Earlier this month, I posted a couple of articles about a conservative schism on the proposition of an Article V convention of States. A retired trial lawyer, pseudonymously known as Publius Huldah, is an articulate dissenter. She believes, as we all do, that the Constitution has been ignored, usurped and outright spat upon. We even agree that the States, to a certain extent, are willing accomplices. However, we disagree on the means to set our ship aright. Publius believes in education and nullification. I do too, however, we’re witnessing nullification of our immigration laws in California; immigration and naturalization is an enumerated power given to Congress under Article One, Section Eight. So much for nullification.
Publius Huldah also raised an important point about certain aspects of Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments: once you limit the powers of these bureaucracies in an amendment, they are formally recognized as constitutional. That is an important consideration. As of now, these bureaucracies are operating outside the scope of the Constitution. Their existence is an affront to our federalist system.
I will say she goes off the rails when conflating a constitutional convention with a convention of States by using the Federalist Papers. Yes, Madison and Hamilton warned about a second constitutional convention, but that was because the Anti-Federalist were raising hell about a Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists wanted protection from an abusive central government. They had concerns about the presidency, elastic clauses and an “independent judiciary.” The proposed constitution was yet to be ratified. Madison and Hamilton didn’t want to go back to the drawing board. As far as I’m concerned, Publius Huldah lost points on that argument.
She also referenced the Congressional Research Service’s interpretation of an Article V convention of States. This so-called “non-partisan” think tank suggest that the States can only apply for a convention to Congress and that Congress will determine the delegates and rules within a proposed convention. Mind you, this is a D.C. centric organization whose sole customer is the U.S. Congress. Did you expect them to come to any other conclusion?
Let’s take a look at the wording of Article V. as written in The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Conventions Debates. The reason I’m citing this version is because of the rampant capitalization in other text. That kind of bastardization would have a very different meaning as the one intended by the Framers. :
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, 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, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress; Provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth Section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
The capitalization of Congress and the Senate denotes formal bodies which distinguishes itself from all others. Look further and you’ll notice the word congress in lower case. That word has a whole different meaning when used in this manner.
Congress: a national legislative body, especially that of the US. The US Congress, which meets at the Capitol in Washington, D.C.
As opposed to congress: a formal meeting or series of meetings for discussion between delegates, especially those from a political party or labor union or from within a particular discipline.
Almost every website abused capitalization which misconstrued original intent. How about the word application? Remember, the Congressional Research Services stated that the States have to apply to Congress for a convention. Here is the definition of application:
Application: a formal request to an authority for something
Or
Application: the action of putting something into operation
Again, the Congressional Research Services is an arm of Congress. They are not an arbiter for a convention of States. I’m sure Publius Huldah means well and raises important points, but let’s not venture into conspiracy theories. God knows there are enough of them out there.
Source:
http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/
No comments:
Post a Comment