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

No description available.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

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

[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.

[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]

You can get the link from my profile

[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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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.