Convention of States Detractors Point to Articles of Confederation

In order to take care of a problem, one must first recognize that you have a problem. The Convention of States Project has brought to fore Washington D.C.’s nullification of our Constitution. Citizens are up in arms as to what to do about it. The most obvious is to have a national discussion about this usurpation and rectify it in an Article V convention of states. Our detractors would rather do nothing for fear of a runaway convention.


I engaged a couple of dissenters so as to get a better understanding. They seem to hang their hat on the 1787 convention and the fate of the Articles of Confederation. Mind you, this is the same convention that produced our Constitution; yet, this is their example.


First of all, the Articles of Confederation was more of an alliance than a governing body. Its strictures made laws impossible to enforce. To give you an idea on the impotent nature of the Confederation here is an excerpt from The Genius of the People by Charles L. Mee Jr.:

Congress, meanwhile, was sometimes unable to get a quorum to conduct business. When it could get a quorum, it found it could not always enforce the laws it passed. When it tried to improve its situation by amending Articles, a single state could block an amendment. Some states failed to pay taxes; some states failed to live up to the treaty of 1783 that ended the war with Britain; states that had international ports taxed the exports of states that did not. Whereas the British could coordinate a trade policy to punish Americans commercial interests, the Americans could not coordinate a retaliatory policy to force the British to reverse their practices. In sum, the United States government could not reliably levy taxes, could not ensure that it would honor its treaty obligations. It was not clear, in fact, that it could be called a government at all, and some feared that the Revolution, for which so many had fought so hard, could still be lost in the turbulence of this postwar disorder.


What a hot mess! Keep in mind, Rhode Island didn’t send one delegate to the Philadelphia convention effectively rendering, under the Articles of Confederation, that meeting moot. And this is what the detractors of a Convention of States are hanging their hats on.


Publius Huldah is an articulate critic of the Convention of States Project. She frequently quotes the Federalist Papers, primarily Madison and Hamilton, in her presentation. I find that ironic since it was these two “conspirators” who helped usurp the Articles of Confederation and installed our Constitution. It was these two who vehemently advocated for a new constitution through what later became known as the Federalist Papers! Isn’t that delicious?


The Articles of Confederation was discredited; it was a well-recognized failure. No one can say that about the Constitution. The American people will not a allow a cabal to throw our beloved governing document on the trash heap of history. Yet, that's what Washington D.C. has done. That’s why we’re fighting for a Convention of States. That’s why we are trying to right a wrong.