Convention of States (COS) Advocates Deceptively Only Read First Part of Delegate Commissions – Skip The Ratification Requirements States Put on Delegates!

The United States has numerous important issues to We The People. Anchoring all these issues is the US Constitution, the final firewall of liberty. It codifies our rights, granted to us by our Creator, that can only be taken from us in a court via due process of law.

The Constitution also prescribes a limited set of powers granted by the states to the federal government. That government routinely exceeds those limits. Several groups and their supporters are embarked on a deceptive effort claiming The Founders wanted us to amend the Constitution to enforce it when government became tyrannical. This is not true, not needed and extremely dangerous.

A bedrock argument against amending the Constitution via convention is the fact that the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia “was a “runaway.” We know this is an important argument because convention advocates lie about it constantly, for fear of The People learning the truth of how this 1787 precedent will empower any future convention to exceed their authority. Convention advocates say an Article V convention is completely different, but this argument rings hollow because they fight the runaway argument so loudly, admitting 1787 is precedential.

Mark Meckler, President of Convention of States is a chief offender. Meckler regularly claims that states gave delegates to the 1787 Convention all authority necessary to address the “exigencies” of the times. He even arrogantly boasts to radio call in guests challenging him that “I’ve read the delegate’s commissions, have you?”

Well yes Mark, we sure have. Different from you though, we read the entire document, from each delegation from each state, as well as Congress’ call and Rhode Island’s note on why they refused to attend. This is where the deception becomes clear. Meckler is a former practicing lawyer. Now, I have no proof, but I believe in law school they must teach students to, you know, read the entire document or contract. Meckler either has not, or omits the key points on purpose.

Eleven states had language in those delegate commissions [8-1 thru 8-11 endnotes below] requiring that whatever changes came out of the convention, that such must be approved by the Continental Congress and all thirteen state legislatures. Instead, the Convention delivered a draft constitution requiring only nine states to ratify. [1]

Congress themselves added to usurping their own resolution and those of 11 states requiring the state legislatures to approve, as they transmitted the draft prescribing ratification conventions of The People in each state, not ratification by the states (which would be by state legislatures) which is carried out in the legislatures. [2]

Some will say that this means the Constitution is invalid or that opponents of the constitutional convention movement are disrespecting the Founders and the Constitution. This is a convenient slander while on a radio show but is far from the truth. In Federalist Paper 49, Madison explains that The People are the fountain of all power [3] and since The People ratified the Constitution in state conventions, it was properly ratified.

Convention proponents will then ask what is the problem? It was ratified and everyone likes it, so what is your objection to another convention? It is so kind of convention proponents to unwittingly make our arguments against a convention for their opponents.

One of the most important selling points of the convention lobby is their [false] claim that any convention will be clearly defined by each state’s resolution requesting Congress to call the convention as well as their delegate commissions which limit what they can discuss. They say any topics not allowed will be ruled out of order. They say delegates diverting from their commission authority will be recalled home.

Do we see now? When one reads the entire delegate commissions, not just the cherry picked phrases Mark Meckler chooses, we see that the 1787 Convention most certainly did exceed their authority, as did Congress. Even with this, the Constitution was ratified by The People. All this clearly provides a precedent that an Article V convention could jump its guardrails too and whatever changes emerge could be ratified by The People.

We are asked then (as the convention proponents continue to morph their losing argument), well what is wrong with the will of The People? That would be mobocracy (democracy) emotion, etc. A friend once asked, if we haul up the anchor of the Constitution, do you believe our ship will drift more towards freedom and individual liberty, or will it drift towards Marxism and taxpayer funded tyranny of the majority by the radical minority?

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, delegate at the 1787 Convention, was described in James Madison’s Record of the Federal Convention, on September 15, 1787, two days before the convention ended, “He descanted on the consequences of calling forth the deliberations and amendments of the different States, on the subject of government at large. Nothing but confusion and contrariety will spring from the experiment. The States will never agree in their plans, and the deputies to a second convention, coming together under the discordant impressions of their constituents, will never agree. Conventions are serious things, and ought not to be repeated….“

Proponents will then try to divert your attention to Dr. Michael Farris’ blathering tomb [4] of legal contortions to explain how the convention was justified as they had all authority. It is designed to falsely rationalize and confuse. Some respected historians will even say that in Federalist 40, [5] [6] Madison explains how they were authorized (because they felt they needed to do it) to exceed their authority. However, it is really called exceeding your authority and rationalizing it after the fact. We are assured that would never happen at an Article V convention though, or…. Remember, eleven states, Congress, and the constitution in effect at the time, The “Articles of Confederation” all required Congress and all thirteen states ratify the changes before they went into effect. The 1787 Convention changed that on their own, exceeding their authority, specifying only nine, and The People still ratified it.

In 1873 Pennsylvania state constitutional convention, they exceeded their authority and were sued in court. By the time the court ruled the convention exceeded their authority, the new constitution had already been ratified. [7]

We The People must ask ourselves. If the 1787 convention exceeded its authority and produced a document still ratified by The people or if you support an Article V convention because you are convinced it will stay on mission and can not waiver, we have clearly shown that is not possible.

US Senator Tom Coburn was a COS spokesman at one time. He wrote a slanderous letter to Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum. However, his message was on point, even if he didn’t realize it was he and the organization that employed him he was describing. That message read in part, “…as far as I’m concerned, a person or organization that will engage in this kind of deceitful innuendo can’t be trusted to tell the whole truth on anything….” Meckler’s COS continues to prove they can not be trusted to tell the truth on anything.

This is when they say well then what’s your concern? Everything is fine?

Yes, the constitution was properly ratified, but the convention grossly exceeded its authority. To sell their convention, which they falsely claim controls the federal government, they have to convince state legislatures that the convention will stay within its defined authority and in fact, they pass laws not just from states to call the convention, but for each state to allegedly define the limits of what their delegation can do. These delegation of authorities are not enforceable and as we see by our Constitution, we have a precedent. Well, they can be exceeded, cause fundamental changes damaging the Constitution that will then be ratified as a new form of government

Endnotes:

[1]. Article VII Ratification “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”

[2]. “Resolved Unanimously that the said Report with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same be transmitted to the several legislatures in Order to be submitted to a convention of Delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof in conformity to the resolves of the Convention made and provided in that case.”
Resolution of Congress of September 28, 1787, Submitting the Constitution to the Several States.

[3]. “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….”
— Federalist 49

[4]. Defying Conventional Wisdom: The Constitution Was Not The Product of A Runaway Convention, by Dr. Michael Farris

[5]. “In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation [of the legislatures] of all the states, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed [by the people,] and may be carried into effect by nine States only”
— Federalist 40

[6]. “It is time now to recollect that the powers were merely advisory and recommendatory; [this is absolutely not true] that they were so meant by the States, and so understood by the convention….” [if this was true, it is still true as a precedent today and so no convention or delegates can be limited] — Federalist 40

[7]. “When the Pennsylvania convention of 1873 proposed a new constitution, along with changes in the bill of rights that went beyond what was sanctioned in the enabling act, suit was filed to prevent submission of the constitution for popular ratification. The Pennsylvania supreme court admitted that the convention had acted ultra vires, but before the case was decided the constitution had been submitted to the voters and approved by a large majority. Said the court: “The change made by the people in their political institutions, by the adoption of the proposed Constitution … forbids an inquiry into the merits of this case. The question is no longer judicial.”
— Constitutional Brinkmanship, Amending the Constitution by National Convention, By Russell L. Caplan, Oxford University Press, 1988, Page 155

[8]. Original delegate commission excerpts containing portions requiring any drafts from the 1787 Convention to be approved by the Congress and each state legislature. They were not. Sourced: “Instructions to the Convention Delegates” | “Center for the Study of the American Constitution Department of History, University of Wisconsin–Madison”

[8-1] Virginia Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 4 December 1786 – and in reporting such an Act for that purpose, to the United States in Congress, as, when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several States, will effectually provide for the same.

[8-2] Pennsylvania Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 30 December 1786 – adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and in reporting such act or acts for that purpose, to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the same.

[8-3] North Carolina Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 6 January 1787 – That five Commissioners be appointed… and to procure the enlarged purposes which it was intended to effect, and that they report such an act to the General Assembly of this state, as when agreed to by them, will effectually provide for the same.

[8-4] Delaware Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 3 February 1787 – reporting such Act or Acts for that Purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several States, may effectually provide for the same

[8-5] Georgia Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 10 February 1787 – reporting such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several states

[Congress] The Confederation Congress Authorization | February 21, 1787 – and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union.

[8-6] Massachusetts Resolution For Delegates to 1787 Convention, 22 Feb 1787 – or any three of them to attend and represent this Commonwealth at the aforesaid Convention, for the sole & express purpose mentioned in the aforerecited resolve of Congress—”The Confederation Congress Authorization | February 21, 1787 – and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union.”

[8-7] Connecticut Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 17 May 1787 -as they shall think proper, to render the foederal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of Government, and the Preservation of the Union; and they are further directed, pursuant to the said Act of Congress, to report such Alterations and Provisions, as may be agreed to, by a Majority of the united States represented in Convention, to the Congress of the United States, and to the General Assembly of this State.–“The Confederation Congress Authorization | February 21, 1787 – and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union.”

[8-8] Maryland Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 26 May 1787 – reporting such an act for that purpose to the United States in congress assembled, as, when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several states

[8-9] New Hampshire Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 27 June 1787 – and in reporting such an act to the United States in Congress, as when agreed to by them and duly confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the same

[null] New Jersey Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 23 November 1786 – for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the Union as to trade and other important objects, and of devising such further provisions as shall appear necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies thereof.

[8-10] New York Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 6 March 1787 – reporting to Congress and to the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the several states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union

[8-11] South Carolina Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 8 March 1787 – do join in reporting such an act to the united states in congress assembled, as when approved and agreed to by them, and duly ratified and confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the exigencies of the union.

Rhode Island’s Refusal to Appoint Delegates, 15 September 1787 | Rhode Island Reasons for Refusing to Appoint Delegates to 1787 Convention. – By the 13th. Article in the Confederation “every State shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this Confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time be made in any of them unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This