Beware Article V (part 1 of 4)--An FOAVC Rebuttal (Part 1)

[fleck140]

You can get the link from my profile

[fleck140]

I have posted an article regarding the 1995 Conference of the States movement which was soundly defeated in the state legislatures. It's an interesting read.

[Foavccoordinator]

You defeat any point you wish to make by your own admission. The state legislatures acting as a barrier to amendments they don't favor blocked the movement. It is historic record they realized what was being suggested was not constitutional and they stopped it. Article V worked as it was designed. The idea didn't even get out of the starting gate. All you've proven is Article V works as intended.

[fleck140]

I f you wish to argue with me, I will be glad to entertain your disagreements but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from insults. I think we both want real change. I think we both want the system restored. I have concerns about the methods we should use. I would like to work within the system rather than risk it altogether.

[fleck140]

US Constitution

Here are the rules of Ratification built into he then new constitution.

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.

[Foavccoordinator]

Since the Constitution is now clearly "established" and the language you quote clearly only refers to establishing it, it has been replaced by the terms of Article V. This fact is borne out by the fact the framers used the term "nine States" rather than the generic "three-fourths". The reason it's in there is because the Founders figured R.I. would oppose it and stop the Constitution like it had everything else. So, they worked around a state that didn't even send delegates to the convention.

[fleck140]

Which proves my point that the ratification process for a future constitution could be spelled out within it and that process could bypass the state legislatures.

[Foavccoordinator]

But only by amendment which would then have to ratified BEFORE such an action could happen. In other words everything you suggest COULD happen but not unless an amendment existed allowing it to happen. And frankly, given the opposition to such an action, it is certain it will not happen.

[fleck140]

I recommend a careful reading of Federalist #40. Madison spends the entire letter defending what the original convention did. There must have been charges that the convention over-stepped its bounds. It is interesting to note that he uses "End justifies the means" arguments. He also admits that they fudged the ratification process. Note: I agree that what hey did was in the best interest of the nation. It does, however, illustrate the danger inherent in this course of action.

[Foavccoordinator]

1. Every state ratified the Constitution thus satisfying both the Constitution as well as the Articles. 2. Congress voted to approve the Constitution before the states did satisfying the Articles. There was no fudging. Merely a vote that did double duty. As to overstepping bounds- Congress in its call said as long as it improved gov't and preserved the union, what they did was okay. That's exactly what they did. Madison's 40 argument was in response to those who didn't want change the articles.

[fleck140]

Madison admits they fudged it: 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.

[Foavccoordinator]

"The sum of what has been here advanced and proved is, that the charge against the convention of exceeding their powers, except in one instance little urged by the objectors, has no foundation to support; that if they had exceeded their powers, they were not only warranted, but required by the circumstances in which they were placed." James Madison, Federalist 40. I'd suggest reading Madison rather than fleck140 in making your decision on this. Better lawyer, better track record.

[fleck140]

Is there a ratification process? I am sure there is. Is it 3/4 of the states? I doubt that very much. The current constitution has the rules for it ratification built within it. So might a future constitution. You need to wake up !!!! It may simply require the approval of the our current legislative body (House, Senate and President) or it could make up any ratification rules it desired. That is what history teaches me.

[Foavccoordinator]

I'm guessing here you got an "F" in history. Article V allows for amendments to the current Constitution. When the Constitution was ratified, it became the only procedure to alter the Constitution. Obviously you first have to adopt the Constitution before you can use its amendment procedure so that is why a separate procedure was put in place in the Constitution. BTW you use of "might", "may" and so forth shows you don't know what you're talking about. Give references, not speculation.

[fleck140]

My use of might or may indicates that the process is open-ended. I think you are confusing the application of the legislatures and the state conventions as being equal. It appears to me that the conventions poken of in this article are not synonymous with the state legislatures. They are assembled as a result of the application of the legislatures but not the legisltures themselves.

[fleck140]

You fail to mention that the original convention which was called to modify the Articles of Confederation, scrapped the document and drafted the Constitution instead. How did it do this if it was not acting with total power outside the confines (stipulated reasons) by which it was called. In short, a Constitutional convention operates with the consent of the governed with the raw power of the governed and is not confined by the existing rules of Government.

[Foavccoordinator]

If you read Caplan's Constitutional Brinksmanship, p.26 you'll see Congress, in its call you refer to, authorized the convention to do exactly what it did and both Congress and the states knew and approved it both before and after the convention. Your statement is a popular urban legend, not the actual facts.

[fleck140]

I must confess ignorance towards Caplan's Constitutional Brinkmanship. I'll need to read his arguments, however, assuming that is the case, I would be a fool to assume that our legislatures would not allow similar activity in today's political climate. My argument against has always been the danger it poses at a time when few even consider such rammifcations.

[statusquobuster]

Every thinking, patriotic and politically engaged American should watch this video several times to learn the Truth. To believe the many lies of the John Birch Society is to let yourself be manipulated and brainwashed.