Convention of States

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: index » documents » answers » response_article_by_publius_huldah
documents:answers:response_article_by_publius_huldah

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
documents:answers:response_article_by_publius_huldah [2020/02/18 16:42] – Oliver Wolcottdocuments:answers:response_article_by_publius_huldah [2020/02/26 18:08] – Oliver Wolcott
Line 10: Line 10:
 Anonymous blogger Publius Huldah attacks the Founder's solution for a runaway federal government with a series of ad hominems and misdirections. A perpetual naysayer, she can propose no better solution of her own, other than the extra-constitutional doctrine of nullification. Anonymous blogger Publius Huldah attacks the Founder's solution for a runaway federal government with a series of ad hominems and misdirections. A perpetual naysayer, she can propose no better solution of her own, other than the extra-constitutional doctrine of nullification.
  
-Huldah betrays her lack of credibility in the opening line of her email when she says there is no such thing as a Convention of States. Contrary to her assumption, that phrase is not a fabrication of ours. It comes from the very first Article V application which was filed by the state of Virginia in 1789.((1. 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 258-59 (J. Gales, Sr. ed., 1834) (H.R. May 5, 1789), available at [[http://article5library.org/gettext.php?doc=1418|http://article5library.org/gettext.php?doc=1418]].)) If she objects to that phrase, she had best take it up with the Founders.+Huldah betrays her lack of credibility in the opening line of her email when she says there is no such thing as a Convention of States. Contrary to her assumption, that phrase is not a fabrication of ours. It comes from the very first Article V application which was filed by the state of Virginia in 1789. ((1 ANNALS OF CONG. 258-59 (J. Gales, Sr. ed., 1834) (H.R. May 5, 1789), available at [[http://article5library.org/gettext.php?doc=1418|http://article5library.org/gettext.php?doc=1418]].)) If she objects to that phrase, she had best take it up with the Founders.
  
 The bulk of her article is a giant ad hominem directed against our organization and Professor Robert Natelson. Behind all this bluster, her argument rests on two easily refuted facts: (1) the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a runaway convention, and (2) James Madison had concerns that Article V didn't lay out the convention process in sufficient detail. I have already debunked the first claim as a myth in my response to Mr. DeWeese, so here I will focus on the second. The bulk of her article is a giant ad hominem directed against our organization and Professor Robert Natelson. Behind all this bluster, her argument rests on two easily refuted facts: (1) the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a runaway convention, and (2) James Madison had concerns that Article V didn't lay out the convention process in sufficient detail. I have already debunked the first claim as a myth in my response to Mr. DeWeese, so here I will focus on the second.
  
-It is true that at the Constitutional Convention Madison raised some questions about "the form, quorum, &c" of such a convention. But according to Madison's own notes, **the motion to add a Convention of States to Article V passed "nem. con." "without objection."**((5 DEBATES ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 551 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 1827), available at [[http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1909/1314.05_Bk.pdf|http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1909/1314.05_Bk.pdf]].)) Apparently Madison had his doubts put to rest, or he didn't consider them important enough to vote against the proposed change to Article V. If a Convention of States were the terrible constitutional reset button that Huldah describes, surely Madison, or at least one of the other Framers, would have voted against it.+It is true that at the Constitutional Convention Madison raised some questions about "the form, quorum, &c" of such a convention. But according to Madison's own notes, **the motion to add a Convention of States to Article V passed "nem. con." "without objection."** ((5 DEBATES ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 551 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 1827), available at [[http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1909/1314.05_Bk.pdf|http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1909/1314.05_Bk.pdf]].)) Apparently Madison had his doubts put to rest, or he didn't consider them important enough to vote against the proposed change to Article V. If a Convention of States were the terrible constitutional reset button that Huldah describes, surely Madison, or at least one of the other Framers, would have voted against it.
  
 As it turns out, the Founders strongly supported it. In fact, Madison later expressed his staunch support for [[historicaldocuments:constitution#article_v|Article V]] in [[historicaldocuments:fedpapers:federalist43|Federalist No. 43]]. In praise of Article V he wrote: As it turns out, the Founders strongly supported it. In fact, Madison later expressed his staunch support for [[historicaldocuments:constitution#article_v|Article V]] in [[historicaldocuments:fedpapers:federalist43|Federalist No. 43]]. In praise of Article V he wrote:
Line 30: Line 30:
 ===== End Notes ===== ===== End Notes =====
  
-{{tag>nullification runaway_convention Madison Convention_of_States}}+{{tag>nullification runaway_convention Madison Convention_of_States Publius_Huldah DeWeese }}
  
  
documents/answers/response_article_by_publius_huldah.txt · Last modified: 2022/01/01 13:07 by Oliver Wolcott