WHY WE NEED AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF STATES AND WHAT IT COULD ACCOMPLISH Part 1

[M]

Oren Long has asked me if I could transfer his PDF to the site.I'll try

WHY WE NEED AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF STATES AND WHAT IT COULD ACCOMPLISH

We all know something must be done to save the America we love.   But what?   We have basically three options:   1) Keep working within the current, corrupt system, 2)  Armed rebellion, or 3) An Article V Convention of States (COS).  

It has been over 200 years since the Constitution and Bill of Rights went into effect.   In that time  history has seen the Original Intent of the Constitution slowly whittled away and changed until we now live under an increasingly oppressive Federal Government, a government moving relentlessly towards Authoritarianism.

Happily, the Founders wisely gave us a remedy – a COS.   The Founders knew that times and circumstances would dictate that the Constitution be amended to accommodate them.   Therefore, they wrote Article V, allowing Congress to propose necessary changes.   But, Colonel George Mason, in Convention, noted that he could foresee a time when the Federal Government, itself, would become so onerous and corrupt that IT would be the enemy of the People and the States.   He therefore proposed that Article V be modified so that, if and when the Federal Government became the enemy, the States themselves could convene a Convention to propose amendments designed to bring the Federal Government back under control.   His impassioned plea resulted in the addition of a mechanism where the States could convene their own Convention and go around an intransigent Federal Government.  

There currently exists a Movement to gather the necessary 34 State Legislature Applications for a COS.   Twelve States have signed up so far.   We need another 22 States.   Government being what it is, it will take the PEOPLE DEMANDING it to make it happen.   This is where YOU come in.   ONLY when We The People FORCE our State Legislators to act will it happen!

But, this begs the questions, “What could we expect from a COS?  What would come out of Convention?   Could a Convention get out of control?   Could they throw the Constitution away?   Could they act on their own without any recourse by We The People or the States that convened them?   And a thousand other concerns?

To answer all the above questions would take far to much time and space for a single Discussion Topic.   Therefore, I want to start with what we could hopefully expect from a COS.

To that end, I am posting for your perusal, input, and discussion a series of proposed amendments that I have been working on for over NINE YEARS.   At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think they are very good.   I have repeatedly revised and refined them to their current form and format.   It is my hope that they will stimulate a vigorous debate and, hopefully, stimulate people to get on board with the COS Movement.  

Following each of my proposed amendments is an explanation of my thinking.   Yes, they are long and many will not read them (TLDR, I suppose), but there is simply too much at stake.   Those who will not even read them will almost certainly not bother to actively support the Movement.   That is their choice.

They are as follows: 

>

NUMBER ONE:

The Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.   All Federal Laws, Agencies, Programs, Rules, Regulations, and/or Orders created, passed, or handed down as a direct or indirect result of the Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and/or Seventeenth Amendments are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.

 

EXPLANATION:   Some say that past laws, rulings, etc. cannot be undone in one stroke under the “no ex post facto law” clause of the Constitution.   I beg to differ.   The “no ex post facto” clause deals with LAWS, not the Constitution.   The Constitution can do whatever three fourths of the States want it to do.

Others say that repealing all past laws, rulings, etc. would be too disruptive and possibly create chaos.   But, repealing the 14^th, 16th, and 17^th Amendments will do that, anyway.   We are talking about [legal] major surgery.   An Article V Convention of States may be the ONLY chance we get to save the country as envisioned and founded, so let’s just do it.   If we don’t do it while we can it WOULD take 20 to 50 years to undo the damage, and with no guarantee of success.

 

NUMBER TWO:

Section One: The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, shall not be subservient to or subjugated to any Foreign Law, International Treaty, or International Agreement, and shall be read, interpreted, applied, and adhered to literally.   No words or phrases shall be changed or substituted and no part of the Constitution shall be used to expand or increase Federal Power or Authority beyond that EXPRESSLY granted and enumerated in the Constitution.   The language of the Constitution shall be interpreted according to the definition of words at the time of their inclusion in the Constitution.  

Section Two:   The words “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from the Constitution of the United States.   All Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, and/or Court Rulings based upon or reliant upon “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.

Section Three:    This Amendment shall be retro-active upon its ratification.   Any and all Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, Treaties, and Agreements that directly or indirectly suborn or subjugate the Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Law of the Land, as read and interpreted literally, are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.

 

EXPLANATION:   The Founders considered adding “expressly” into the Constitution, but decided that it was unnecessary.   The Founders were men of honor and could not imagine anyone even wanting to suborn the Constitution to political or ideological precepts.   They were wrong.   They grossly underestimated the creativity and lust for power of corrupt lawyers, judges, and politicians. 

Words change over time.   “And general Welfare” has been intentionally redefined from its original meaning until it now means something entirely different.

“Section Three” is added for the express purpose of preventing the Executive, Legislative, and/or Judicial Branches from declaring that previous Laws, Treaties, etc. are “Established Law” that should not be violated.

>

NUMBER THREE:

Section One:   No person shall be nominated for or appointed to the Federal Bench who is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, who has not attained the age of thirty five years, who is not a member of the Bar in good standing, who has not been a member of the Bar in good standing for a minimum of ten years, who is not law-abiding and without criminal conviction, who is not confirmed by a two thirds vote of the Senate of the United States, and who has not demonstrated a clear and consistent adherence to Constitutional Principles as envisioned by the Founders.

Section Two:   The Power and Authority of the Federal Judiciary shall be strictly limited to only those powers EXPRESSLY enumerated in Article III of the Constitution of the United States.    No Federal Judicial Ruling shall insert Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Power, Authority or Interpretation, direct or indirect, into the Constitution of the United States that is not EXPRESSLY enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

Section Three:   Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and Judges of inferior Federal Courts shall stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.   Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of inferior Federal Courts, ensconced on the Bench before the ratification of this amendment, shall also stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.

Section Four:   Congress shall have, by two thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the power to override individual rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and/or inferior Federal Courts.   The President shall not have veto authority over Congressional overrides of Federal Court decisions.

EXPLANATION:   Article III is badly flawed.   The Founders spent much time and energy on Articles One and Two, but precious little time and energy on Article III.   In my view this was an error.   The Founders did not view the Federal Judiciary as a serious threat to Freedom or the Constitution.   History has proven them wrong.  

Neither did the Founders bother to lay out specific qualifications for the Federal Bench.   A careful reading of Article III reveals that there are NO qualifications for the Bench.   It is not even necessary for a Federal Judge to be a Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.   There is no requirement that a Federal Judge or Justice be a lawyer, let alone 'learned' or 'in good standing'.   The Village Idiot (think Joe Biden) could be nominated and would probably be confirmed.   A convicted felon could be nominated, confirmed, and serve as long as he/she committed no further offenses while on the Bench.   Technically, it is not even necessary for a person nominated to the Bench be a resident of the United States.

Nor are there ANY restrictions on Federal Judicial Power or Authority – NONE!   Article III lays out what the Judiciary CAN do, but does not say what it CANNOT do!   Any “limitations” on Judicial Authority are implied and assumed.   Lawyers and Judges often assume that if there is no SPECIFIC restriction on their power or rulings, said rulings must be Constitutional.   The courts have used this oversight to gradually increase their power to the current, overarching level.   This must stop!

Finally, there is NO "Check" on Federal Judicial Power.   The President can overrule Congress via Veto.   Congress can overrule the President via Veto Override.   Judges/Justices can overrule both Congress and the President.   But, NO ONE can overrule the Court!    The ONLY "Check" on the Court(s) at this time is Impeachment.   But, even if a Judge or Justice is impeached and removed from the Bench his/her decisions still stand.   We simply MUST implement some form of "Check" on the Court(s) and their rulings.    

Some have proposed term limits for the Judiciary.   This is a bad idea.   Term limits get rid of good Judges/Justices along with the bad.    My proposed amendment resolves ALL the issues surrounding the Judiciary.        

I firmly believe that the ratification of this proposed amendment would go a long way towards bringing the Judiciary back within its Constitutional Limits as envisioned by the Founders.

>

NUMBER FOUR:

Section One: No person shall be elected to Congress more than once unless serving in Congress at the time of the ratification of this amendment, in which case sitting Members of Congress shall be eligible for re-election to their respective seats one time.

Section Two: In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed Senators shall be selected according to the rules laid out in Article One of the Constitution of the United States, including service in the Senate as long as their respective State Legislature deems it appropriate.  

Section Three:  Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of six years, with one third of House Members elected every two years.

Section Four:   Members of Congress shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Legislatures of the several States shall pass Legislation governing the recall of their respective Members of Congress.   In the event a State fails to pass Legislation governing the Recall of its Members of Congress within the required 90 calendar days, that State’s Members of Congress shall have been recalled and new elections held within 60 calendar days.

Section Five:   In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed, Section Four shall not apply to Members of the Senate of the United States.

Section Six:   The President and Vice-President of the United States shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Congress shall pass Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President of the United States.   The President shall not have Veto Authority over Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President.   In the event the Congress fails to pass the required Legislation within the required 90 calendar days, the President and Vice-President shall have been Recalled and a new election held within 60 calendar days.   In the event the President and Vice-President are Recalled, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall serve as the President Pro Tempore pending the results of the aforementioned election, whereupon the newly elected President and Vice-President shall be sworn in immediately upon the certification of election results.   

Section Seven:  Neither Congress, the President, nor any Federal Court shall make any law, rule, regulation, or order that does not apply equally to themselves and all Citizens of the United States.   Nor shall Congress, the President, nor any Federal Court cause or allow any law, rule, regulation, or order to be made by any agent or agency of the Federal Government that does not apply equally to themselves, all Federal employees,  and all Citizens of the United States.

Section Eight: Neither Congress, the President, nor the Vice-President shall receive any publicly funded retirement or benefit, beyond appropriate pay, not available to all Citizens of the United States.

Section Nine: Section Eight shall not apply to Members of Congress, Presidents, or Vice-Presidents, serving or retired, at the time of the ratification of this Amendment.

Section Ten:   No former Member of Congress, former President or Vice-President, or former Federal employee shall advocate for or against Legislation or Policy for a period of ten years after leaving public service or employment.

 

EXPLANATION:   The problem with the term limits concept is that we have never had REAL term limits, except for the President and Vice-President, even on the State level.   Several States have imposed term limits, but some States have repealed them.   This is because, as tried, they are not actual ‘term limits’, but are just shortened career paths with retirement and other special benefits.  

WHENEVER a politician is able to run for re-election, that politician is subject to the influence of lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership.   In fact, studies show that Members of Congress generally spend half their day seeking money and support for re-election instead of doing the Peoples’ business.   Then, after leaving office they move to a lobbying firm where they make millions of dollars a year.   I see a one-term limit and the repeal of the 17^th Amendment as the ONLY way to return Congress to a Peoples’ and States’ Congress.   In short, what would be the point of lobbyists and big donors throwing money at someone who won’t be there next term?  

Some say that a one-term limit is a bad idea.   They say that seating an entirely new and inexperienced Congress each election eliminates experienced Members and puts new and inexperienced Members of Congress at the mercy of lobbyists and bureaucrats who could easily manipulate them.   My proposal to elect members of the House of Representatives for a term of six years,  with one-third of the House elected every two years, along with the repeal of the 17^th Amendment accomplishes four goals simultaneously.   It returns the House to a Peoples’ House; eliminates or seriously reduces the influence of  lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership; provides for stability in the House; and returns the Senate to a States’ Senate as envisioned by the Founders.      

The Sections governing ‘recall’ would serve to keep elected officials true to their campaign promises and the Will of the People and States.   Further, repealing the 17^th Amendment would automatically implement a form of recall on the Senate.   Under the rules laid out in Article I, a State can Recall and replace a Senator at will.   Shouldn’t the People have that same power over the House and the President?

>

See Part 2 at; http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/why-we-need-an-articl...

[M]

Tom Lacovara Stewart,

Source; http://www.14thamendment.us/amendment/14th_amendment.html

This link shows what the 14th was originally intended to do, and what it has been bastardized into by the Progressive Left over the years sitting on the Supreme Court and Legislating from the bench.

An Excerpt or two;

The US Constitution: 14^th Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

AMENDMENT XIV of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

History and Ratification

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on June 13, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States. The dates of ratification were: 
Connecticut, June 25, 1866 
New Hampshire, July 6, 1866 
Tennessee, July 19, 1866 
New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor's veto, and on Nov. 12, 1980, expressed support for the amendment); 
Oregon, September 19, 1866 (and rescinded its ratification on October 15, 1868) 
Vermont, October 30, 1866 
Ohio, January 4, 1867 (and rescinded its ratification on January 15, 1868) 
New York, January 10, 1867 
Kansas, January 11, 1867 
Illinois, January 15, 1867 
West Virginia, January 16, 1867 
Michigan, January 16, 1867 
Minnesota, January 16, 1867 
Maine, January 19, 1867 
Nevada, January 22, 1867 
Indiana, January 23, 1867 
Missouri, January 25, 1867 
Rhode Island, February 7, 1867 
Wisconsin, February 7, 1867 
Pennsylvania, February 12, 1867 
Massachusetts, March 20, 1867 
Nebraska, June 15, 1867 
Iowa, March 16, 1868 
Arkansas, April 6, 1868 
Florida, June 9, 1868 
North Carolina, July 4, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 14, 1866) 
Louisiana, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on February 6, 1867) 
South Carolina, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)

Ratification was completed on July 9, 1868.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by: 
Alabama, July 13, 1868 
Georgia, July 21, 1868 (after having rejected it on November 9, 1866) 
Virginia, October 8, 1869 (after having rejected it on January 9, 1867) 
Mississippi, January 17, 1870 
Texas, February 18, 1870 (after having rejected it on October 27, 1866) 
Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on February 8, 1867) 
Maryland, April 4, 1959 (after having rejected it on March 23, 1867) 
California, May 6, 1959 
Kentucky, March 18, 1976 (after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)

More information

• US National Archives
• FindLaw legal resources includes substantial annotations and case references.
• Constitution.org extensive details about the debate and ratification process.
• US Constitution.net
• Cornell Law School

Excerpt from Original Intent;

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14^thAmendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The final thing that renders the 14th invalid in my mind but not so far in law is the fact Congress in direct violation of the Constitution when they refused congressional seats to duly elected senators from the Rebellion States until they ratified the 14th amendment

Article Five specifies the means by which the Constitution of the United States can be amended. It ends by temporarily shielding three Article I clauses from being amended. This clause is among them. (The others are first and fourth clauses in Section 9.) Article Five provides that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate". Thus, no individual state may have its individual representation in the Senate adjusted without its consent.

The Forced Ratification to regain seats in Congress I believe is what Tom is talking about with the Unconstitutional aspect of the 14th

[M]

Tom Lacovara Stewart;

Please see the proposal for a 28th Amendmenmt at; http://www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.html

The basic premise people there have been working on for the last ten years is a States Petitioned for Article V Amendment proposal convention. The purpose of which becomes evident in the 20 words the proposed amendment states "The Fourteenth,the Sixteenth,and the Seventeenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed."

The site is an online free Library with a multitude of information you would be interested in.

M

[Tom Lacovara Stewart]

http://www.resurrecttherepublic.com/the-georgia-assembly-declaring-...

http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.html

http://www.resurrecttherepublic.com/the-14th-amendment-is-un-consti...

http://www.resurrecttherepublic.com/utah-law-review-the-14th-is-unc...

The President - Andrew Johnson said "This will make the law itself unlawful", and "it will create a defacto government".     The size scope and Martial Law jurisdiction via Reconstruction was placed upon all of us with this usurpation. And the public debt made "unquestionable" and eventually handed over to the Federal Reserve. These are the real problems. Communism was codified in 1868.  And the redistribution of the nations wealth with it.  I have seen nothing - no evidence an Article V convention as well that seeks to actually restore the Constitution Organic the way it was prior to its being subverted.    Karl Marx praised Lincoln. Read the letters thy exchanged.

those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it...... so do t you dare tell me that I do not understand or know what it is I am talking about. To do so minus a factual and intelligent rebuttal makes anyone wngaging in such act NO different than Alinskyites. 

[Tom Lacovara Stewart]

In response to comments made regarding my position on Article V.

- I am a Constitutional and Historical researcher who has been interviewed on many occasions by those who have had my thesis under the microscope. I have found here what equates to name calling, and to be honest quite a few attacks upon my character and false allegations that I belong to some crowd or "group". These are Alinsky style attacks and I have zero patience for arguments not based upon facts.

In 1868 the Constitution was subverted - 

The president said so as did my state Senator Stockton and many other NORTHERN STATES.

the 14th Amendment was not lawfully ratified and expanded the size scope and poslwed

as well as created an UNQUESTIONABLE PUBLIC DEBT and then unlawfully handed the regulation and power that debt in an unconstitutional Federal Reserves hands. 

After allowing the Original and lawfully ratified 13th Amendment to be replaced. 

I have the 1812 Copy of the Virginia Revised Statutes as evidence as well a ratified copy in Texas and New Hampshire as well as several other state archives to prove it.

I have presented this information on Oliver Stones son Sean Stones show BUZZSAW - *openly challeneges anyone to come forward and we offered a cash prize to anyone who could prove us wrong. Until we enforce the rightful Constitution we have, an Article V could provide the nails in the coffin of ever being able to do so. I do not oppose the Article V for any other reason, nor am I part

of a group. To say so is ignorant, and a bald faced lie. So Alinsky style Marxist type arguments that seek to attack someone evading the true nature and facts that are presented have to be met with the assumption that one has subscribed to said beliefs either seriously ill informed and have beLIEved in it so strongly that it has become a religion in and of itself unto them, or that they are the victim of Communist subversion that saw its kickstart during the Covil War. Marx praised Lincoln by the way in letters to him... most people are woefully unaware of that as well. 

Professor Tom Woods also has presented these well established FACTS and has never been beat in debate as the facts are solidly with us and only people allowing the subversion to continue by writing it off as too big to fix or not able to comprehend the problem continue saying they are honoring the Constitution while failing totally in defending what is real over what has been indoctrinated into many of us. - My evidence to support this can be found with Google. I am not at a PC or I would place the relevant links here myself. 

GOOGLE the following - Resurrect the Republic - the 14th Amendment is UnConstitutional

- Constitutional Conspiracy and Government Gangsters with Sean Stone Thomas Lacovara on Buzzsaw

- Professor Thomas Woods - the 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

- RTR TRUTH MEDIA - Original 13th Amendment evidence

Sweet Liberty - Judge Leander H Perez 14th

- 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress - Resurrect the Republic Dirty Uncle Sam

      I will as I said drop links when I can. But as opposed to many, I am actually indisposed dealing with the Federal Government for my participation in the Bundy ranch and Oregon Stand Off. I put my money and my life where my mouth is....... so to those who wish to name call at their keyboards I say, you would be far more honorable to have not been pompous and sent me a message so I couldn't have explained my ACTUAL position. Without knowing the full history of Constitutional subversion and history, beliefs in any convention could be the nails in the coffin to be actually able to fix it.    FACT.     Not opinion. Please refute my facts with documentation. 

[Oren Long]

M,

The facts are on our side, but that doesn't matter to the "Never COS" crowd.   

Oren

[M]

Yes Oren, and if memory serves me correct, all the Delegates were sent there empowered to use the option to start fresh if all else failed. It's also the main reason Article V was placed in the main body of the Constitution. That and to give the people a bloodless way to take back a government that was ignoring their wishes and over reaching it's constitutional powers.

[Oren Long]

M,

I want to add something that I inadvertently left out of my previous comment.

As I pointed out, 'fixing' the AOC would have required that ALL 13 Nation-States agree to any changes.   BUT, not all Nation-States were in attendance at the Philadelphia Convention.   One or two (I forget which) did not send delegates.   Others attended only sporadically.   Still others came and went as business or personal needs mandated.   Therefore, there was no way to legally change the AOC.

That pretty much left the attendees with no option but to start from scratch.   Hence, the Constitution.

Oren

[M]

Good information Oren.

[Oren Long]

M,

I used to respond to posts from people like Tom, but don't anymore.   When I was on the Tea Party Site and advocated for an Article V COS I frequently encountered people who were dead set against a COS, but had only a passing knowledge of how it would work and/or the built in safety mechanisms.   No matter how many times I patiently tried to explain the facts, they were unmoved.   Their minds were made up; don't confuse them with the facts.   Tom will never change his mind and I have better things to do.

That said, I want to delve deeper into one of the main anti-COS arguments and why it is false (you pointed out why the AOC were "unfixable").   One of the favorite arguments of the anti-COS crowd is that the Founders "threw away" the AOC and replaced them with the Constitution, so why couldn't an Article V COS do the same thing (throw away the Constitution) and unilaterally impose a radically new form of government?   

First, an Article V COS gains its underlying authority from the Constitution.   If a COS tried to supplant the Constitution with something radically different, it would be neutering its own underlying authority, without which, the Convention, itself, would go "poof" and cease to exist.

Second, the State COS Resolutions specifically state the reason for a Convention, to wit, "To draft amendments to limit the size, scope, power, reach, authority, and jurisdiction of the Federal Government".   Ergo, any amendments drafted that fall outside of this mandate would be ruled "out of order" and would not be considered.

Third, we must remember exactly what the AOC really were.   After the Revolution, there was no "America" as we think of her.   There were no "States" as we think of them.   The Colonies had just thrown off a strong, central government (England) and were not about to impose upon themselves another strong, central government.   What we really had was 13 separate, independent, sovereign, NATION-STATES.   In other words, there were 13 separate COUNTRIES, not States.   They had their own customs, laws, money, etc.   They were very jealous of their independence and sovereignty.   Many imposed tariffs on goods coming from their own neighbors.   Many refused to financially support Congress.   Congress could not pass laws that applied "nationally" (there was no "nation").   Some even threatened war with other "States".   Bottom line, the AOC were essentially a "Treaty" between 13 independent countries and, like all Treaties, could not be modified without the consent of ALL the signatories.

Fourth, all the Founders did -- ALL THEY DID -- was to set aside a Treaty (which wasn't working) and supplant it with a form of government that, FOR THE FIRST TIME, united the 13 separate countries into one.   This is evidenced by three things.   1) The Constitution is "The Constitution of the UNITED States", indicating that it, for the first time, UNITED the aforementioned separate countries into one nation.   2)  The AOC are the "Articles of CONFEDERATION", indicating a loose confederation of Nation-States, primarily for mutual defense.   3)  The above is further indicated in the National Motto itself, "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One).   

I hope this helps when you debate the anti-COS crowd.

Oren

 

[M]

Actually Tom, We have had 18+ Article V amendment proposal conventions since the beginning of our Nation resulting in only 27 amendments total. However those were totally controlled by Congress and the Amendments, with the exception of the Bill of Rights, were more beneficial to Congress and the Feds, than they were to the people. A States Petitioned for Article V would leave the people in charge and all the other safeguards would be in play. People fear another situation where the Articles of the Confederation were replaced with the Constitution. It can't happen with an article V and here's why.  The original articles required all the colonies to agree to change anything and there were no ways to modify or interpret the Articles. The delegates from every State were sent to either rectify that problem or create a new document. The Founders created a system to modify and interpret the body of the Constitution without being able to change the basic language of the original document. They also made it quite hard to change anything through an amendment.So, Could all 27 Amendments be repealed? Yes, but it would take all the delegates to an article V amendment proposal convention to agree on that and on the definative wording, then it would still take 38 States to ratify anything like that. Possible by a stretch of the imagination but improbable as all hell. We would still be under the original Constitution with all of it's original articles in full force. You mentioned the Coinage, that came under the 16th under the Woodrow Wilson administration.