Herewith: why we should not ask Congress to call an Article V convention, a/k/a “constitutional convention,” or in Newspeak, a “convention of states.” State legislators should reject all applications asking Congress to call an Article V convention.

Rules for constitutional amendments

Article V provides that if two thirds of the states apply for it, Congress shall call a convention for proposing Amendments to the US Constitution.¹ However, Delegates would have the right, as recognized in the 2^nd paragraph of our Declaration of Independence (DOI), to throw off the Constitution we have and write a new constitution which creates a new government.

Our only precedent for an “amendments convention” is the Federal Convention of 1787 which was called by the Continental Congress “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation” (AOC). But the Delegates ignored Congress’s limiting instructions (and the limiting instructions from their States) and wrote a new Constitution – the one we have now.

Furthermore, the new Constitution had a new and easier mode of ratification. Whereas Amendments to the AOC had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States, the new Constitution provided at Article VII that it would be ratified by only 9 States.

In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), James Madison invoked the Delegates’ right to alter or abolish our form of government, as recognized in the DOI, to justify ignoring their instructions and drafting a new Constitution which created a new government.

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were Delegates to the “amendments convention” of 1787, and had personal knowledge that Delegates can’t be controlled. That’s why Madison trembled at the prospect of an Article V convention; Hamilton dreaded one; and future Chief Justice John Jay said another convention would run “extravagant risques.”²

They know the danger of a convention

The Convention of States Project (COS) implicitly acknowledges the danger of a convention when they say state legislatures should pass “unfaithful delegate” laws which they claim will control Delegates. But such laws can’t control Delegates because:

The DOI recognizes that a People have the self-evident right to throw off their form of government and set up a new one. We can’t stop Delegates from exercising self-evident rights!

Since Congress “calls” the convention, they have traditionally claimed the power to determine the number and selection process for Delegates. See the April 11, 2014 Report of the CRS (p.4). Congress may appoint themselves as Delegates.

Delegates wouldn’t be under state control because the Delegates wouldn’t be performing a state function. The convention would be a federal convention called by Congress to perform the federal function of addressing a federal constitution.

Sovereign immunity

As Sovereign Representatives of The People, Delegates would have sovereign immunity for what they do at a convention. Article I, § 6, cl.1 of the US Constitution, and state constitutions recognize that legislators have immunity. See also p. 37 of the CRS Report.

James Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 shows that on May 29, 1787, the Delegates voted to make the proceedings secret. If Delegates today decide to meet in secret or vote by secret ballot, the states would never know who did what. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is experienced at holding secret meetings with state legislators from which the Press is barred by armed guards. See this short video taken at a Georgia resort.

Delegates, as Sovereign Representatives of the People, are not answerable to state legislatures (which are “mere creatures” of the state constitutions) or to Congress (which is a “mere creature” of the federal Constitution). The Delegates have the power to eliminate the federal and state governments – and that is precisely what the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America does. The Newstates Constitution is ratified by a national referendum at Article XII, §1.

Not a Constitutional Convention? Tell us another one!

COS says it’s application doesn’t ask Congress to call a “constitutional convention,” but a “convention of states” which COS claims is “different” because it is controlled by the states. COS has fooled some legislators into believing they can be against a “constitutional convention” (where our existing Constitution can be replaced); and yet support an “Article V convention” which COS markets as a “convention of states.” COS made up its own definition for “Article V convention” and “convention of states,” defining them as “limited.” But there’s no such thing as a limited convention in the Constitution!

The Constitution we have delegates only a few powers to the federal government. But for 100 years, everyone has ignored the existing limitations. We can’t fix federal usurpations of non-delegated powers with Amendments, because we can’t take away powers the Constitution didn’t grant the feds in the first place!

The convention lobby has another agenda which can be implemented only at an Article V convention.³

For questions or comments, contact publiushuldah@gmail.com.

Endnotes:

1The convention method was added to Article V as a compromise. None of the Delegates said the purpose of an Article V convention was to enable states to make Amendments to the Constitution in order to rein in abuse of power by the federal government. COS fabricated that claim.