded history, and bases their opinions on what best supports their own personal agenda.
My good friend, Dr. Bill Smith, recently wrote an article explaining his fear of a new Constitutional Convention being called. He believes that the call for a new convention comes from groups that would like to change the Constitution into something that would completely change our form of govenernment into something tyrannical, and hardly what the Founding Fathers intended.
I agree that there are groups out there who believe that a Constitutional Convention can change the Constitution, and therefore completely shake the foundations of our governmental system. But understand that the majority of the people pushing for these Article V. Conventions are not necessarily liberals wishing to change the Constitution outside the bounds of the law. I believe that those who believe, or are willing to believe if they understood it, the purist view of the amendment process outnumber those working to attack the Constitution and change it. Therefore, I do not fear an Article V. Convention. I believe the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and the required vote of 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendments, would prevail.
The fact that people tend to only be concerned with their own needs, and can be fooled easily, is exactly the reason the Founding Fathers chose this to be a republic, rather than a Democracy entirely controlled by the vote of the people. In their wisdom, they did not place too much power in any one place, including the power to change the Constitution. All of the changes in the world can be proposed, but it still takes 3/4 of the State legislatures to approve such proposals before they can become a part of the law of the land.
The call for an Article V. Convention is nothing new. All 50 states have called for it, many of those calls beginning longer than over a 100 years ago. The convention has never taken place because the Congress will not set a time and place, for fear of the people proposing amendments, and the States ratifying them, that would limit the powers of the federal government. Centralized systems do not like it when the individual mind gets involved.
Understand, the deception that many fear may surface if an Article V. Convention convenes, is nothing new. Alexander Hamilton was thrilled about the original Constitutional Convention because he desired a more centralized government, and figured it could be achieved in 1787 during the original Constitutional Convention. However, the minds that believed in limiting the authorities of the federal government prevailed, and so Hamilton and his allies had to find another way to give the government more power. John Marshall was a student of Hamilton's, and that is one of the reasons the push for a more centralized government moved from a political means to a means through the judiciary. Our greatest danger, I believe, is not a bunch of citizens getting together at a Constitutional Convention to try to change the Constitution, but through a judiciary that is working to eventually rule that the Constitution is not legally valid.
Of course there was never supposed to be a Constitutional Convention in the first place. I understand that the original intention was to fix the Articles of Confederation. A year before at the Annapolis Convention they had come to this conclusion because of the inability of the federal government to properly deal with Shays' Rebellion. And yes, Madison and Hamilton were intent on writing a new Constitution, based on framework already worked out by Madison, regardless of the original intention of fixing the Articles of Confederation as everyone else intended. However, Madison and Hamilton had very different reasons for the desire of a new Constitution. Madison wanted one that better enabled the federal government to promote, protect and preserve the union, while remaining limited in its authorities, and Hamilton wished for a new American empire to arise from the proceedings, equipped with an American King, and a military that was at the government's disposal for any and all reasons the government so desired.
The original push for fixing the Articles of Confederation, or writing a new Constitution, was not a popular one. That is the reason most states did not send delegates to the Annapolis Convention in 1786. The states feared losing their state sovereignty. The Anti-Federalists feared that with an update the governmental system could become like the one they fought against in the Revolutionary War. The key had to be to create a federal government with enough powers to preserve the union, while limiting it enough to protect State sovereignty. Most people, for fear of change, did not believe it to be possible. But those fears, had the Constitution never been written, would have allowed America to fall back under British Control in 1812. The greatest miracle in history, some may say, is the fact that the United States remained united, and a large part of that miracle is the U.S. Constitution.
Shays' Rebellion was the kick in the butt they needed to realize the Articles of Confederation was completely inadequate. And yes, the general public was not told that the intent of the proposed meetings were to replace the current form of government with a new form of government. Rhode Island did not attend the Constitional Convention in 1787, and the New York delegation, save for Hamilton, walked out. The Federalist Papers were written afterward specifically to convince New York to ratify the new constitution. These State's objections to the new U.S. Constitution were simply because they feared losing State Sovereignty. However, without the new federal government, the union could not last. Without it, our nation was doomed. Fortunately, the attendees of the Constitutional Convention were able to convince the required number of states that though the new government would have more powers than the old one, the authorities of the new government were still limited enough to protect state sovereignty.
Deception, of course, is abound. But the way to battle deception is not to hide in the closet, and refuse to allow an Article V. Convention. I do have faith that we are on the precipice of a new great awakening. Like in 1787, it will not be strongly supported at first. But conservatives are still the majority, and those that believe in divine providence are still in the majority. I do believe in America that God does reign in the majority of people's hearts, just not in the majority of the younger generation's hearts, which is why if an Article V. Convention is to be had, it needs to be now.
The leftist enemy is not stupid. This is why liberalism deceives through creeping incrementalism. I do not believe they are so bold as to simply write a new constitution at a Constitutional Convention, for they know a revolution would erupt as a result. Their goal is not to replace the Constitution, anyway, but to render it invalid - and they are working to do so through the judiciary.
Madison originally intended for states to determine amendments, but to ensure more states would ratify the Constitution, the Founders added near the end of the Constitutional Convention for the Congress to be able to propose amendments to the Constitution as well - being very careful to make sure that the States remained in the loop, ensuring that no matter who proposed the amendment, the states still needed to ratify such an amendment with a 3/4 vote. And, they only included the Bill of Rights for ratification to ease the fears of states like Rhode Island, to assure them that their rights were not at risk with the creation of this new government.
Things were messy then, and I agree they are more messy now, but let's understand the liberal left's position on the Constitution. They do not believe, as many people have stated to me, that the Constitution is a living document and must be adjusted to reflect the present times and events. They believe the Constitution is a living document and that it must be interpreted to reflect the present times and events. They don't want to replace it, they wish to invalidate it, or at least invalidate the original intention. They need to only do that through judicial review.
Deception and deceit does not bother with things as trivial as replacing something. They simply ignore it, treat it as if it does not exist, or invalidate it through judicial means. Our only weapon to combat that is to give power back to the States, and protect state sovereignty, and I believe one of the tools to do so is an Article V. Convention. I believe that in addition to nullification, and the ballot box, an Article V. Convention is one of the necessary tools in taking back our nation.
The present Constitution cannot remain unchanged, but the process of changing it is not an easy one so that it isn't changed willy-nilly. The law is the law, and amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This is why you see a federal government doing as they please, regardless of the Constitution, and refusing to propose amendments. They wish to keep the States out of the picture, make the State legislatures irrelevant. They won't try to change the Constitution through a convention because that alerts the states to be involved, and that is the last thing they want. They plan to do it as they are now, through ignoring the law, and invalidating the original intent of the U.S. Constitution through the judiciary whenever possible.
Somewhere, among the disagreements and bickerings, the truth finds a way to the surface. That is what happened in 1787, and that is what will hopefully happen now.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment