Westside Eagle-Observer

There’s no need for Article V Convention; just honor your oath

- By Harold Pease, Ph.D.

When teaching the U.S. Constituti­on at the college level for several decades, I frequently asked students, “What would you add or remove?”

No one offered anything. No governing document has withstood the needs of humankind and the test of time more readily than ours because it fulfills the requiremen­ts of natural law and human nature and mostly leaves us government free. Yet today, both sides express unhappines­s with it and want a convention to alter it. On one side, because they want to mandate more control: mask wearing, lockdowns, vaccines, civilian disarmamen­t, etc. — items always ruled unconstitu­tional. On the other, because the Constituti­on does not mandate obedience to it. But the Constituti­on is not the problem; keeping one’s oath to protect and preserve it is. The proper “fix” for the Constituti­on is to use it as written.

Since a balanced budget amendment is the “fix” most often cited for an Article V Convention, let’s first see if there exists a need for it if we followed the Constituti­on as written. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18 list the areas (only four with 18 parts) where Congress is authorized to make law; and Article I, Section 7, bestows on the House of Representa­tives alone the origin of “all bills for raising revenue” (taxes). If Congress limited itself to the list as intended (that’s why it exists), there would be an excess of reserve money and no need for a Balanced Budget Amendment because today a vast majority of the things funded by the House are not even vaguely enumerated and are, thus, not constituti­onal. In fact, both political parties have violated this part of the Constituti­on to oblivion — it is no longer followed by either side. It’s not a weakness of the Constituti­on that we ignore its clarity, but our oath to follow it as written.

In my current events classes, each student was given a Constituti­on and asked to problem solve with it for every issue that came up during the semester. The authority to act on the issue was determined first. It was more simple than one might suppose. If not an enumerated power in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18, or elsewhere, that power was automatica­lly assigned to the states in Amendment 10: “All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constituti­on … are reserved to the States respective­ly, or to the people.”

The real problem is that neither party follows the Constituti­on as written. “The notion that amendments can be used to limit or restrict powers that were never given to the federal government by the Constituti­on in the first place, or that an Article V Convention can be used to regulate the behavior of those who already violated the Constituti­on (emphasis added), is illogical” (“Article V Convention Will it Work?” by Christian Gomez, The New American, July 11, 2022, p. 8). If their oath to the existing Constituti­on does not restrict them, could it, or would it, in an amended document? No!

Actually, under Article V, Congress calls the convention when two-thirds of the states apply to Congress

for it. States do not and, under Article V, cannot call a convention. The authority to call a convention is given to Congress alone. Article V reads, “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constituti­on, or, on the Applicatio­n of the Legislatur­es of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments …” Congress remains the only receiving body of the applicatio­n request, and the resulting convention is a federal Constituti­onal Convention, not a state Constituti­onal Convention becuase such would be unconstitu­tional.

The Constituti­on houses no language speaking of a “convention of states.” This phrase is a distortion of Article V. To imply that Congress is removed thereafter or does not govern the process is false because Congress oversees the changes “when ratified by the Legislatur­es of three-fourths of the several States, or Convention­s in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratificati­on may be proposed by the Congress” (emphasis added).

A convention cannot be limited by the states prior to or during, and state legislatur­es cannot affect it once assembled; it becomes independen­t from state legislatur­es. It also cannot be open-ended. The only Constituti­onal Convention in U.S. history exceeded its instructio­ns, even defying Article XIII of the Articles of Federation. In that instance, it worked to our benefit, and the then Federation government simply passed it on to the states. But this is extremely risky, especially today with the honor and integrity of statesmen noticeably diminished. Justice Antonin Scalia once said respecting a convention of states: “Who knows what would come out of it” (Ibid. p. 9).

Article V language “as part of this Constituti­on” suggests no authority to replace the Constituti­on with another. Yet, the enemies of the current Constituti­on must believe this is still possible. They have written at least six replacemen­t Constituti­ons and are waiting for such a moment to propose them. These include Rexford Guy Tugwell’s “Constituti­on for the New States of America,” “Constituti­on for the New Socialist Republic in North America,” “A New Constituti­on for the United States,” “The Libertaria­n Constituti­on,” and “The Progressiv­e Constituti­on.” These are mostly socialist and communist documents. Even the conservati­ve movement in America has one called “The Conservati­ve Constituti­on” which decimates the Second Amendment (Ibid. p. 11).

The Founding Fathers provided a window for specific and limited change to correct any defects or errors such as the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, Amendments 1-10, soon thereafter. In 235 years, there have been only 27 amendments to the Constituti­on, all of them coming through Congress and none by convention. This attests to the Constituti­on being, undoubtedl­y, the least flawed governing document in the history of mankind. This is a history of astounding success.

To those in power, there is no need for an Article V convention; just honor your oath to defend and preserve the Constituti­on as written. Your failure to do this is driving both ends of the political spectrum to risk losing it.

Harold Pease, Ph.D., is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constituti­on. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspectiv­e for more than 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, visit www. www.LibertyUnd­erFire. org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States