Recently, there has been lots of talk about calling for an Article V convention, as Idaho has not yet signed on, and the pro-convention players are on the prowl to get our legislators to sign on to this instrument of change.
What does Article V of the constitution say: 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.
The above amendment outlines the two methods for proposing amendments to our constitution.
- Congressional proposal which requires a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress.
- State Convention which requires applications from two thirds of state legislatures or 34 states to call a convention for proposing amendments.
There are several main issues that surround an Article V convention, First and foremost is the Scope of Amendments: which in which there is debate on whether a convention can e limited to specific topics or if it can propose any amendments. This is a legal issue which has been long debated in legal circles. There is also the issue of the Accountability of the Delegates: as delegates to an Article 5 convention may not be elected which raises concerns about not only accountability but also representation. Potential Risks in calling an Article 5 convention: most critics raise the issue that this convention could possibly lead to radical changes in our constitution that could undermine our rights and protections under our current constitution. Political Influence is another danger: we have seen too many times how money makes the world go round and you can bet that there will be plenty of money floating around to exert influence over this convention which could risk the integrity of any amendment process.
An Article V convention is risky because it is a method that has never been used before making it a largely untested process. There have been many past campaigns that have advocated for this type of convention that have focused on issues like Imposing Term Limits on congress and the supreme court, Balancing the budget, Redefining of the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause, the limitation on using Executive Orders to enact laws and Prohibiting International Treaties and Law to govern our domestic laws of the United States.
I would venture to say that most of us are not students of our constitution and have not spent much time reading or thinking about how changes might effect our lives. It is important that if such a convention were to be called that Americans would need to understand that crucial issues about our current rights and freedoms could be at stake. I doubt that most of us would have a very good grasp of just how daunting even some small changes in our constitution could effect our everyday lives. How would we protect against hastily made changes and insure that amendments would reflect a broad consensus that would safeguard our Constitution from not only impulsive alterations and the influence of big money interests.
From my personal standpoint I’m not sure that we would be able to trust delegates to work on just one or two measures that needed to be changed as we already have most of the ingredients in our current constitution which has served us well for 250 years. The issue that is currently being discussed pushing for an Article V convention is the adherence to a balanced budget. Why would anyone think that having this convention would change anything as adherence to the Constitution is the original balanced budget mechanism and if it were followed we would very quickly restore fiscal sanity back to a limited government. Let’s face the fact that a simple majority in Congress could, repeal the legislation that created the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection, Transportation and Foreign Aid. Can you imagine how much we would save by eliminating these agencies and how quickly we could balance our budget? We don’t need an Article 5 convention to solve our spending problem we need representatives who dislike PORK and are willing to work together for the good of the people instead of the special interests that help get them elected.
If you want to talk about Term Limits, I will say we already have a way to have term limits and that is every 2 years we vote for congressional seats and every 6 years we vote for Senatorial seats. All we need to do is to stop voting for the big spenders and start voting in those who actually want to balance the budget. We also have the ability to Impeach both members of our Congress and members of the Supreme court. The reason that justices are rarely impeached in not the fault of our constitution. Fact is that we have see the lawfare waged during President Trumps campaign for a second term and the district judges who did everything they could to keep him from running. The answer to the problem even with district judges is to impeach and remove them from their seats of power.
Do we really have to redefine the Welfare Clause? The answer is a simple NO. What did the framers mean when they talked about Welfare? The 1787 definition is: happiness, success and prosperity. The general welfare clause has nothing to do with government handouts or charity. The preamble says simply what we the people have done to promote the general happiness, success and prosperity and secure the blessings of liberty. Let’s go back to my articles that articulate how our public education system and higher learning institutions have over the year brought socialism into our classrooms and into our legislative process. What we need is a little more integrity and less socialism from our congressmen and senators. Even the Commerce Clause, which is flagrantly abused, is not the fault of our constitution and there is no need for a convention to change it as every unconstitutional activity under the pretext of the commerce clause could also be overturned by a simple majority in congress.
Let us look at one of the most flagrant abuses which is that of executive orders by a president. In Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 of the constitution it vests all legislative power in Congress. If this is true why would anyone think the President could legally make any laws under any title of pretext. There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes executive orders. The fact that congress allows the president to violate the constitution doesn’t mean there is something wrong with it. It simply means that congress doesn’t have the backbone to say NO that is not in his job description. How do you amend the constitution to stop this when it does not allow it?
I would caution those who favor an Article V convention, as it may lead to many nefarious changes that none of us would want or need. We have a constitution that was given a lot of thought by our founders, and it has survived for 250 years this year. We don’t need to change it what we need to change is the people that we have representing us in Congress who work for themselves and not the people who elect them to office. You want to fix these problems that Article 5 activists complain about all you have to do is to know who you are voting for and hold their feet to the fire if they get out of line.
Ask yourselves, do you want to take the chance that these Con Con men are not going to go off track at a convention and make changes to our constitution that could change all of our lives? Don’t think for a minute that the leftists would not be involved along with the liberal media in this convention and we have already seen the damage electing someone like Joe Biden could to in 4 short years. Can you imagine how much damage a convention like this could do if it got out of control. The fact that 38 states would be needed to ratify doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be any bad amendments and who is to say that at that convention they would change the number needed to ratify to say a simple majority. We know what we have and just need to enforce it while we don’t know what we would get from a Con Con that goes off the tracks.
Always Remember, “We Get the Government We Deserve”.
