The Three Headed Monster

[Keith Broaders]

Many who oppose an Article V Convention believe that statements made by some Judges prove that calling a Convention could be a very bad idea. Before accepting these opinions, one should consider how a convention would not only limit the power of the Congress, but would diminish their power to control the people.

Why would a lawyer who once served on the Supreme Court oppose an Article V Convention? Since ALL of the members of the Supreme Court are lawyers and the BAR Association, is it just a coincidence they would oppose the calling forth of an Article V convention to propose new amendments. Perhaps they’re afraid some of these new amendments may reduce Congress’s ability to abuse their power.

Unfortunately the Constitution has been violated for many years by each of the three branches of government. They all have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Any attempt to limit the power of one branch will be opposed by the other two.

Each of the three branches of government has their own way of dishonoring the Constitution. Congress ignores it, the President defies it and the Supreme Court changes the meaning of the Constitution every time they interpret it. By supporting one another in their unholy alliance, they have effective used the Constitution to do virtually anything they want. The corruption in Washington D.C. is not limited to the members of Congress.

Asking a Supreme Justice if an Article V Convention would be a good idea is like asking a King or Queen to relinquish some of their power to the people. How far do you think you would get with either?