Constitutional Hypocrites

[Keith Broaders]

The Constitution mandates that when the legislatures of two thirds of the states request a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, Congress must call for the convention once 34 states have requested it.

If the requisite 34 states have applied for a convention, those individuals who oppose calling for an Article V Convention would suggest that in order to defend the Constitution we must ignore the provisions of Article V.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson stated clearly that when the government becomes abusive it is the right and the duty of the people to "alter or abolish it." The authors of the Constitution provided a means to alter the Constitution through the amendment process. They granted to Congress the authority to amend the Constitution, but they also provided a way for the states to amend the Constitution if the members of Congress failed to do so.

The authors of the Constitution knew that giving Congress a monopoly on the right to propose amendments was a bad idea. That is why they also granted the states the authority to propose amendments.

The system of checks and balances were written into the Constitution to protect the people from the abuse of power. When two thirds of the members of Congress wish to propose an amendment to the Constitution they are authorized to do so by the Constitution. When two thirds of the legislatures of the states wish to call forth a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution they also have the Constitutional right to do so.

Power when centralized is always more dangerous. Some claim holding an Article V Convention would be dangerous, but I would suggest that allowing Congress to have a monopoly on the amendment process is even more dangerous.

http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Amendments/071_cg_r_03369_1929_HL.JPG

http://www.quia.com/pages/libertytreeuniversity/page416

http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_applications_for_an_Arti...

[Keith Broaders]

Robert where in Article V does it state that the applications from the states had to linked to a particular issue. If that requirement is not stated in the Constitution, the requirement does not exist. The wording of the provisions of the Constitution can not be altered or amended. You can not add or subtract words to the Constitution without violating it.

[Robert]

This is one of those details that were not clarified by Article V, which left James Madison uneasy with its final wording.  He felt these details should have been more explicitly spelled out.  As it is, the necessary and proper clause, by default, assigns that power to Congress.

[Keith Broaders]

Your argument defies logic and reason. If the framers of the Constitution wanted Congress to have the power you suggest that they have they would have delegated that power to Congress. If the necessary and proper clause means what you say it does, it essentially nullifies the entire Constitution and allows Congress the authority to do whatever they want. I am appalled and shocked that a man with your intelligence could be so easily deceived. The men and women elected to be the custodians of our liberty can not be trusted that is precisely why our country is in so much trouble.

Please stop arguing with me and use your capacity to think and to reason. You are defending Congress and allowing them to violate the intent of our founding fathers.

[Robert]

"If the necessary and proper clause means what you say it does, it essentially nullifies the entire Constitution and allows Congress the authority to do whatever they want."

Again, false.

This only gives them power to make laws regarding things that are in the Federal jurisdiction, which is specifically enumerated within the Constitution.

What the framers intended for an Article V convention is debatable.  What the Constitution actually says is quite clear.

I am not saying Congress should have this power.  I am saying that if we pursue a convention, they would have this power.  The necessary and proper argument is the one that Congress has used to justify them having tremendous power over a convention.  Right or wrong, they have a strong constitutional argument to back their position.  The opposing view has little to stand on in the constitution.

I believe that a convention would be very dangerous with Congress wielding such power.  This is why I adamantly oppose a convention.

[Native Born Citizen]

I applaud your response especially in light of the ad hominems by the previous poster.

[joseph cronin jr.]

You are all playing the enemy's game . There is nothing wrong with our founders work . Stop trying to sound like you know what you're talking about  . Prosecute the people you elected ; the peoples grand jury needs nothing from them ; if your present sheriff won't make the arrests ; arrest him and appoint a new one .

[Native Born Citizen]

How do you suppose we arrest people who have not been given due process under law? And what gives you the right to arrest your sheriff and appoint a new one? Certainly not common law, certainly not our Constitution, certainly not our statutes? So what? Because you say so? Because some people believe that they themselves are 'sovereign'? Flawed beliefs never have made for a solid foundation for reason.

[Robert Holtzclaw]

I fully agree with you ... almost.  Without more Constitutionally-minded and mindful individuals within the walls of congress, I fear giving them the opportunity take more power and control.  Once they close the doors, how can they be stopped?  It seems that that is what happened when they met to review and revise the Articles of Confederation.  bad bob

[Keith Broaders]

Robert where in Article V does it state that the applications from the states had to linked to a particular issue. If that requirement is not stated in the Constitution, the requirement does not exist. The wording of the provisions of the Constitution can not be altered or amended. You can not add or subtract words to the Constitution without violating it.

If the Constitution does not specify who counts the applications and how they are calculated the 10th Amendment would indicate that powers not specifically granted to Congress are reserved to the states and to the people respectively. You implication that Congress would have the authority to determine who and how the representatives would be selected is a false assumption. Congress can only do what the Constitution authorizes them to do.

[Robert]

And as the articles I sent you clearly show, Congress is given the power "to make all laws that shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution" any powers they are given. This would include their power to call the convention.

[Keith Broaders]

Congress derives its power from the consent of the people not the bankers and financial institutions that lurk in the shadows. The necessary and proper clause refers to those actions that are necessary and proper to the execution of the powers specifically enumerated in Article I Section 8. Congress has assumed power that was not delegated to them and has become the destroyer rather than the defender of the Constitution. 

The Constitution and the people never granted to Congress the power to you suggest. The idea that this power is necessary and proper is a stretch. The desire of the states to exercise their right to have a convention is the result of Congress failing to do their job. To allow Congress to have the power to establish the detail on the Convention would be like allowing the defendant in a murder trial to serve on his own jury.

[Robert]

Keith,

You stated, "The necessary and proper clause refers to those actions that are necessary and proper to the execution of the powers specifically enumerated in Article I Section 8."

This is false.

It refers to those powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 (as "the foregoing powers"), but it ALSO refers to "all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Among those "all other powers" is the power given to Congress to call a convention.

You may disagree with them having this power, but you can't deny the Constitution says this.