Article V - What is it?
Recall that the founders were walking a fine line in creating a more powerful central government while allowing each state to remain autonomous and maintaining equality among the states, in crafting a representative republic controlled by the governed without creating a democracy that relies too much on the popular vote. States’ rights and individual freedoms had to be protected while a central government needed more authority than the Articles of Confederation gave it.
The founders knew that future generations would need to make changes to the Constitution that they labored so hard to produce. They provided, in Article V, two ways for amendments to be initiated.
The first method is that two-thirds of the members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives may agree to propose an amendment which will be referred to the states for ratification.
The second method is that the legislatures of two-thirds of the states may apply to Congress for a convention for proposing amendments, and Congress will then "call" a convention and, if a proposed amendment is produced, it will be referred to the states for ratification.
In both instances, the amendment must be approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
The founders, fearful about the possibility of an un-responsive congress, included the convention method as a recourse for the states. According to James Kenneth Rogers in a Harvard Law article, "The purpose of the Convention Clause was to protect the states against a recalcitrant or corrupt Congress. In the face of congressional inaction, the states could circumvent the national legislature to propose needed amendments."
Publius Huldah has written a tedious article that looks at every single mention of amendment at the Constitutional Convention. As with most aspects of the new constitution, there were disagreements over dividing power between the national legislature and the states. The Articles of Confederation which were being replaced required that amendments be approved by both the Continental Congress and by every single state. The dispute at the convention, which continued up to the final day of discussions, was over whether Congress should have ANY power over amendments.
A compromise was finally reached and the Constitution—with Article V—was approved by all the states on September 15 and signed by the delegates on September 17, 1787. Although there were other delegates who did not sign, three men who opposed the Congress being involved in amending the Constitution significantly refused to sign it—George Mason, Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry.
The convention method of amending has never been used before, but the option for the states to “take matters into their hands” is heartening to those of us who agree that the federal government has lost touch with the governed. But, we have to wonder why the state legislatures are just now stepping up to fulfill their responsibilities to the governed and we should be wary of their motives, given that they have been just as un-responsive to the voters as their national counterparts.
If conservatives today consider Article V a tool for taking control of the government, is it not possible that others also see the usefulness of this tool? Over the past century, power has been consolidated in Washington - with the blessing of the states! Have the states suddenly had an epiphany, a realization that they have a responsibility to protect and defend the people from the federal leviathan? Or, are the state legislators continuing to be misled—perhaps enthralled—by the leviathan as they meekly go along with the proposals of the day?
Publius Huldah has written prolifically about the Article V convention and I find that her articles are all well-researched, are based on her extensive study of the founding documents, the founders’ notes and letters and published writings, AND they are plainly and simply written. Even though she is a retired lawyer, she doesn’t write in “lawyerese.”
Let’s take a look at one of her articles, THE "CONVENTION OF STATES" SCAM, AND THE WAR OVER THE CONSTITUTION.
“THIS IS THE WAR over our Constitution and Country. And here are the two sides: One side proposes that we learn & enforce our existing Constitution of limited & enumerated powers.We show that our Framers advised us to enforce our Constitution by (1) electing better representatives to annul the acts of the usurpers,[2] or by (2) nullification of unconstitutional acts.”
. . .
“But the Randy Barnett[3]/ Rob Natelson/ Michael Farris/ Mark Levin camp want a "convention" so they can gut our existing Constitution by amending out the limited & enumerated powers with new amendments which grant general powers to the federal government; or they seek to re-write the Constitution altogether.”
This article is a good place to start reading to get up to speed on the opposing viewpoints before we assume that the Con Con is the only (or best) game in town.
The founders knew that future generations would need to make changes to the Constitution that they labored so hard to produce. They provided, in Article V, two ways for amendments to be initiated.
The first method is that two-thirds of the members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives may agree to propose an amendment which will be referred to the states for ratification.
The second method is that the legislatures of two-thirds of the states may apply to Congress for a convention for proposing amendments, and Congress will then "call" a convention and, if a proposed amendment is produced, it will be referred to the states for ratification.
In both instances, the amendment must be approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
The founders, fearful about the possibility of an un-responsive congress, included the convention method as a recourse for the states. According to James Kenneth Rogers in a Harvard Law article, "The purpose of the Convention Clause was to protect the states against a recalcitrant or corrupt Congress. In the face of congressional inaction, the states could circumvent the national legislature to propose needed amendments."
Publius Huldah has written a tedious article that looks at every single mention of amendment at the Constitutional Convention. As with most aspects of the new constitution, there were disagreements over dividing power between the national legislature and the states. The Articles of Confederation which were being replaced required that amendments be approved by both the Continental Congress and by every single state. The dispute at the convention, which continued up to the final day of discussions, was over whether Congress should have ANY power over amendments.
A compromise was finally reached and the Constitution—with Article V—was approved by all the states on September 15 and signed by the delegates on September 17, 1787. Although there were other delegates who did not sign, three men who opposed the Congress being involved in amending the Constitution significantly refused to sign it—George Mason, Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry.
The convention method of amending has never been used before, but the option for the states to “take matters into their hands” is heartening to those of us who agree that the federal government has lost touch with the governed. But, we have to wonder why the state legislatures are just now stepping up to fulfill their responsibilities to the governed and we should be wary of their motives, given that they have been just as un-responsive to the voters as their national counterparts.
If conservatives today consider Article V a tool for taking control of the government, is it not possible that others also see the usefulness of this tool? Over the past century, power has been consolidated in Washington - with the blessing of the states! Have the states suddenly had an epiphany, a realization that they have a responsibility to protect and defend the people from the federal leviathan? Or, are the state legislators continuing to be misled—perhaps enthralled—by the leviathan as they meekly go along with the proposals of the day?
Publius Huldah has written prolifically about the Article V convention and I find that her articles are all well-researched, are based on her extensive study of the founding documents, the founders’ notes and letters and published writings, AND they are plainly and simply written. Even though she is a retired lawyer, she doesn’t write in “lawyerese.”
Let’s take a look at one of her articles, THE "CONVENTION OF STATES" SCAM, AND THE WAR OVER THE CONSTITUTION.
“THIS IS THE WAR over our Constitution and Country. And here are the two sides: One side proposes that we learn & enforce our existing Constitution of limited & enumerated powers.We show that our Framers advised us to enforce our Constitution by (1) electing better representatives to annul the acts of the usurpers,[2] or by (2) nullification of unconstitutional acts.”
. . .
“But the Randy Barnett[3]/ Rob Natelson/ Michael Farris/ Mark Levin camp want a "convention" so they can gut our existing Constitution by amending out the limited & enumerated powers with new amendments which grant general powers to the federal government; or they seek to re-write the Constitution altogether.”
This article is a good place to start reading to get up to speed on the opposing viewpoints before we assume that the Con Con is the only (or best) game in town.