2 votes

Article V Convention

Before Ron Paul announced his candidacy for president in 2007, greatly intensifying the liberty movement, I was involved in discussions with a diverse group of people from across the political spectrum who were aware of and concerned about the growing disregard for constitutional restraints.

One of the people I spoke to frequently was Joel Hirschhorn, author of Delusional Democracy. By 2007, he had joined with some other people and formed something called "Friends of the Article V Convention", which is here: foavc.org.

Just like some on the right like Mark Levin who are now supporting this idea, Joel and his group have many reasons why they believe an Article V constitutional convention would be helpful. [Related Daily Paul Thread about Mark Levin]

Alexander Hamilton describes Article V in Federalist Paper #85.

Eisenhower made the following comments about the convention:

"Through their state legislatures and without regard to the federal government, the people can demand a convention to propose amendments that can and will reverse any trends they see as fatal to true representative government."

Personally, I have some problems with the convention that I have seen echoed from others. Here are my top six:

(1) In the original constitutional convention, the stated goal was only to amend the articles of confederation but instead we got a whole new document. It could happen again.

(2) Since the government is not even abiding by the current constitution, what would amending it or creating a new one accomplish?

(3) What is the enforcement mechanism since the states do not have their own military forces like they did when article V was written?

(4) Dr. Paul has often claimed that the culture must change and people's thinking must change for there to be liberty. If we had a convention right now, would it be libertarian? If that were true and that is where the country is at, why didn't they elect Dr. Paul in overwhelming numbers?

(5) Our current constitution has issues but the largest problem is that it is not followed. This at the very least allows us to claim the government is not following the constitution. What if we end up with a constitution that justifies and legalizes the tyrannical institutions and actions we see now?

(6) The state governments are hardly better than fedgov and they've sold out all their real authority. How would a bunch of fed wanna-be politicians in state offices somehow magically end up working for the people in a convention when they're against the people now?

What do you think about this issue? Should we have an article V convention or is this madness?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm afraid we're past the point where alterations will help

and moving rapidly towards where abolition is the only solution.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,..." - DOI