Convention of States markets deception. No Founder ever said to amend the Constitution to enforce it. We fight against these Article V convention moves because they suck up an enormous amount of energy away from solutions the Founders told us to pursue. The 1787 Convention exceeded their authority and still succeeded in properly ratifying the new Constitution. Such is a precedent for the next convention under Article V.
Advocates say it will be controlled and rules will be followed which is naive when the rules are made by the convention, Congress has asserted they will establish the rules, and the ultimate rule, the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, is being perpetually disobeyed.
Advocates claim rules will be followed at any Article V convention, but they actively pressured the Nebraska Legislature to suspend their rules to pass their Article V resolution. In no way can anyone honestly say the rules of a convention will be followed in light of pushing the Nebraska Legislature to suspend their rules. [9]
Advocates say Article V is in the Constitution and we must use it. Such ignorance and naivety as to the reasons Article V exists would also have advocates pushing the military to start bombing some countries because the Constitution provides for declaring war. Yes, absurd, but such starkness is needed to illuminate the deceptive arguments.
Advocates say bad amendments will never be ratified yet they want to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments. They were ratified, as was the 18th, prohibition, which had to be repealed about 10 years later. Again, they say bad amendments will never be ratified. They have been.
The thesis of the Convention of States organization is invalid. In Convention, September 15, 1787 the convention option was added to Article V of the draft Constitution. They claim it was to reign in an out-of-control government, which clearly is not the reason as shown in Madison’s notes. [1]
What is the purpose of amendments? An Article V convention was put into the Constitution to fix defects when Congress refused needed amendments. [2]
President George Washington’s Farewell Speech in 1796 is often misrepresented (as it was yesterday at the COS rally at the Legislature) as justifying a convention to fix usurpations of the Constitution. The larger part of the paragraph provides proper context for the quote. [3]
I shared that Thomas Jefferson wrote Archibald Stuart in 1791 that federal usurpation must be stopped by the states and that such cannot be done by changing the federal constitution (as Convention of States proposes) [4]
Why not hold a convention? What was the “runaway?” The 1787 Convention was called under the reserved powers of the states. Each provided delegate commissions to their representatives and 11 of the 12 which attended provided language requiring proposed changes from such convention be handled similar to the following, “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’ (From New Hampshire’s delegate commission). [5]
We know that Article VII from the draft Constitution only required conventions in nine states approve, not all 13 and Congress. Congress did not approve, specifically debating the detailed language of some hoping forwarding was mistaken for approbation [6], and the state legislatures did not approve but merely called ratification conventions.
Several 1787 delegates admitted they exceeded their authority at the convention. [7] The Constitution ultimately was properly ratified by convention of The People in each state under the principle that The People are the fountain of all power. [8]
Legislators around the country tell us our most persuasive argument is U.S. Senator Tom Coburn’s vote for the unconstitutional 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). During the TARP debate, Senator Coburn testified that the bill was unconstitutional and that he would vote for the bill anyway. He knew the TARP bill was unconstitutional, stated such on the record, and still voted in favor of it.
I encourage you to watch his testimony for yourself—it’s both insightful and revealing. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDmOSxOZFtk&t=7s] There were no complicated legal precedents or ambiguous interpretations involved. Senator Coburn knew it was wrong, stated so clearly, and yet voted for it anyway.
Similarly, COS promoter Sen. Rick Santorum voted for “No Child Left Behind” in the Senate and now admits that was unconstitutional. COS would have you believe they want an amendment that reads, “you must follow the Constitution and we are serious.” Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, is the solution.
Yes I am providing facts to call out the dishonesty presented to legislators by COS leadership. Most COS volunteers are not aware of these problems as they do not research opposition.
I was humbled by the honor of bringing home some deceased troops while an Air Force cargo aircraft crew member. I am always cognizant that the only way to guard our Constitution is to honor the sacrifice of the nearly 1.4 million troops that have died after swearing an oath to the Constitution, by telling the truth, supported by references, and demanding facts be all that sustains debate and application of our US Constitution.
We regularly disobey the US Constitution. Not knowing and following it is not a defect in the Constitution. It is a defect in We The People. Education and action can fix that.
End Notes:
[1]. COS President Mark Meckler regularly states, “Col. George Mason addresses the assembly and says we have a problem we gave the power to Congress to propose amendments but not to the people acting through the states and he asked a question, he said are we so naive that we believe that a government that becomes a tyranny will propose amendments to restrain its own tyranny?”That is not what Mason said: “Colonel MASON thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable and dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind, would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.”
— Sep 15, 1787, in Convention [https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_915.asp]
[2]. 2.1. Elbridge Gerry June 5, 1787: “novelty & difficulty of the experiment [Constitution] requires periodical revision”.
[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_605.asp]
2.2. George Mason June 11, 1787: “opened the discussion of constitutional amendment with a statement that “the plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary”
[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_611.asp]
2.3. Alexander Hamilton Sep. 10, 1787 “…It had been wished by many and was much to have been desired that an easier mode for introducing amendments had been provided by the articles of Confederation It was equally desireable now that an easy mode should be established for supplying defects which will probably appear in the New System The mode proposed was not adequate. The State Legislatures will not apply for alterations but with a view to increase their own powers….”
[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_910.asp]
2.4. Federalist 43 “amendment of errors” and “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience
[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp]
2.5. Federalist 43 “That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided….It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.”
[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp]
2.6. Federalist No. 85 Useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers”
[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed85.asp]
[3]. “…The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.”
— President Washington’s Farewell Address 1796, Paragraph 26
[https://constitutingamerica.org/george-washingtons-farewell-address-reprinted-from-the-u-s-constitution-a-reader-published-by-hillsdale-college/]
[4]. “I shall hazard my own ideas to you as hastily as my business obliges me. I wish to preserve the line drawn by the federal constitution between the general and particular governments as it stands at present and to take every prudent means of preventing either from stepping over it. Tho’ the experiment has not yet had a long enough course to shew us from which quarter incroachments are most to be feared, yet it is easy to foresee from the nature of things that the incroachments of the state governments will tend to an excess of liberty which will correct itself (as in the late instance) while those of the general government will tend to monarchy, which will fortify itself from day to day, instead of working it’s own cure, as all experience shews. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies1 attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Then it is important to strengthen the state governments: and as this CANNOT be done by any change in the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, (for the preservation of that is all we need contend for,) it must be done by the states themselves, erecting such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves or by the general government. The only barrier in their power is a wise government….” [emphasis added]
— Thomas Jefferson To Archibald Stuart December 23, 1791
[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-22-02-0410]
[5]. Instructions to the Convention Delegates – Center for the Study of the American Constitution, University of Wisconsin–Madison
[https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/the-constitutional-convention/convention-delegates/]
[6]. “Congress, having three States represented by those who were members of Convention and three of the most influential each in three other States, resolved to send it on without any recommendation, because it opponents insisted upon having their reasons on the Journals if they offered to re recommend it.”
— Letter to John Adams from Arthur Lee, 3 October 1787
[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-19-02-0125]
On 26 and 27 September Congress debated the manner in which it would send the Constitution to the states. Critics of the Constitution wanted it transmitted to the state legislatures with an indication that the Convention had violated Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation and the congressional resolution of 21 February 1787
On 28 September Congress reached a compromise. It resolved “unanimously” that the Constitution and the resolutions and the letter of the Convention be sent to the states with only a suggestion that the states call conventions to consider the Constitution…
On 24 October “Centinel” II stated that after “two days animated discussion,” the proponents of the Constitution dropped their attempt to have Congress send the Constitution to the states with its approval. By cleverly wording the resolution of transmittal, however, they tried to mislead the public into believing that Congress had “unanimously” approved the Constitution. On 6 December the Petersburg Virginia Gazette published Lee’s amendments and his letter of 16 October to Edmund Randolph which reiterated the charge made by Centinel….
— Source: The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution Digital Edition, ed. John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, Richard Leffler, Charles H. Schoenleber and Margaret A. Hogan. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009.
[https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/confederation_1.pdf]
[7]. Numerous delegates and others admitted the Convention exceeded their authority. Here are two references.
Congress had exceeded its authority by endorsing the Philadelphia convention; the convention had ignored its limiting instructions; and the Articles required that amendments be approved unanimously by state legislatures, yet the Constitution stipulated that it would become operational once ratifying conventions in nine states had approved it. These were substantial irregularities in the process of constitutional change, yet, once the new national government had commenced operations, Antifederalists quickly abandoned their legitimacy challenges.
— Klarman, Michael J.. The Framers’ Coup (p. 9). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
[https://hls.harvard.edu/bibliography/the-framers-coup-the-making-of-the-united-states-constitution/ | https://www.amazon.com/Framers-Coup-Making-United-Constitution/dp/019994203X]
“Can it then be said that the late convention did not assume powers to which they had no legal title? On the contrary, Sir, it is clear that they set aside the laws under which they were appointed, and under which alone they could derive any legitimate authority, they arrogantly exercised any powers that they found convenient to their object, and in the end they have overthrown that government which they were called upon to amend, in order to introduce one of their own fabrication.”
— Robert Whitehill in the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 28 Nov. 1787
[https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch6s17.html]
[8]. Federalist Papers : No. 49
[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed49.asp]
[9]. Legislature Suspends Rules To Pass a Convention Call Promising Such A Convention Will Follow The Rules! It is illogical and absurd that advocates promise a convention will follow the rules! On May 26, 2021, the Nebraska Senate voted to suspend its rules [https://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=7317], under extreme constituent and lobbyist pressure, to pass a Convention of States resolution, in a striking illustration of how rules become guidelines, then eventually trash, crumpled under our feet.