User Tools

Site Tools


documents:answers:real_answers

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
documents:answers:real_answers [2016/01/06 04:53]
Oliver Wolcott [Our Constitution is Not the Illegitimate Result of a Runaway Convention.]
documents:answers:real_answers [2017/10/24 21:13]
Oliver Wolcott
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 By Rita M. Dunaway, J.D. By Rita M. Dunaway, J.D.
 +
 +Tags: \\ 
 +{{tag>​con-con Congress convention Constitutional_Convention congress_control convention_of_states Bill_of_rights fear runaway_convention one_vote safeguards state_power proposing federal_abuse}}
 +\\ 
 +
  
 Beneath the cloud of dust that has been raised by those who will oppose Article V's convention mechanism at any cost, there are real answers to be found to genuine questions and concerns about the process. These answers, as you will see, are grounded in combinations of historical fact, law, precedent, and logic. Beneath the cloud of dust that has been raised by those who will oppose Article V's convention mechanism at any cost, there are real answers to be found to genuine questions and concerns about the process. These answers, as you will see, are grounded in combinations of historical fact, law, precedent, and logic.
Line 91: Line 96:
 The argument that our Constitution is the result of a "​runaway convention"​ that was called by the Confederation Congress to "​solely revise the Articles of Confederation"​ is a myth that is easily debunked by an examination of historical documents—the language and date of the Virginia call for the convention, and the instructions given to its delegates as well as the instructions given by the other states to their delegates. The argument that our Constitution is the result of a "​runaway convention"​ that was called by the Confederation Congress to "​solely revise the Articles of Confederation"​ is a myth that is easily debunked by an examination of historical documents—the language and date of the Virginia call for the convention, and the instructions given to its delegates as well as the instructions given by the other states to their delegates.
  
-The Confederation Congress did //not// "​call"​ the 1787 Constitutional Convention, it merely made a recommendation. It had no authority to call a convention under the Articles of Confederation— but the states did retain this authority as an aspect of their residual sovereignty. For a complete discussion, see this [[https://​d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/​conventionofstates/​pages/​145/​attachments/​original/​1410015954/​Can-We-Trust-the-Constitution-2.01.pdf?​1410015954|article]][[https://​d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/​conventionofstates/​pages/​145/​attachments/​original/​1410015954/​Can-We-Trust-the-Constitution-2.01.pdf?​1410015954| ]] by constitutional attorney and Article V expert, Michael Farris.+The Confederation Congress did //not// "​call"​ the 1787 Constitutional Convention, it merely made a recommendation. It had no authority to call a convention under the Articles of Confederation— but the states did retain this authority as an aspect of their residual sovereignty. For a complete discussion, see this [[https://​d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/​conventionofstates/​pages/​145/​attachments/​original/​1410015954/​Can-We-Trust-the-Constitution-2.01.pdf?​1410015954|article]] [[https://​d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/​conventionofstates/​pages/​145/​attachments/​original/​1410015954/​Can-We-Trust-the-Constitution-2.01.pdf?​1410015954| ]] by constitutional attorney and Article V expert, Michael Farris.
  
 ===== Conclusion ===== ===== Conclusion =====
documents/answers/real_answers.txt · Last modified: 2017/10/24 21:13 by Oliver Wolcott