by Sam Pierce
The state of our federal government is troubling to say the very least. Now that Barack Obama is President, the preceding sentence marks me as a racist in this "post-racial" era. Of course Bill Ayers was not a domestic terrorist for bombing buildings and such, but a conservative who believes in the Constitution is considered at least on the border of becoming one. The administration and both chambers of Congress are controlled by the worst political elements in our nation. This "leadership" and their compliant media outlets are pulling out all the stops to portray dissent as racist, uneducated acts of fledgling terrorists and to justify whatever steps may be forthcoming to exert greater control... for our own good.
Of course some leftist media outlets are worse than others. For example, The Huffington Compost is doing its usual best to whip up a frenzied libiot outrage over what they offer as proof of Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver being spit on by a protester as Cleaver and other Reps made their way to vote against the will of the people and the best interests of our nation. Since Rep. Cleaver is black and the person yelling through cupped hands is white, The HuffPo has its perfect ignition source. While nothing can be determined regarding any spit by viewing the video, the desired effect is evident in the comment section which accompanies it.
What does any of this have to do with an Article V Convention? There are opposing opinions on the right as to whether or not an convention should be held and at least part of the argument against a convention is the danger posed by over-representation of leftists. Given the saturation of lefty drivel and propaganda spewing drones in our media (and government official staffs), who knows what damage they could do in an amendment proposing capacity.
Conservative icon and President of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly argues against the idea of a "Con Con" in "Beware of Attacks on the Constitution".
The trouble with a Con Con is that there are no rules in the Constitution or in any law to limit a Con Con's purpose, procedure, agenda, or election of delegates. Congress has repeatedly rejected bills to establish rules or procedures. There is no way to control a Con Con in advance or to require it to consider only one subject. The Article V provision that authorizes the calling of a Con Con refers to considering "amendments" (note the plural).
The Con Con process would be a prescription for political chaos, controversy, confrontation, litigation, and judicial activism. Just about the only thing we can predict with certainty is that the convention could not be secret from the media and the public, as was the original 1787 Constitutional Convention (which met behind closed doors and had no leaks).
Many prestigious constitutional authorities say it is impossible for Congress or state applications to restrict what a Con Con does. The highest authority who has ever spoken out on this subject is the late Chief Justice Warren Burger, who wrote: "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. . . . After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda." (Read the entire Burger letter at http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/ )
Mrs. Schlafly raises a good number of concerns in her article and if they were to be realized, our nation could be damaged beyond repair.
Mike Church of Sirius Patriot 144 and his frequent guest Dr. Kevin Gutzman, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, are proponents of an Article V Convention. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas recently spoke on the floor of the House on the need of an Article V Convention:
One purpose of such a convention would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the selection of U.S. Senators to where it belongs. I know, I know, any mention of states' rights or even worse, that icky 10th Amendment evokes calls of racism. We must bear in mind that Barack Obama is President of the United States and in this "post-racial" era, anything not sanctioned by the left is racist anyway.The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
It would appear that the point raised by Mrs. Schlafly regarding rules for a Con Con is valid. I have heard Mike Church make the point that each state would have one delegate at a convention and therefore the states would be equally represented. Unfortunately the composition of a convention is not addressed in the article and given the demonstrated tactics of those currently in power, it is not hard to imagine what they might do if given a chance to populate such a convention.
A RedState post by RealQuiet offers some comfort for those who might be concerned about the composition of a convention:
While Congress likely has no authority to limit the scope of an Article V convention, the scholarly consensus is that the states do have that power. Larry J. Sabato is one such scholar who advanced that view in his book A More Perfect Constitution. Congress’s duty to call a convention when requested by the states means that it must call the convention that the states requested. If the states, therefore, request a convention limited to a certain subject matter, then the convention that is called must be limited in the way the states requested.[17] The drafting history of the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 provides evidence that it was the Framers’ intent that an Article V convention could be limited by the states according to subject matter (see the next section, “Subject Matter of Applications” for a further discussion).[18]
It would appear that the question to ask would be, is it worth the risk? I certainly don't have the answer. On one hand, there is the expectation of common sense and respect for the Constitution. On the other hand is the party in power that respects no boundaries and a party out of power that has too many limp noodles in its top positions. I've heard Mike Church say something along the lines of "show me where we have a Constitution that is being followed now" in response to concerns. I must wonder how we could expect the powers that be to respectfully follow a newly amended Constitution if they refuse to acknowledge the existence of the current version. Alternatively, if we do not have a Constitution that is in use, then what would there be to lose in calling a convention?
What do you think about the possibility and/or need for an Article V Convention?
Cross-posted from "The Immoderate Blog"
