In defense of an Article-V States petitioned for Amendment Proposal Convention

[M]

With help from Mangus Colorado.

An Article-V is NOT a con-con in the sense that the Original Constitutional Convention was.

Let me tell you why; 

Going back to the original Con-Con, the delegates were told to fix the articles of the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" to allow it to become less static and more manageable and open to respond to the times. Keep in mind the Founders considered Article-V as the method to change alter or correct errors in the Articles of Confederation". Article-V is intended to be extremely difficult to use as proven by only 27 amendments being ratified. The Framers of the Constitution were also keeping the people as the primary power of government while slightly increasing the power of the Federal Government. They came up with the Constitution. The intent of the original convention was to fix or replace the weaker articles which hindered the ability of the States to defend against attacks, and the method for paying for that defense. 

 

Within that Constitution was the means to modify the interpretation of the meanings of the Articles without changing one original word of those articles. Article-V was intended for the people to decide what changes of interpretation to the articles they wanted, not on Congress to dictate any potential changes. 

I base that on the simple fact that Amendments by their very nature are not permanent and unchangeable unlike the Articles of the Constitution which are. The basic Constitutions Original Wording is not now, and has never been intended to be changed.

 

Moving forward from that point, when Congress decides to open an Amendment Proposal Convention, they are not creating a Constitutional Convention in the sense of permanently re-writing/replacing the Original Constitution. They are only modifying the interpretations of those Articles. 

However the real power is in the ability of the people to ratify or reject the Congressional amendment proposals, and that gives the people the theoretical power to control the Congress.

Congress has usurped the peoples power by exclusively proposing changes. The changes that have given Congress/Federal Government over the people and the States are glaringly manifest in the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Things like the 14th Amendment and it's deliberate misinterpretation by the Warren Court. The court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment.

See what the original architects of the 14th said about what it was meant for at; http://www.14thamendment.us/amendment/14th_amendment.html .

 

Finally, the exact same safeguards that control the Congressional Amendment Convention, control a States petitioned for Amendment Convention. The only significant difference between them is; When two thirds (at the present time 34) of the State Legislatures petition congress for an Amendment Convention, Congress must then open one and step back, not making any proposals nor editing any proposals the States make. Congress must then send those proposals out to all 50 states to be Ratified.

 

Many States have enacted laws on their books that regulate how delegates are selected for the convention and how much leeway they have in proposing Amendments or agreeing to Amendment proposals. See the Indiana model laws at; 

https://www.ncsl.org/documents/summit/summit2013/online-resources/S... 

The main fears of a States Convention is the fear of a 'runaway convention'. That is an unfounded fear, probably originated by certain members of Congressional and other politicians who fear it, because it severely curtails their power to control the people. Any proposed Amendment must be sent to all 50 of the States and Ratified by Three Fourths (38) of the States before it becomes part of the Amendments to the Constitution. When the people see they have that power, the current stranglehold Congress has on America will be broken and America can get back to the original tenants the Founders created. The current idea of a Convention of States proposing Amendments, and when 34 to all 50 of them agreeing on an Amendment and it's wording, send them to Congress to be sent to be ratified is not Constitutional because of the wording of Article-V.

Let me highlight the pertinent passages of Article-V; 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, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. 

Lets break this down starting with 'or on the application'. That passage requires the States to apply to Congress for a proposal convention.

Moving on to 'when ratified' That passage requires EVERY PROPOSAL to be sent out to be ratified by the States.

Finally the passage ' conventions in three fourths' is stating one of two Constitutional methods of formal ratification after the fact of a proposal convention delivers the proposals to Congress for the process of Ratification.

Never forget that even the US Constitution had to be Ratified before it became the Law of the Land. See; https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/amnatgov/chapter/the-ratification...