Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your first comment? Sorry, you will have to wait for my next post to learn what I propose to regain control of the government.

As to calling a new convention under Article V. I think you may be misreading the Article.

The text of Article V says,

“Congress…on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,…”

The structure of this clause compels Congress to treat the collective applications of two thirds of the states as a single application triggering the call for a Convention. For this to occur the applications would have to be contemporaneous and similar in content. This supports my view and the view of the two courts that heard the lawsuits of FOAVC.

FOAVC reads Article V as,

“Congress…on the applications of the Legislature of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,…”

This reading supports the contention of the FOAVC that it does not require Congress to treat the applications as one, and therefore they do not need to be contemporary or similar in content. Under this reading whenever the number of applications, regardless of time intervals between and regardless of the content, whether proposing a convention call or a variety of dissimilar Amendments, reaches a number equaling two thirds of the states, a Convention must be called.

In the Brief FOAVC filed with the Supreme Court, the claim was made that the required number of applications was reached with Maine’s application in 1911. (They omitted one made by New York in 1789) This constitutes a time lapse of 122 years (six generations) between the first application by Virginia in 1789 and Maine in 1911.

It is inconceivable to me that, considering their positions on amendments and conventions, the Founders would have deliberately crafted an open ended Article that would provide for the calling of another convention with the potential to change our whole system of government, based on cumulative applications by the states in perpetuity without regard to purpose or the passage of time.

If you’re so wise how do you propose this be done?

”…WE NEED TO REGAIN CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE AND BRING IT BACK UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CONSTITUTION AS IT IS.”

The futility of Constitutional Amendments

Our government has not been a true Constitutional Republic since the reign of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Presidents, Legislators and Courts seem to acknowledge the Constitution only when it furthers their agenda, otherwise it is ignored. There is no indication that additional amendments would be honored by government officials to any greater degree than they honor the Constitution now. Before we open up the Amendment process by calling for an Amendatory Convention we need to regain control of the government as a whole and bring it back under the jurisdiction of the Constitution as it is.

The whole point of getting Congress to call a convention is because it is their obligation to obey the very document — they do not have the right to pick and choose which parts, they must obey all parts. Article V says they WILL and that’s it — end of discussion.

“The will of the nation” is one of those phrases which have been most largely abused by the wily and the despotic of every age. Some have seen the expression of it in the purchased suffrages of a few of the satellites of power: others, in the votes of a timid or an interested minority; and some have even discovered it in the silence of a people, on the supposition that the fact of submission established the right to command.
In America, the principle of the sovereignty of the people is not either barren or concealed, as it is with some other nations; it is recognized by the customs and proclaimed by the laws; it spreads freely, and arrives without impediment at its most remote consequences. If there be a country in the world where the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people can be fairly appreciated, where it can be studied in its application to the affairs of society, and where its advantages may be judged, that country is assuredly America.”

I thought you might like that.

We simply disagree as to the type of nation we prefer to live in. I prefer an ordered civil society, governed by the rule of law, where citizens live in liberty, make their own decisions and enjoy the fruits of their OWN labor.

At age seventy-five I will not be around when it really hits the fan. It angers me however, when I see our public officials robbing my children and grandchildren just so they can continue to enjoy the heady experience of absolute power over the lives of others.

Also, I didn’t say Obama’s view of the Constitution is flawed. I said he views the Constitution as being flawed. His view of the Constitution is, in my opinion, dangerous. From his position as President, he has the power, and seems to have the intention of completely destroying everything I hold dear.

I would be more interested in hearing a debate on why his Keynesian economic polices are harmful, by contrasting perceived weaknesses in it’s arguments, rather than a blanket perception that government is “too large”. What constitutes too large? If your answer is simply the constitution, I would argue that it isn’t of much practical use. Our government was not founded upon unquestioning allegiance to written law, or else we would still be subjects of the British empire. Our government was founded upon the will of its citizenry. The constitution was merely an agreed upon covenant of the people at that time with its government. The constitution, and the amendments that encompass the bill of rights, are new covenants forged at the expense of the older ones. Once again if we were a nation bound to the constitution, black men would still only have 3/5 of a vote each, women would be completely unrepresented.

Our society was built upon the traditions of the past and the enlightenment ideals we used to look to the future. While our society should look to the past with respect and admiration, it is not in keeping with the very nature of our founders to allow ourselves to be unquestioningly bound to the mores of the past.

Of course the Constitution is not perfect, but it has proven to be closer to perfection as a blueprint for governance than any other constitution in world history. Since space is limited for comments I recommend you read a previous post “Obama’s Flawed Constitution” if you are interested in understanding my position on the subject.