If the United States was intended to be a democracy the States would not have the final say when it comes to the ratification of all proposals to amend the Constitution, and Congress, or the States through Convention, would not be the only way to propose amendments ― the population through democratic vote would have been given the ability to amend the Constitution.
The States wrote the Constitution to create the federal government. The federal government was not a party to the compact we call the United States Constitution, it was the document's creation. Therefore, altering the Constitution was never intended to be something the federal government had the sole power to do. However, amending the Constitution is something the States have the sole power to accomplish without any involvement by the federal government. In fact, until the last week of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 Congress was not going to be allowed to propose amendments and throughout the convention there had been warnings issued by various delegates not to allow the federal government to have any hand in the amendment process. Four days before the end of the Constitutional Convention the attending delegation added to the document that Congress, with two-thirds approval from each House of Congress, may propose amendments.
The sovereignty and autonomy of the States, and the individualism of the citizens, represent the greatest threats to the centralization of power. The proper distribution of power that does not allow political authority to consolidate into any one office or chamber of government is necessary to preserve liberty.
In our current modern age power has been amassed by the ruling class that inhabits the halls of government in the United States. Over the last two centuries, the enemies of the United States Constitution have been consolidating government power to neutralize individuality and the autonomy of the States. Early on those who would be tyrants have known that the States serving as a voice in the government was a danger to their lust for power, and they knew that the way to destroy any resistance against the rise of tyranny was to dismantle the system of checks and balance, silence the voice of the States, and negate individualism among We the People.
We fight a war that pits collectivism against individuality, and we have been programmed to reject the sovereignty of the States, and individuality, whenever we encounter it. We have been convinced that the powers behind the federal government, and the corporatism that engages in political mercantilism, are too powerful to overcome and that any attempt we may make to dissolve their iron fist over our lives is both foolish and dangerous.
After all, as Biden put it, the federal government has F-35s and nuclear weapons. How can a collection of angry citizens with little fire-sticks that have limitations placed on how much ammunition the guns may hold and limitations on the type of firearm that may be owned be of any threat to the big, bad government?
In the Declaration of Independence, the words are clear: when government "reduces them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
If the government is not to be abolished by revolution, have its powers severed by nullification, or abandoned by the secession of the States, then it must be altered. Congress, however, cannot be depended upon to propose the amendments necessary to reduce the tyrannical power of the federal government, adjust its powers to better fit the original intent of the Constitution's Enumeration Doctrine as laid out in the Tenth Amendment, nor clarify the language the federal courts and political class have interpreted to fit their tyrannical agenda. Therefore, the task of proposing the amendments necessary to properly alter the stature of the federal government must be accomplished by the States.
The United States Constitution may only be changed through the process of amendment, as established in Article V. of the U.S. Constitution. The ability to amend the Constitution was created for the primary purpose of granting additional authorities to the federal government or taking away powers. As the parents of the federal government, the States have the final say regarding whether or not an authority may be added, or removed, by virtue of the ratification process. No matter how an amendment is proposed, in order to become a part of the Constitution and become the law of the land, every amendment must receive at least three-quarters approval by the States.
Article V. of the Constitution establishes that amendments may be proposed either by Congress, or the States. The authority for the States to amend the United States Constitution by proposing amendments through convention was viewed by the Founding Fathers as being a way for the States to take back control of a tyrannical federal government. As the parents of the federal government, amending the Constitution through an Article V. Convention was a specifically designed mechanism for the States to grab a hold of the reins of a tyrannical federal government so that the States may reel the expanding system back into the control and oversight of the two constituencies – the States, and We the People. In an Article V. Convention the States may propose amendments, which then can be, in turn, presented to the States for approval through a three-quarters ratification vote. The Article V. Convention was not designed to, and may not be used for, rewriting the U.S. Constitution, or replacing it with a different document.
James Madison defended the Article V. Convention in Federalist Paper #49, and Alexander Hamilton did the same in Federalist Paper #85. Madison and Hamilton desired to convince the Anti-Federalists that despite their fears regarding the creation of a centralized federal government through the U.S. Constitution, they had a fail-safe mechanism in place that they could use in case the government began to overstep the powers granted to it by the States.
An Article V. Convention, according to the language offered in the Constitution, shall be called when two-thirds of the States make an application for a convention. Their applications never expire, unless an expiration date is established in the application. Over the last two centuries, all 50 of the 50 States have applied, with over 750 applications (one State has rescinded its only application, so the current count sits at 49 States). The only involvement by the federal government is for Congress to "call" a convention when enough applications have been made, and if it so desires, to establish the style of ratification.
To "call" a convention is to set up the place and time. To date, Congress has unconstitutionally refused to call a convention.
If Congress chooses to establish the style of ratification, either by vote of the State Legislatures or by State Conventions, it must be established at the time of calling the convention. If no style of ratification is established by Congress, the choice devolves to the States.
The purveyors of a strong central government fear convention. An Article V. Convention is a valuable tool that enables the States to work together against the federal government, proposing and ratifying amendments without federal control or influence. This means that amendments could be passed to further limit the authorities of the federal government, or clarify constitutional applications the federal government has been misinterpreting through judicial review, such as the Commerce Clause, Citizenship Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.
Passing amendments to limit the authorities of the federal government as a whole, a particular branch of the federal government, or a smaller component of the federal government, is nothing new. The Eleventh Amendment, for example, was proposed and ratified with the express purpose of limiting the powers of the federal court system, eliminating a portion of the range of cases the federal courts were authorized to hear.
The Eleventh Amendment had originally been planned as a proposal by an Article V. Convention, but before delegates from the States could gather together to make the proposal, Congress stepped in to propose the amendment themselves.
During the entire history of the United States, we have seen the statists among our political leaders discard any willingness to follow the Constitution's original intent. Instead, the statists depend on case law and judicial interpretation (and interpretations by political office holders and influential figures) so as to stray our society from the original intent of the Constitution, and instead follow the statist aspirations of tyrants. They have abandoned the Rule of Law and now pursue the Rule of Man.
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages that mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." ~ Daniel Webster
Those who challenge the safety of holding an Article V. Convention state that in today’s political environment, the risk of a runaway convention is too great, so despite being given to us by the Founding Fathers on the pages of the United States Constitution, an Article V. Convention is just too risky to pursue, and therefore must not be put into play.
That is like owning a hammer to pound in nails, but refusing to use it out of fear of striking one’s thumb.
What other tool do we have to alter the system of government if necessary?
There is a third kind of convention. The third kind of convention is provided by James Madison in Federalist Paper #49. He wrote, quoting Thomas Jefferson, "that whenever any two of the three branches of government shall concur in opinion, each by the voices of two-thirds of their whole number, that a convention is necessary for altering the constitution, or CORRECTING BREACHES OF IT, a convention shall be called for the purpose. As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others."
Convention, it was believed by the Founding Fathers, was a key tool in the hands of the governed to correct abuses by the political class.
Convention, or nullification, are best established by a grassroots effort that audits the federal government, exposing the unconstitutional aspects of the federal government, and then makes these constitutional shortcomings of the federal government aware to the State governments and to the people. An informed public armed with constitutional literacy and a willingness to apply public pressure on the local politicians to go after the federal politicians and their unconstitutional activities at the federal level is a key aspect of the concept of convention, and correcting misbehavior by the federal government.
When the Constitution was written the
Framers of the founding document sought to distribute power in such a way that
no part of government, nor the people through democracy, would have too much
power. Correction against tyranny must
be available to the people and the States when the federal government chases
tyrannical policies or an anti-Constitution narrative. An Article V. Convention is the method that
may be utilized to ensure such correction is put into action.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment