Slide 16
“Never say never because limits, like fears, are often just an illusion.” ~ Michael Jordan
CLAIM: The ratification process will make it unlikely that a bad amendment would be passed. FACT.
The opposition continues fear-mongering with this next undocumented talking point:
A convention cannot be controlled, and politicians today are not of the same caliber as the men who wrote the Constitution. Nobody knows what will happen; the fix is in, and these tyrants will jam through an agenda that will destroy our country.
However, even a brief exploration of history reveals the facts from which to draw an educated and informed conclusion.
The Framers knew the Articles of Confederation were weak, flawed, and were not working. They also knew the document could be amended, but only by a unanimous decision by all states. The states were sovereign and enmeshed in rivalries with one another as each sought to gain an advantage for their citizens over other states. Given the climate and circumstances, it was clear to the framers that modifying the Articles of Confederation would be nearly impossible. And indeed, the Articles of Confederation were never amended.
During the 1786 Annapolis Convention, as the defects of that document became apparent, the delegates sent a report to the states suggesting the states get together and work out a plan to fix the glaring issues. That meeting became the 1787 Philadelphia Convention.
During the 1787 convention, two factions formed:
- Federalists - supported ratification because they favored a strong central government and believed the Constitution provided adequate protection for individual rights.
- Antifederalists - had concerns about a central government that had too much power, and favored the system of government under the Articles of Confederation but were adamant the Constitution needed a defined “Bill of Rights” to limit the national government.
From May 25th through September 17, 1787, when the Constitution was signed and sent to the Confederation Congress to be distributed to the states for ratification, these factions debated every word, and at times those debates became very heated.
The states issued commissions for 70 delegates to attend this convention; only 55 made the trip to Philadelphia. On the last day, 41 were in attendance, of which 38 signed the draft document (John Dickinson could not attend the signing ceremony but had another delegate sign for him, so the draft Constitution had support from 39 of the delegates.)
During this convention, the commissioners forged compromise after compromise to come to a consensus that a majority would support. Drafting the document was the easy part; the real struggle started when the states held the ratification conventions.
The Antifederalists wanted the state ratification conventions to propose amendments and attach them to the document; the Federalists wanted the document ratified as is and propose amendments once the Constitution was in place to let experience guide how the document should be altered. Both factions started writing essays to bolster public support for their point of view.
The two factions had similar concerns and beliefs on many topics:
- Belief in Individual Rights and Liberties
- Concerns over tyranny in the federal government
- Aimed to create a stable and effective government
- The goal to form a government for the people and the common good
- Their beliefs regarding true human nature and the purpose of government
Many Antifederalists believed the Constitution was adequate for the structure of the new national government; they just insisted the document include a “Bill of Rights” to ensure the national government remained in its limited role.
Both factions set the bar for ratification as three-quarters of the several states (one of the highest legal bars in this country). They agreed this requirement would mandate a vast consensus for any constitutional amendment to pass (They knew the Articles of Confederation set the bar too high). This compromise was seen as a balance between making amendments possible and preventing frequent or impulsive changes. Its aim was to protect the stability of the Constitution while allowing for modifications to be made safely and with careful thought
From Slide 14, we find out Justice Scalia’s thoughts on this lofty requirement:
“...I figured out, at one time, what percentage of the populace could prevent an Amendment to the Constitution. And, if you take a bare majority in the smallest states by population, I think something less than two percent of the people can prevent a Constitutional Amendment. It ought to be hard, but it shouldn’t be that hard.”
COSA PA hates to disagree with Justice Scalia on this, but it will only take 13 politicians to stop an unpopular amendment, the leaders of the state legislative assemblies not allowing the proposal to be brought to the floor for a vote.
As for the character of statesmen we have today, watch these two videos from the 2023 Article V Simulation sponsored by Convention of States Foundation held in Williamsburg and decide for yourself if we have people who will honor their oath to “defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
Short video about 2023 simulation (18 min.)
2023 simulation live stream (8hrs.)
