As we close out the celebration of the drafting of our US Constitution 236 years ago, I thought it was interesting how different groups commemorated the occasion. Of course, those who favor a large, dominant federal government criticized the document if they even referenced it at all. More curious was how the groups that claim to support the Constitution, its drafting, and The Framers, actually honor the Constitution. I call these groups part-time constitutionalists.
These groups have several things in common. First, they mislabel the convention of states process as a constitutional convention or ‘Con-Con’. So, anytime you hear that term, it should pique your Spidey-sense to a fraud. This is in direct contradiction of the correct term used in the 1787 Convention and cited by the first Article V resolution filed by Virginia in 1788. Virginia filed this first Article V resolution to ensure the issues many states wanted addressed in the Constitution were taken up in the first session of congress. These items became the Bill of Rights, and you can read about that story here.
In fact, there is absolutely no authority in the US Constitution to allow for a general or constitutional convention. Why is that? Because, holding such an event would be an extra-constitutional assembly – outside the scope of our Constitution. In fact, Article V is very specific. Its text reads:
“….on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution….”
A couple words make it very clear the ‘Con-Con’ claim is total nonsense. First, the only authority a convention of states meeting has is to ‘propose’ amendments. The convention has no authority to change the Constitution itself. It’s an interstate meeting to discuss issues important to the states – within the bounds of the resolution at least 34 states have agreed to. Second, amendments can only be proposed to ‘this’ Constitution, and not some imaginary constitution ‘waiting in the wings.’ Any proposed amendments pertain only to our US Constitution. The actual words in the Constitution speak for themselves.
A second claim of these part-time constitutionalists is that the delegates to the 1787 Convention were only given permission to revise the Articles of Confederation. This claim further states that The Framers ignored their instructions and decided on their own to draft a completely new document. These groups further state they are happy The Framers went rogue because the Constitution is a wonderful document (aside from the convention of states process, apparently)
This claim is a direct slander of The Framers. It’s like saying that when we were engaged, my spouse cheated on me. But we are married now so however we got here is okay. It’s true that some of the delegates intended to only revise the Articles of Confederation. But, those are NOT the instructions they were given by their states (save for two instances). The delegates were given authority to draft a constitution ‘sufficient to the exigencies’ of the Union. This meant the delegates had the ability to draft an entirely new governing document. And, this is what they did while also integrating several parts of the Articles of Confederation.
I mentioned that the instructions of two states differed from the others. The instructions issued to the New York and Massachusetts delegates permitted them to revise, “the Articles of Confederation.” Their instructions went further to state, “render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.” This is the same authority the delegates the other 10 states were given. (Note that Rhode Island did not send delegates to the 1787 Convention.) The delegates to the 1787 Convention acted completely within their authority.
Another claim part-time constitutionalists make is that Congress is in control of the process and not state legislatures. This is false on several levels, so let’s look at this from a logical perspective first. The Framers were drafting a document to restrain the federal government and make it least likely to infringe on our individual rights. On September 15th 1787, George Mason addressed his fellow delegates pointing out only Congress had the ability to propose amendments to the Constitution. He argued We The People, working through our State Legislatures, must also be able to propose amendments to contain the federal government. What sense does it make to put only Congress in control of the states’ ability to propose constitutional amendments? Well, it doesn’t.
The final claim we’ll review here is that a convention of states called under our Convention of States Action’s (COSA) resolution could repeal the 2nd Amendment, eliminate border security and other scary-sounding outcomes. Our resolution provides no such authority. The COSA resolution allows amendment proposals that: 1) limit the size, scope and jurisdiction of the federal government, 2) discuss term limits and 3) restore fiscal restraints. These proposals would redirect the federal government toward their enumerated powers. When I hear the claims of part-time Constitutionalists, I ask for a list of the 38 states who would agree with any of the proposals they fear. To be frank, I’ve never received that list because it doesn’t exist.
Beginning in the 1960s these and other claims were fabricated by radical-left anti-constitutional groups. They carry on to this day. These groups include: the Soros funded Common Cause and Democracy 21, along with La Raza, AFL-CIO, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Center for American Progress and others. The complete list can be found here. They disparage the Constitution because it stands as an impediment to their totalitarian goals. Why these part-time constitutionalist groups, such as the Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America and the fringe John Birch Society, would parrot the same talking points of these groups is beyond me.
At a certain point, an honest person would have to ask this question: “If I agree with organizations I oppose on every other policy issue, then why would I agree with their stance on Article V?” I will leave that to them to figure out. In the meantime, we will continue to advocate for and defend the US Constitution. ALL. OF. THE. CONSTITUTION.
In liberty,
Brett
P.S. It is important to note these part-time constitutionalists do not oppose Congress’ authority to propose amendments to the US Constitution. They only oppose the co-equal ability of We The People working through our State Legislatures to propose amendments. Again, it is fair to ask, “Why?”
Please bookmark the Missouri Information Page and share it with family and friends.
Past Blog Posts
Did you miss last week's blog post? No worries, we've got you covered!
Click here to access our archive and see the full history of the blog.
