A Canada Free Press response to my "Will It Take Revolution" article and the part about the Article V. Convention

Bill Walker commented on my article "Will It Take Revolution," specifically referring to the part regarding Article V. Conventions. He is a defender of the convention, yet surprisingly has missed it on the language of the article, and the debate over the article. I appreciate his comment, but sadly, his statement is wrong:

Posted by: Bill Walker
Email: foavc@isomedia.com
URL: 
Location: Washington State

I must take issue with Mr. Gibbs on a portion of his otherwise fine article. Regarding the Article V portion he indicates the Founders intended the states and Congress can propose amendments "as well." 

This is incorrect. The text he refers to as well as other texts from Farrand make it absolutely clear the Founders intended Article V allowed the states to apply for a convention, not to propose amendments. See: http://www.nolanchart.com/article9545-a-case-study-in-same-subject-convention.html.

My response at CFP: To the commenter that indicated Article V only allows States to have a convention but not propose amendments: read the article closely. After it says Congress can propose amendments, the word "or" is used, and then indicates upon application and the call for a convention, the States can propose amendments. Also, if you read Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, September 15, 1787 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_915.asp, you will realize that in fact originally the allowance to propose amendments was initially only going to be a State allowance, but on the second to last day they decided to give the authority to the Congress as well. Your source, and you, have fallen for a statist myth, perpetrated by the courts and academia in an attempt to keep the States irrelevant and silent.

That said, let me add this. What good is a convention if the States could not propose amendments? Is Mr. Walker suggesting the States can only have convention, but they still have to ask Congress to propose the amendments they discussed in convention? Does that not neutralize the whole point of a convention?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary