The Federal Government doesn't follow our Constitution. This is a fact whether we are talking about the Patriot Act, Obamacare, or whatever other violation of the Constitution you care to list. Those are the two that quickly come to mind in 2011. It is with this said that we should come to realize the Constitution doesn't matter, and therefore, an Article V convention (not a Constitution Convention) that attempts to restore the Republic isn't a threat to the Republic like many who fear the convention.
Many people on the Internet are making the case Rand Paul is 100% wrong for wanting to form Constitutional Convention. This is a lie. Rand Paul is not promoting a Constitutional Convention, he is proposing an Article V convention that would give the states the power to propose Constitutional amendments like the balanced budget amendment.
Those who criticize Rand Paul claim that he is putting our Constitution in jeopardy. I don't even know how you justify this considering both parties right now continue to vote against the Constitution, whether it's Republicans voting for the Patriot Act or Democrats voting to force Americans to engage in commerce with their Obamacare. The Constitution doesn't seem to matter to these people, and it's time for the states to start standing up to the federal government.
Senator Paul has called for an Article V convention. From The Continuing rEVOLution:
The Cincinnati (OH) Enquirer and the Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal reported on January 20 that newly elected U.S. Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul supports calling an Article V convention to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).
The papers' source was a statement by David Williams, president of the Kentucky state Senate and a candidate for governor. Williams said that he intends to introduce a resolution on the subject when the state legislature reconvenes in February. He added that Rand Paul will appear before both the Kentucky Senate's State & Local Government Committee, and the full state Senate, to endorse the resolution.
"Our Founders, in their enduring brilliance, provided the states with a mechanism to amend the Constitution should the U.S. Congress fail to act. Congress has not acted on a Balanced Budget Amendment despite the overwhelming feeling of the American people that it would help put our nation's fiscal house in order. I am grateful that Senator Williams is introducing this resolution and is joining me in fighting to balance the federal budget," Paul was quoted in the statement as saying. (1)
"My view is this amendment is long overdue, and I appreciate Sen. Paul for lending his voice to this effort," Williams added. (2)
"The U.S. Constitution requires Congress to call a convention to consider proposing an amendment if two-thirds of the state legislatures ask for one," explained the Courier-Journal. "An amendment has never been proposed in this fashion." (2)
Article V conventions are so called because they are authorized by Article V of the United States Constitution, which outlined two different methods for proposing constitutional amendments:
"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" (3)
Like I said, if the federal government proved themselves to be a good steward of the Constitution, then I could see why people are concerned about the Article V convention, but even this new Republican Congress, through their massive support for the Patriot Act, shows they aren't ready to ensure the federal government's power is restricted by the granted powers in the Constitution.
The Federal Amendment Convention would give states, as it should be, the power to enforce that Congress plays be the rules.
Please visit the Goldwater Institute's Article V webpage for the facts: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/articlev
ReplyDeleteThe state-initiated Article V amendment process is not a self-destruct button. It is what sold the Constitution to the states because it guarantees the states' ultimate authority over the federal government. Read Federalist Nos. 43 and 85 (available on our website).
A state-initiated Article V amendments convention is not a constitutional convention in the sense of a general convention that is necessarily going to generate a new constitution. It merely gives the states the same power that Congress has to propose amendments. Read Federalist No. 43 (available on our website).
When they debated the language of Article V, on September 15, 1787, the Founders rejected language that would have authorized the states to call an general convention four times--and the last two rejections were unanimous to send a clear message. Read Elliot's Debates (available on our website).
Alexander Hamilton closed the Federalist papers with the argument that the states should not convene a second constitutional convention, but should instead use their amendment power under Article V to correct any perceived overconcentration of power in the federal government. Read Federalist No. 85 (available on our website).
In 1799, James Madison advocated the states using the Article V amendment process to repeal the Alien and Sedition Acts. Read his Report on the Virginia Resolutions (available on our website)
In 1830, James Madison advocated the states using the Article V amendment process to vindicate their sovereignty against an overreaching federal government, rather than nullification. Read his Letter on Nullification (available on our website)
The bottom line is that the whole debate about the state-initiated Article V amendment process being capable of generating a new Constitution is a complete anachronism and contrary to all law and fact at the time of the founding. No one had that fear at the time of the founding. Quite the contrary, Patrick Henry argued strenuously against ratifying the Constitution because he and other antifederalists believed that Article V made it impossible for states to rewrite the Constitution.