Myth #5: A Con-Con (Article V. Convention) Would Allow The Constitution To Be Re-Written

This is the Fifth Myth in the series: 25 Myths of the U.S. Constitution.

Note: These articles later were updated and combined into my first book: 25 Myths of the United States Constitution.

By Douglas V. Gibbs

An myth has been circulating around the Internet claiming that we are only two states away from the government holding a constitutional convention that could result in the Constitution being re-written. Many of these E-mails and blog posts go on to say that such an assembly of delegates would include today's corrupt politicians and judges, and that it is their aim through this convention to formally change the U.S. Constitution's provisions that they see as problematic to their methods of social engineering. The Con-Con would be their way, says these writings, to get the Constitution to reflect the philosophical standards of their visionary contemporary society.

The warnings by those that oppose this kind of convention then ring the hysteria alarm, stating: "Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights. Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more."

Pretty frightening, huh? Enough to scare anyone away from these dreaded Con-Cons, whatever they may be.

The fear tactic works because as Americans we realize that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and changes to it in a fashion that does not include "We The People" would probably stomp on our rights as Americans. We recognize that our liberty is under assault, and in today's society we are seeing the rise of human deviance from the rule of law.

The politicians and judiciary have been using case law to interpret the Constitution. Rather than a strict constructionist view, the political cockroaches and judicial power grabbers have conditioned society to believe that the rule of law is case law, a complex web of legal cases that present precedent and constitutional interpretation. This web of lies also includes the false teachings of implied powers, implied law, and Judicial Review (see Myth #4). Fact is, none of those concepts are in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, and are definitely not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

Those out there that believe a Constitutional Convention, or more appropriately named "Article V. Convention," can completely shake the foundations of our governmental system in a bad way have not properly informed themselves about the U.S. Constitution, and more specifically, Article Five which is the part of the Constitution that deals with amendments as a way of changing the Constitution.

The more accurate view of the amendment process recognizes that the delegates in such a convention could not simply re-write the Constitution, but instead can only propose amendments. And amendments proposed, whether they be by Congress, or by an Article V. Convention, still require the vote of 3/4 of the State Legislatures to ratify.

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 through applications. These applications date all the way back to 1789 (New York and Virginia), and as recently as the last couple years (Oklahoma, Louisiana). The convention, however, has never taken place because the Congress will not set a time and place (their only task regarding an Article V. Convention), for fear of the people proposing amendments, and the States ratifying them, which would ultimately cut the federal government out of the process. Centralized systems do not like it when individual states and people get involved in a process they think is only their domain.

Statist Alexander Hamilton was thrilled about the original Constitutional Convention because he desired a more centralized government, and he figured that if a more centralized federal system could be achieved in 1787 during the original Constitutional Convention, his destiny would be set. 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, or that the text of the Constitution means something entirely foreign to its original intent based on case law.

In reality, there was never supposed to be a Constitutional Convention in the first place. The original intention of that meeting was to fix the Articles of Confederation, which proved to establish a government too weak to protect the union. A year before the Constitutional Convention at the Annapolis Convention a number of representatives came to this conclusion because of the inability of the federal government to properly deal with Shays' Rebellion. Some of those delegates knew that there was no fixing the Articles of Confederation, and were well aware that in May of 1787, they would actually be 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.

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 may become something like the authoritarian 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 later years. 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.

History is a part of the reason fear has been used to steer people away from wanting an Article V. Convention. Conventional wisdom dictates that if they meant only to fix the government the first time, and wound up writing a whole new constitution instead, that could happen again. However, the Founding Fathers understood that fear, which is why Article V. is very specific in that only amendments may be proposed at such a convention, and ratification is only reached by a supporting vote by 3/4 of the States.

Progressive liberalism deceives through creeping incrementalism, not by sudden changes in the open. I do not believe the progressives are so bold as to simply write a new constitution at a Constitutional Convention, nor could they do such a thing based on the way such a convention is prescribed by Article V., for they know that if they tried to write a whole new socialist constitution, a bloody revolution may erupt as a result. The Left's goal is not to replace the Constitution, anyway, but to render it invalid, and simply allow the federal government a full range of scope and power. They don't need a new constitution, in their opinion, for they can achieve their statist aim by working through an activist judiciary.

Madison, and his fellow supporters of federalism, originally intended for states to determine and propose amendments without congressional influence, but added near the end of the Constitutional Convention the provision that Congress would also be able to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were alarmed by that provision, but the saving grace for them was that no matter who proposes amendments, the states still need to ratify an amendment with a 3/4 vote. Then, just to clarify that State Sovereignty and individual rights would still be protected, they also included the Bill of Rights soon after (promising it at the time of the ratification process for the Constitution) to ease the fears of states like Rhode Island, to assure them that their state rights were not at risk with the creation of this new government.

Article V. Conventions were offered as a method for the people and the States to stop the rampage of a tyrannical government. An Article V. Convention gives the people and states a way to combat a federal system that ignores the Constitution, treats it as if it does not exist, or invalidates it through judicial means. An Article V. Convention is not only something we need not fear, but one of our main ways to combat against a tyrannical federal system. An Article V. Convention is our means of changing the Constitution through amendments so that we may give power back to the States, and protect state sovereignty. The Article V. Convention is one of the necessary tools given to us by the Founding Fathers for taking back our nation.

Changing the Constitution by amendment is not an easy process on purpose. Amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. The federal government does not like that process because they think it limits their power (and they are correct). This is why the federal government is doing as it pleases regardless of the authorities granted by the Constitution. They wish to keep the States out of the picture. Taking power without the benefit of an amendment makes the State legislatures irrelevant. The statists won't try to change the Constitution through a convention because that alerts the states and people of their aims, and encourages the people and the States to get involved. That is the last thing they want. Those that support big government plan to do their worst as they are now, through ignoring the law, and invalidating the original intent of the U.S. Constitution through the judiciary whenever possible.

They fear the Article V. Convention because such a convention is the people's way of forcing the federal government to behave in accordance to the limiting principles of the Constitution. A Con-Con, or Article V. Convention, is not a way for the corrupt politicians and judges to re-write the Constitution, but a way for the people to return the federal government to its proper limited role.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary