MORE CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Over the yeas I've been occasionally sounding the warning against the idea of convening an article V constitutional convention, and as we've taken yet another step closer to that goal recently (as the following article reveals), I do so again here. Most people know that I am an anti-Federalist. I think our current constitution - the product of the 1787 convention - is a mess and have said so on many occasions. My principal reason for saying it is a mess is that the Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments - is really a Bill of Afterthoughts that were, as we know, amended to the Constitution to win the support of us anti-Federalists at the time. Had the Philadelphia conventioners have been that concerned about natural human rights that come from God, they would have been enumerated in the preamble ab initio and in the original proposed document, rather than tacked on after the fact as a political sop. Here as elsewhere, I am a firm believer that an ordo theologiae exposes the mentality of the people using or advocating it. The telltale clue was in fact provided by Alexander Hamilton in the very first paragraph of the very first Federalist paper, where the country is referred to as an "empire", and not a republic, and we've been living in Hamilton's Horror of an empire - with all its attendant imperial ambitions and corruptions - since then.
Bad as all that is, however, I have also stated repeatedly that I believe the idea of a constitutional convention is even worse, for the simple reason, which again I have stated many times, that we certainly do not want a constitution of the sort that our current political class - the Jeb Bushes, Hillary Clintons, Barack Obamas, Chuck Schumers, Nancy Pelosis - would cobble together. It would make Hamilton's Horror look like a kindergarten nap, and forget about a Bill of Rights, afterthought or no, and there would be no Patrick Henry's or Elbridge Gerry's or even James Madison's to put on any brakes.
With that in mind, ponder the following article shared by V.T., an article with which I am agreed (with the exception of the bad name it gives wolves):
Notice what the inherent problems of a constitutional convention are, because this article spells out the problems point by point, and explicitly:
What are the dangers associated with convening a Con-Con?:
There is no constitutional authority for a limited convention.
There is no guidance on how delegates would be selected.
There is no guidance on who could qualify as a delegate.
There is no guidance on how many delegates each state could send.
There is no provision for stopping a runaway convention.
There is no provision for how rules would be established.
There is no provision for how rules would be enforced.
There is no role provided for the people to play in the process.
There is no power provided for the people to stop a convention once it starts.
There is no description of the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.
There are no rules governing the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.
There is no means provided for either the states or the people to challenge Congress’s choice of the method of ratification.
There is no test provided for a qualifying application submitted by a state.
The acceptance by one Congress of a state application for a convention does not bind subsequent Congresses from accepting that application.
Application for a convention submitted by one state legislature does not prevent subsequent state legislatures from revoking the previous application.
All these issues would be challenged in court and would take years to be decided.
The issues to be addressed at a convention to propose amendments would likely be moot by the time the challenges reached the U.S. Supreme Court for final adjudication.
If 100 percent of registered voters opposed an amendment proposed by a convention, but the requisite number of state legislatures or ratifying conventions (according to the process determined by Congress for consideration of proposed amendments) supported it, then that amendment would become part of the Constitution regardless of the will of the people.
The same scenario is true if a proposed amendment were approved by 100 percent of registered voters but rejected by the ratification conventions or state legislatures (according to the process determined by Congress for consideration of proposed amendments).
If you're wondering why there are no such guidelines, a close examination of these nineteen points in comparison to the original convention will reveal that the original convention - by exceeding its mandate to adjust the original articles of confederation - basically established this state of affairs.
In short, any future constitutional convention is merely an excuse for yet another coup d'etat. Bad as the current system, Hamilton's Horror, is, it is much better than anything our current political class would propose, and I would also aver that calling such a convention when one political party is rabidly Jacobin, and the other nothing but disguised technocracy, is an incredibly bad idea. We have no Madisons, Henrys, or Gerrys, and our problem isn't our current system, but rather, that our current system is being ignored. Don't believe me? Just look at the recent decades' scuffles over the budget, and the fact that every few years or so we have a threat of another government shutdown which is averted at the last minute by yet another "continuing resolution". But does Congress even really author the budgets it passes? No. Does it exercise its oversight in a constitutional manner? And what about money itself? Is the current system constitutional? Are the bills being voted into law actually being read by the people passing it? Do you remember Nancy Pelosi's comment regarding Obamacare that we'll just have to pass it to find out what's in it?
So, no... we do not need another Constitutional Convention to "fix" what is wrong. The original one did not "fix" the Articles of Confederation (which, incidentally, were adequate to the successful prosecution of the war with Britain, but inadequate to the purposes of empire, as Hamilton himself noted in that all important first Federalist paper's first paragraph). The original constitutional convention concocted an entirely new system of government. And maybe we should take those observations of the Philadelphia conventioners to heart, when they observed that it was an adequate system to a religious people. Maybe the problem is therefore not political, or systemic, but rather, cultural, spiritual, and theological. Mis-diagnose the cultural problem as a constitutional problem and summon the wrong solution - a constitutional convention - to deal with that problem? By a bunch of Jacobins and technocrats?
No thank you!
See you on the flip side...
(If you enjoyed today's blog, please share with your friends.)
No Comments
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
A rhetorical question: how does Merlinus Ambrosius conjure up a constitutional stampede?
The Arthurian lore depicts Merlin, as the traditional overseer, of the process of appointing a rightful authority, as a king, who metaphorically, pulls a sword [blade] from a [seed] stone – which, demonstratively, is the metaphorical conclusion of the Old English rune poem, engraved on the Thames Scramasax.
The swapping of tin trade, from Jerusalem to Crimea, made Troy, into a Scythian trading post, and, therefore, a target, in the Assyrian crosshairs, which led to the fall of Troy, followed, by Trojan resettlement in Britain, which intersects, with Scythian Odin resettling in Scandinavia, seven centuries later.
Water density is highest, at +4 Celsius, and, when the surface temperature is +4 Celsius, in a lake, which occurs twice a year, then the wind acts, as a natural aquarium pump, which causes a ‘stampede’, in water rotation, and provides a perfect image, for a social transformation, that occurs naturally.
In Wales, the ‘Lady of the Lake’ brings depth to surface, which sprouts a sword [blade] from a [seed] stone, and causes constitutional stampede.
Wild camping in Snowdonia:
https://youtu.be/_5de7ZNGoHc
I support an Article Five Convention of States and I intend this post to change minds.
Some of the claims made in the critical article are false. There are indeed procedures, outlined in the US Constitution, on how an Article V Convention will be guided.
1. It takes two/thirds of the States to convene a convention, and three/fourths of the States to ratify an Amendment.
2. The US Constitution says that the number of delegates a State sends to a Convention is the number of its members in the House of Representative plus the number of its Senators. For example, if a State has 10 members in the House of Representatives, and two Senators, then it sends 12 delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
3. Another requirement is that a delegate to the Constitutional Convention shall not be a member of Congress.
4. There is no judicial review of Amendments enacted via an Article V Convention of States, just like there was no judicial review of all previous amendments. No court cannot strike down a Constitutional Amendment.
FEARS OF A RUNAWAY CONVENTION ARE UNWARRANTED
Fears that an Article V Convention of States will increase the power of the Federal Government or wipe out some of the Bill of Rights are unwarranted. For one thing, it is highly unlikely that the States will readily give more power to the Federal Government–it would be against their own interest to do so.
Also, it takes a super-majority–75 percent of the States–to enact an amendment. That is a high bar. If anything, good proposals might not get enacted.
WHY AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF STATES IS NEEDED
Congress will not limit its own power. The Founders in their wisdom saw the possibility that Congress might be incapable of solving some problems, and created an alternative mechanism for the people.
For example, we all know that members of Congress can trade stock based on inside information, and become rich by doing so. It would be illegal if you or I did it, but not for Congress members. Also, a Congress member owning stock can cause a conflict of interest. Members of Congress have owned stock in armament companies. That creates a conflict of interest, between the people they are to serve, who might not want war and conflict, and the Military Industrial Complex, who profits from war and thus benefits the holder of stocks of armament companies.
There have been proposals in Congress to limit or outlaw their own members from trading stocks, but it has not gotten anywhere. That should not be surprising, for such legislation would harm their own pecuniary interests.
I submit that it is likely that 75 percent of the States would ratify an Amendment that says something like, “Members of Congress are forbidden from trading the securities of publicly traded companies. Violation of this Amendment entails prison for years.”
There are good proposals that could be enacted: a balanced budget amendment; fixing the number of Supreme Court seats to 9; a member of Congress shall not have the citizenship of another country; single issue bills in Congress. Governor Ron DeSantis proposed a constitutional amendment to ensure that laws applying to U.S. citizens also apply to members of Congress.
Dr. Filostrato is the great architect, in Freemasonry, building Catholic castles, in the Protestant clouds.
In 1782, George Washington used the plural word “superstructures”, in a private, freemasonic letter, which means, that more than one superstructure was intended.
In 1776, by constitutional convention, the superstructures of the U. S. of America, and the U. S. of Europe were created. Latter was kept secret, and codenamed “Illuminati”.
Both Adam Weishaupt, and George Washington, were Jesuit-controlled, Freemasonic, and crypto-Catholic double agents, working, on the Vatican’s imperial and transatlantic plan.
C. S. Lewis defines the “constitutional convention” – i.e. the Tower of Babel – as an oratorical animal stampede, when post- and pre-Narnia intersect – by closing quantum loop, in a karmic reboot.
In the literary work: “The Magician’s Nephew”, by C. S. Lewis, there is a post-apocalyptic “constitutional convention” – an aroused animal gathering – when the new dawn of pre-Narnia is being sung into being, by a bardic lion, named Aslan.
When Lakota’s Black Elk is singing his Six Grandfathers into being, then he names them mountains – whereafter callous and jealous witches, and magicians, have henceforth sought, to carve their own evil faces, into those same mountains – to slay the bardic lion – on the Vatican’s Rushmore stone alter.
Nevertheless, the Lakota’s bardic lion spake thus, paraphrasing: “Creatures, I give you yourselves,” said the strong, happy voice of Aslan. “I give to you forever this land of Narnia. I give you the woods, the fruits, the rivers. I give you the stars and I give you myself. The Dumb Beasts, whom I have not chosen, are yours also. Treat them gently and cherish them, but do not go back to their ways, lest you cease to be Talking Beasts. For out of them you were taken, and into them you can return. Do not so.”
In the literary work: “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader”, C. S. Lewis has his fictional character, Eustace, say, that “in our world, a star is a huge ball of flaming gas”, whereas he has his bardic lion, Aslan, reply, that “even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of”.
“My words are like the stars, that never change.” – Chief Seattle.
BTW, fallen Samaria rose in Crimea is the one, single formula – the lynchpin – that places Crimea on the world map.
It is wise of Trumpy, to upset the applecart, by pursuing such a line of thinking – that annexes the Samarian narrative.
The Vatican is a mafia disturbance, in the U. S. Constitution, whereas the Crimean Asgard is the horses mouth.
In the Bronze Age, the deal – over all deals – was Reason & Logic, a.k.a. Yahweh & Elohim. That is the truth.
Trump eyeing Crimea as ‘international resort’ – Hersh.
https://www.rt.com/russia/614596-trump-crimea-resort-hersh/
BTW, since the U. S. Bible Belt is socially conditioned, to look at Israhell, as Gollum’s most precious, then an alternative approach is needed.
A modern pilgrimage, to ancient Samaria, is routed via Scythian Crimea, through the Darial Gorge, into Median territory, to archeological digs, in Palestine.
But a major problem is that, to begin with, neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution is taught in schools to the vast majority of the population.
Yes, that is exactly the point.
One can say, that the U.S. Constitution is a LOGICAL dictate of conditions, whereas the “bill of afterthoughts” is a REASONABLE amendment.
Note, how I apply the Yin-Yang principle of ‘Reason and Logic’, as a superstructural framework, to explain the genesis of the U.S. Constitution.
In the Bronze Age, the term “Yahweh-Elohim” had precisely the same function, to expres ‘Reason and Logic’ – which produced epistemology.
Due to the high level of abstraction, the mind is aided by myth, as pedagogy, which produces Odin’s two brothers: the Scales of Law.
The epistemic rune rebus:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/scl/fi/dvmgi2tbtzu0itgtyopxf/elijah-rune-rebus.jpg?rlkey=djs9pzxzr5q5s990851n13m99
Indeed.
French commentator Etienne Chouard popularized the idea that the constitution (here meaning the French one) is in any case written by TPTB in order to keep control and avoid any power to the people. Here is a presentation of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaX0DWZ0zhg
He also popularized the conception that the constitution should instead be written by “We the People” or something like that, to make sure that
they do not lock it up again. There are some “constitutional workshops” out there who try to figure out how it could work, but I do not know much more about it.
Étienne Chouard must be a Catholic slave, because Pavlov’s dog is caught, between “virtue and shame”. A wild animal has neither virtue nor shame, and shamans are wild animals.
Scythian Odin is a shaman, toasting the Assyrian empire to hell, by a Scythian skull cup, and, the gospel hero does likewise, at the Last Supper, while toasting the Roman Empire to hell, in a Scythian toast.
Greeks and Romans did neither invent democracy nor republic, because they just emulated the proto-Scythian sons of Jacob, who ruled the twelve tribes, by the Scales of Law.
Only Scythian/Saxon heathenry, by Odin’s two brothers, can balance the Scales of Law – which is toasting the Vatican’s Charlemagne to hell, at Verden.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/awyxw5jzke6tmnk/roman-agent.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/g1y6f9ds6u01tdu/jesuit-jew.jpg
Just as “they” run over the U.S. Constitution; they want a new one.
How about enforcing the one “we” have?
At present; the Judiciary is taking on executive powers.
And that’s just one, of countless violations.
So “they” want to get rid of the U.S. Constitution so they can “legalize” a private government.
A government with teeth – to go after those – who support its Bill of Rights?
A bloodless coup of fascists?
A bloodless coup of communists?
A bloodless coup of technocrats?
Or, all the above?
Superb point: Religion is the primary target.
Culture, being a big part of that.
No doubt – Satan is in the details.
The rep from Texas is a political science graduate who runs a small medical device company… obviously he has political ambitions. The amendment process is there to address their concerns. A constitutional convention now, with the current political class, frightening. There was already a group in the early 1800’s who simply ignored the constitution and it continues. The fear of the profane average man by those of means is an age old condition.
Your remarks regarding members of Congress (at that time) that were excellent thinkers, orators, & debaters brought to mind HBO’s production of “John Adams” (2008), which drew from David McCullough’s exceptional book of the same name.
Here is one clip of a debate for peace with England over a revolution between John Adams (MA) & John Dickinson (PA) that illustrates how convictive, thoughtful, & passionate some of the personalities were back then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDzwtl5Z2cA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUeOCjcgVsE
And since you brought up Alexander Hamilton, this is a GREAT scene from the same production where he has an exchange with Thomas Jefferson that is still the crux of many an argument to this very day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notJuFGXQ9w
At any rate, the debate, in this country, and for this country, rages on…….. long may it continue!
The constitutional convention, of overseas animals, agreed, on reducing their dietary carbon footprint, which came, abruptly, to an end, when the hunger games began.
– George Orwell’s “Animal Farm in the New World”.
CHRISTMAS CARBON PIG
Harry Potter went out looking,
for his pig gone missing,
caused by high rise
in bacon price,
on carbon-taxed cooking.
Voldemort, in world dominion,
called for carbon session,
so his snobby nose
could propose,
ban on smell emission.
Clever was pig, and much able,
spell cast fully capable,
and finest carbon
fried bacon,
kept dancing on table.