In this century IF we did actually have a
run-away* Constitutional Convention that WAS ratified, it would be a significant
indication that we needed one. And, it would be no less valid a Constitution than the one we
have now.
I say this because opponents (who fear a "run-away"
convention)* often point out, the Constitutional
Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia was, itself, a run-away convention that was
convened for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and it
was ratified by manipulation of the ratification process, not as proscribed by
the Articles of Confederation. That does not mean a run-away convention would
be ratified today, as some claim.
I am an advocate for Wolf-PAC
and /or
Move to Amend for
having an Article V Convention on the subject of campaign finance reform or the
theme "get the money out." But some of my readers force me to address pros and
cons.
It was never my intent to write a legal defense for an Article V
Convention. I am only a journalist and advocate for this method of change, and
my hope has been placed in an Article V Convention because of all that I
understand of it. Anyone can
read
information from Wikipedia, and get a lot of details of how an Article V
Constitution comes about, some of the rules, etc. This should be read first in
order to get a handle on the subject matter debated in the press and within this
article.
For links to foremost experts of the Article V I suggest linking up with
Lawrence Lessig the director of the
Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University and the Roy L. Furman
Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He co-founded Change Congress, which
aims to reduce the influence of private money in American politics. A review of
some of the speeches made at their conference will also be
available.
In this article I want to refer the
reader to a number of opponents, proponents and experts on the subject of the
Article V Constitution so they will better make their own decisions about this
particular solution to our frustrations with government, frustrations that come
from a majority of citizens of various political stripes. Paul Westlake, writing for the Amendment Gazette in an
nice article The Left Right Fraud February 7, 2014 tells us why we must unite with various
political groups to solve our "shared frustrations" against special interests
that dominate working people. The Amendment Gazette also has several articles
treating how the subject of Citizens United should be addressed as an amendment.
There are debates not only about
whether we can or should have an Article V Convention, but also the whats and
hows on many different areas of the law that could undermine the efficiency of
using Article V. For the most part many opponents offer scare tactics for
major public consumption. There is also a lot of debate on whether we might once
again be foiled in our efforts to obtain adequate public funding or other change either by Congress
and/or the Supreme Court. For example, on campaign finance reform there is
debate about whether we should be concerned the Supreme Court could find other
(corporate personhood, for example) ways to litigate in favor of
corporations. (For those finer points of how-to-do-it, free-speech vs
corporate personhood, etc. see Taking
on amendment critics, part I: James Marc Leas and Rob Hagar** by VictorMTA June 16, 2012 ) I am highly suspicious
of the good intentions of people like Leas and Hagar* who bring up some of these
kinds of questions; i.e. Hagar arguing that the body of the Constitution trumps
the Amendments vs "not the case at all." There is no way I can go into all these details in this
article. I leave this one to the experts.
Perhaps this Liberty News Network " Beware Article V" video is an example, (and a
long diatribe), of the kind of opposition Westlake might agree as being
representative of "powerful interests." Just listen to the arguments and from
whom such arguments emanate - super conservatives who have supported powerful
capitalist interests their entire careers, ( Rex E. Lee Brigham Young
University, Chief Justice Warren Burger and Arthur Goldburg ). They employ the
same old "fear" tactics we always hear from the top of the ladder, such as
"run-away convention" or manipulation of the ratification process, or "we might
come out of it worse off than we are now." They say Article V was only written
for a situation in which there was serious flaw of the constitution that causes
corrupt legislation that must be addressed by an Amendment, which flaws they do
not admit exist at the present time. They insist that Congress would, or
should, have a heavy role and/or influence on any such convention, a
contention which many legal scholars and advocates deny. They speak mostly of a
"balanced budget amendment," saying it is not proper subject for the amendment
process and might even cause a denial of some kind as to "proper subject" of a
convention. These are all debatable points, from various perspectives. But
certainly if it is possible at all for Congress to refuse its mandate to call
the convention on application of 2/3rs of the states, it could not be claimed
that getting money out of politics is irrelevant or not a crisis of our present constitution. There is a lot of double-talk
in this video that sounds sophisticated, but is obviously meant to confuse most
people, (actually directed to state legislators), from every possible
angle.
Bill Walker, Friends of the Article V Convention
tells us Article V gives states the right to call the convention if 2/3 apply,
and Congress must allow it, and the convention will make the Amendments, and
Congress can't stop it. If the Amendments pass at the convention, (ratified by
the states), they become law. Walker calls it a balance between the states and
the federal government.
"Article V is designed so that
Congress has nothing to say about it."
Tim Baldwin video
of Liberty Defense League describes the two methods of amending
constitution. When Congress, on its own, establishes an amendment to the
constitution it must be ratified by 2/3 of the states in order to become the law
of the land. The second way the Constitution provides to get an amendment is if
2/3 of the states call for an Article V Convention, Congress has no choice. It
is mandated by Article V that such a convention be convened. Congress cannot
deny it. And if amendments are passed at that convention, and are ratified by
2/3 of the states, the amendments become law and Congress cannot legislate
against them.
He contends that under Article V you cannot have
what is called a "run-away" convention where our Constitution is scraped and a
new one is written. A regular "Constitutional Convention" is considered to be a
plenipotentiary convention where the delegates are authorized to write a new
Constitution. That is not contemplated with an Article V Convention. Baldwin
says that the framers made a distinction, but, he says, this does not mean that
we could never have a plenipotentiary convention. He also says that Article V
was intended to be single amendment to the already existing one, and even if the
delegates tried to completely re-write our Constitution there is only the
remotest possibility they could ever get it ratified by 2/3 of the States. Any
speculation about a "run-away" convention is only meant to create fear.
I point out that many people contend that the
original purpose of the Article V was to allow the delegates to propose
amendments, not necessarily go in with limitations on what subjects they could
deal with.
The many complications of interpreting provisions
of Article V can be discouraging to ordinary people. But ordinary people never made revolutions. Not only are revolutions made by courageous people, but they are always made by a small percentage of their populations. We thank them in future generations whenever they have prevented masses of people and their children from having to squirm under the "yoke" of
a Constitution that did not work on their behalf. I won't, and no patriotic person
should.
* A "run-away" convention is one in which our whole constitution
was re-written, thus rendering the one we have as obsolete.
**One "guest" commenter in an online blog noted that "Hagar is a
"public interest" litigator who keeps undermining the public interest of
overturning Citizens United with an amendment. We know that this is going to be
hard work, but already 16 states are on record calling on Congress to amend the
Constitution to overturn Buckley, Citizens United and (many of them) the 124
case law history where the corrupt SCOTUS granted corporations the rights of we
the people.Sometimes, it's hard to figure out which side Hagar is on."
2
2
1
