SEE: Abbott Calls on States to Amend U.S. Constitution
”But Abbott is not the first Republican to endorse a constitutional convention. GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio, a U.S. senator from Florida, called for a constitutional convention in an op-ed published Wednesday in USA Today”
Abbott, in promoting a constitutional convention falsely asserts our Constitution "leaves it to the states to limit the scope of the convention." And even if additional amendments were offered, he writes, "none of the delegates' efforts would become law without approval from three-fourths of the states."
The truth is, our Constitution nowhere declares the States can limit the scope of a convention once it is called. In fact, when the Articles of Confederation were in effect and the States agreed to call a convention for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“, that limitation was ignored and we wound up with an entirely new Constitution, a new federal government with a number of specific powers being ceded to it, and the event turned out to not be a simple revision of the Articles of Confederation as originally called for!
In regard to Abbott’s attempt to alleviate the arguments of those who oppose the calling of a convention by saying "none of the delegates' efforts would become law without approval from three-fourths of the states." that comment is also very much in dispute.
The historical fact is, the Delegates in the 1787 Convention ignored that the Articles of Confederation could not be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead, they decided that the new constitution would become effective if a mere nine States ratified it.
Additionally, who would be in charge should disputes arise concerning the Convention? Would it not be the very Court which has repeatedly defied our Constitution, and a majority of its members recently handed down its stunning Obamacare opinion in which it acted as a “super legislative body” to change our law as admitted by Abbott?
The fact is, an Article V Convention is a very dangerous idea because:
1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;
2) that Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;
3) that every snake on earth with self-interests such as ACORN would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;
4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;
5) that the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission;
6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;
7) and, we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention would adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.
There are many unanswered questions concerning an Article V convention, and yet, Mr. Abbott has decided to jump on the Article V bandwagon which Madison warned us against!
”3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.” ___ Madison’s letter to George Lee Turberville, dated November 2, 1788
The bottom line is, calling a convention would allow our Washington Establishment to make constitutional, that which is now unconstitutional. Our existing sufferings are not from defects in our Constitution. They are the result of our Constitution not being enforced and those who violate it are not being impeached and punished for their disloyalty to its commands.
JWK
“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “__ Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, 1988
”But Abbott is not the first Republican to endorse a constitutional convention. GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio, a U.S. senator from Florida, called for a constitutional convention in an op-ed published Wednesday in USA Today”
Abbott, in promoting a constitutional convention falsely asserts our Constitution "leaves it to the states to limit the scope of the convention." And even if additional amendments were offered, he writes, "none of the delegates' efforts would become law without approval from three-fourths of the states."
The truth is, our Constitution nowhere declares the States can limit the scope of a convention once it is called. In fact, when the Articles of Confederation were in effect and the States agreed to call a convention for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“, that limitation was ignored and we wound up with an entirely new Constitution, a new federal government with a number of specific powers being ceded to it, and the event turned out to not be a simple revision of the Articles of Confederation as originally called for!
In regard to Abbott’s attempt to alleviate the arguments of those who oppose the calling of a convention by saying "none of the delegates' efforts would become law without approval from three-fourths of the states." that comment is also very much in dispute.
The historical fact is, the Delegates in the 1787 Convention ignored that the Articles of Confederation could not be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead, they decided that the new constitution would become effective if a mere nine States ratified it.
Additionally, who would be in charge should disputes arise concerning the Convention? Would it not be the very Court which has repeatedly defied our Constitution, and a majority of its members recently handed down its stunning Obamacare opinion in which it acted as a “super legislative body” to change our law as admitted by Abbott?
The fact is, an Article V Convention is a very dangerous idea because:
1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;
2) that Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;
3) that every snake on earth with self-interests such as ACORN would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;
4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;
5) that the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission;
6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;
7) and, we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention would adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.
There are many unanswered questions concerning an Article V convention, and yet, Mr. Abbott has decided to jump on the Article V bandwagon which Madison warned us against!
”3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.” ___ Madison’s letter to George Lee Turberville, dated November 2, 1788
The bottom line is, calling a convention would allow our Washington Establishment to make constitutional, that which is now unconstitutional. Our existing sufferings are not from defects in our Constitution. They are the result of our Constitution not being enforced and those who violate it are not being impeached and punished for their disloyalty to its commands.
JWK
“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “__ Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, 1988
