Toward an Annual Article V State Amendments Convention Part I

The Framers envisioned a free people would keep and improve their republic through Article V, and not through the social justice whims of nine unaccountable lawyers. Enlightenment philosophers and our Framers recognized that whereas power is aggressive, liberty is passive, and unless actively pursued, liberty will always fade in the face of encroaching power.

Much of America has come to accept as final the often fanciful mutterings of the scotus. As illustrated in its Roe, Lawrence, and Obergefell opinions, scotus not only supplanted the supreme law of the land, it trashed the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Its June 2015 decisions alone blew the lid off what remained of limited and free government; without saying, it formalized the Progressive dream of a “living and breathing” Constitution.

But be of good cheer, for there is an escape clause. These and many other decades’ worth of outrages and assaults on free government and society do not have to stand. Scotus is supreme among courts, but is inferior to God and the people acting in their sovereign capacity. It is through the Article V state convention amendment process that We the People can exert sovereign authority above and beyond scotus to not only repeal the 17th Amendment, but its evil offspring as well, for an Article V state amendments convention can reverse every scotus decision that is inconsistent with free government.

Are only good outcomes guaranteed from the Article V process? Of course not, but no people in history ever met in convention for the purpose of enslaving themselves. Like the United States, other previously free societies ran aground on the shoals of tyranny. Some famously extricated themselves.

Over their long republic, the Romans expelled the Tarquins, created consuls, admitted plebeians to marry patricians which rendered them capable of magisterial office, divided lands won from their enemies, erected tribunes to defend the rights of the commons, appointed and then destroyed the Decemviri, created military tribunes, created dictators. As the times required, a people covetous of liberty stepped back from encroaching despotism and restored free government. They deserve our attention.

Seventeenth century Stuart England was a horrid mess of civil and religious wars, revolutions, a dictatorship, and near absolute monarchy. When James II fled to France, Parliament met in convention to deal with the crisis. The subsequent Declaration of Rights and coronation of William and Mary in 1689 returned England to the path toward free government.

The enormity of an Article V state convention, whether congressionally sanctioned or not, cannot be overstated. In the weeks leading to a convention, our nation will be consumed like never before in actual debate over the purpose of government and how far it has strayed from its designed purposes. A 21st century peaceful rising of the sovereign American people would be the equivalent of the 18th century “shot heard ‘round the world,” for it could mean the rebirth of the American tradition of free government. Not seen since the ratification debates of 1787-1788, anticipation of a state amendments convention will engender national discussion over the foundational maxims of the American republic.

There is a lot of cleaning up to do. Scotus and the administrative state deposited a fetid crust of anti-freedom, anti-constitutional diktats on a once free people. In view of the sheer volume and regularity of Leftist assaults from the executive and judicial branches, the states should meet annually in convention. Too hard? Impossible? All that is necessary is to meet once, and upon completion of the business at hand, adjourn until a specified date the next year. By never adjourning sine die, and always rescheduling, the states establish a de facto standing and regular amendments convention. America has the means at her fingertips to regularly improve her institutions, to keep them on the straight path which could lead them to perfection.

It is only through the assertion of our God-given societal right to frame our government, that scotus along with the rest of the D.C. elites will know that a legitimate power well above and beyond their control will year after year examine and if necessary, reverse any assault on free government. The Article V state amendments convention could remain a recurring, established feature of the American governing scene by resolving to meet, for instance, every year a few weeks after scotus issues its summer decisions. Knowing that the only earthly power higher than themselves will immediately look over their shoulders and judge the judges, the rampant and unhinged social justice warrior temperament of scotus will be subdued.

Avarice and ambition, man’s tendency to abuse power for personal enrichment is active in all governments at all times. By comparison, lady liberty is somnolent. If never awakened, she will eventually die in her sleep. Through Article V, the sovereign American people can regularly nudge her awake, and together they can take stock of the health and condition of free government.

Precious little time remains.

Please join the Convention of States. Sign our COS Petition.

12 thoughts on “Toward an Annual Article V State Amendments Convention Part I

  1. Buck Wheaton

    The first restraint upon government is by a limited budget, and thus by limited funds. But when government gives itself power to create near-infinite money out of thin air, then it has near-infinite funding of near-infinite bureaucracy by which to create and enforce near-infinite regulations each having the weight of law.

    Government also buys favor and support by funding enough “benefits” that almost half of all households in the US receive some form of direct government money. It can seize an unlimited amount of private land and pay ‘fair market value’ as Susette Kelo of New London, Connecticut found out.

    The first order of business of an Article V convention of the States must be to restrain government’s ability to create more money than the citizens want to send in the form of taxes upon themselves. We must stop near-infinite money so we stop near-infinite government.

  2. Rodney Dodsworth Post author

    Yes, I cannot imagine an Article V convention that doesn’t address spending.

    Depending on how the applications are counted, we are near the 34 state threshold.

    No matter the number of applications, I doubt congress will ever call a convention. There is too much power and money at risk.

  3. Bill Walker

    Dear Sir (or Madam),

    I read your story about the convention. You made some errors of fact. First, you failed to mention that a convention is currently mandated. There is no second given your entire story is therefore inaccurate. It requires a numeric count of two thirds of the several state legislatures or 34 applications from 34 states (based on 50 states) to cause a convention call. If you refer to the record of state applications which can be read at http://www.foavc.org you’ll find applications from 49 states are recorded in the Congressional Record. The record shows the states have met the two thirds requirement of Article V TEN TIMES! TEN CONVENTIONS! And you haven’t mentioned this fact once! See: http://www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Numeric.htm If you believe applications must be on the same subject, which is of course false, as the Constitution only demands a numeric count of applying states, that false standard is also satisfied. FOUR TIMES! FOUR CONVENTIONS! See: http://www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Amendment_Subject.htm . Please try to be more accurate in the future. Thank you.

    Bill Walker
    Co-Founder FOAVC
    http://www.foavc.org

    1. Rodney Dodsworth Post author

      Bill,

      I addressed the identical applications issue in my February 23rd, and March 9th, 10th and 15th posts.

      In my series on “The Danger of Identical Applications,” I made the case that since congress has received hundreds of applications in the past without a call to convention, it will likely never do so in the future. It is up to the states to meet in convention on their own.

      They can be viewed:
      February 23
      March 9
      March 10
      March 15

  4. Bill Walker

    So your answer is that because Congress has violated the Constitution, the states should do likewise? I notice you discuss “identical” applications, but do not address the method of count called for in the Constitution, a numeric count of applying states which at present means 10 conventions. I also note you do not discuss the fact that the reason Congress has never called a convention is because (1) it has no official list of applications and (2) NARA has refused to release the applications such that such a list can be created. Do you still believe given these facts that the answer to the matter is total overthrow of the entire Constitution by proceeding on a course that is entirely unconstitutional? And please, do not say the states called the 1787 convention as your justification. As I show in the links within the material I sent the convention was called by Congress and was a committee of Congress and was paid by Congress. In short it was federal, not state.

  5. Dale Terry

    Just a note of fact that should be added to this conversation. Yes, the convention of 1787 was a Federal Amendments Convention. An Article V Convention calls for a Federal Amendments Convention. The 1787 Convention is the ONLY Federal Amendments Convention in our History. Our founding fathers set the precedent for all future Federal Amendments Conventions. So we can rest assured that if this type of Convention is convened we should not be surprised if the whole U.S. Constitution is tossed and , or the rules of ratification would be changed.Does this sounds like a Runaway Convention anyone? Not one delegate was ever charged with the crime of overstepping their instructions at that Convention.These rules are in play at any Federal Amendments Convention thanks to our founding fathers.

    1. b

      There is a specific reason no “delegate was ever charged with the crime of overstepping their instructions at that [1787] Convention. It was not a crime and the delegates did not commit it. I believe I’ve sent this material to you before but just in case you missed it, I’ll repeat here. The issue of a runaway convention was officially discussed and by an official vote of Congress resolved on September 27, 1787. In fact, it was the first issue discussed by that body. The sum of the nearly unanimous vote in Congress was that Congress had not exceeded its authority in proposing the new Constitution. The convention, as I’m sure you know, was in fact a committee of Congress. Congress paid the bills of the committee which submitted its bill to Congress. The cost of the convention was approximately $1165.90 some $30,000 in today’s funds. As that vote of Congress was done by those members of Congress who issued the call in February, 1787 and thus were fully aware of their intent, that vote must be conclusive on us. We have no basis to second guess those who actually made the decisions of the call and its result and were responsible for both. You can read the evidence at http://www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Runaway_Convention.htm .

  6. Dale Terry

    Obviously you don’t understand Rodney, I said our founding fathers set the precedent for any future Federal Amendments Convention not the John Birch Society.

  7. I CDale Terry

    So who are you ? I don’t recall having any conversation with you. Since you commented I will respond in kind. I won’t talk about where we differ such as to your link to FoAv. That link is full of bs. With that said, I will concentrate on where we do agree. Using the logic that what you didn’t talk about are the things that you and I agree such as you not mentioning anything about the delegates throwing out the Articles of Confederation nor was anything mentioned about the change in the ratification process. Now, if you disagree with the above statement please write in response as to your position on the subject matter. I do not want to put words into your mouth. I choose to call the 1787 Convention a Runaway Convention. What do you call the 1787 Convention. Actually it doesn’t matter what you or I call that convention it won’t change the facts as to what happened at that Convention. Have a good day.

  8. Bill Walker

    Be my guest to believe what you will. But public record proves you wrong. Period. An official vote by Congress is conclusive meaning you are entitled to your opinion but the facts prove you wrong. People who do that on the Internet are generally disregarded.

Comments are closed.