Convention of States

User Tools

Site Tools

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

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:jbsqa [2015/12/29 18:46] – Oliver Wolcottdocuments:answers:answering_the_john_birch_society_questions_about_article_v_jbsqa [2019/02/08 22:12] – Oliver Wolcott
Line 3: Line 3:
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
 ====== Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V ====== ====== Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V ======
 +{{page>:socials}}
 [[http://www.conventionofstates.com/answers_to_john_birch_society|(Source)]] [[http://www.conventionofstates.com/answers_to_john_birch_society|(Source)]]
 {{tag>JBS What_problem Congress_role Delegates Proposing Ratification Who_dominates? Supreme_Court State_Power 10th_Amendment ERA 16th_Amendment 17th_Amendment New_Consititution }} {{tag>JBS What_problem Congress_role Delegates Proposing Ratification Who_dominates? Supreme_Court State_Power 10th_Amendment ERA 16th_Amendment 17th_Amendment New_Consititution }}
Line 8: Line 9:
  
 **Michael Farris, JD, LLM** **Michael Farris, JD, LLM**
-[[documents:answers:jbsqa:#farris|(Bio)]]+[[#farris|(Bio)]]
  
 The John Birch Society describes itself as a constitutionalist organization, yet it is highly critical of a very important component of the Constitution. The JBS does not like Article V's provision that allows the States to unilaterally propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution. The John Birch Society describes itself as a constitutionalist organization, yet it is highly critical of a very important component of the Constitution. The JBS does not like Article V's provision that allows the States to unilaterally propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution.
Line 25: Line 26:
 The central problem with American government is the belief that the purpose of government is to provide for our needs. Washington, D.C. carefully nurtures this belief because it serves its own prime purpose—the aggregation of federal power. Accordingly, Washington, D.C. has gradually amassed overwhelming power that is clearly outside of the boundaries that the Framers intended when they wrote the Constitution. The central problem with American government is the belief that the purpose of government is to provide for our needs. Washington, D.C. carefully nurtures this belief because it serves its own prime purpose—the aggregation of federal power. Accordingly, Washington, D.C. has gradually amassed overwhelming power that is clearly outside of the boundaries that the Framers intended when they wrote the Constitution.
  
-This improper aggregation of power crisis, in fact, arises indirectly from the Constitution itself. The Constitution permits the federal judiciary to be the final interpreter of the Constitution.((Some argue that the Founders never intended for the Supreme Court to have the power of judicial review. History does not support this assertion. +This improper aggregation of power crisis, in fact, arises indirectly from the Constitution itself. The Constitution permits the federal judiciary to be the final interpreter of the Constitution.((Some argue that the Founders never intended for the Supreme Court to have the power of judicial review. History does not support this assertion. \\  
 +\\ 
  
-In the records of the Connecticut ratification convention we find a very clear statement on this issue from Oliver Ellsworth. Ellsworth was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a delegate to the ratifying convention in his home state of Connecticut and was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1796 to 1800. Here is what he said in the Connecticut convention: +In the records of the Connecticut ratification convention we find a very clear statement on this issue from Oliver Ellsworth. Ellsworth was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a delegate to the ratifying convention in his home state of Connecticut and was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1796 to 1800. Here is what he said in the Connecticut convention: \\  
 +\\ 
  
-//If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. On the other hand, if the states go beyond their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation upon the federal government the law is void; and upright, independent judges will declare it to be so.// +//If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. On the other hand, if the states go beyond their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation upon the federal government the law is void; and upright, independent judges will declare it to be so.// \\  
 +\\ 
  
-A very similar statement was made by James Wilson during the state ratifying convention for Pennsylvania. Wilson also possesses a tremendous resume. He was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, and was one of George Washington’s initial appointees to the Supreme Court. +A very similar statement was made by James Wilson during the state ratifying convention for Pennsylvania. Wilson also possesses a tremendous resume. He was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, and was one of George Washington’s initial appointees to the Supreme Court. \\  
 +\\  
 +Wilson said: \\  
 +\\ 
  
-Wilson said: +//If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress, the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare such law to be null and void; for the power of the Constitution predominates. Any thing, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.// \\  
 +\\ 
  
-//If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress, the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare such law to be null and void; for the power of the Constitution predominates. Any thing, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.//  +The [[historicaldocuments:fedpapers:federalist78|Federalist No. 78]] contains yet another declaration to this same effect: \\  
- +\\  
-The [[historicaldocuments:fedpapers:federalist78|Federalist No. 78]] contains yet another declaration to this same effect:  +//The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.// \\  
- +\\  
-//The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.//  +There is nothing to the contrary which appears in any place in the drafting or ratifying conventions. The original meaning of the Supremacy Clause is quite clear. When Congress passes a law that is contrary to its power in the Constitution, it is the duty of the judges to declare it void.\\  
- +\\                                      
-There is nothing to the contrary which appears in any place in the drafting or ratifying conventions. The original meaning of the Supremacy Clause is quite clear. When Congress passes a law that is contrary to its power in the Constitution, it is the duty of the judges to declare it void.+
 )) Because the Framers did not have any meaningful experience with the practice of judicial review, they did not construct adequate checks and balances vis-à-vis the judiciary. )) Because the Framers did not have any meaningful experience with the practice of judicial review, they did not construct adequate checks and balances vis-à-vis the judiciary.
  
Line 168: Line 175:
 **If we aren't following the Constitution now, would it be logical to assume that once we pass amendments to the Constitution, then the new amendments and the Constitution will be followed?** **If we aren't following the Constitution now, would it be logical to assume that once we pass amendments to the Constitution, then the new amendments and the Constitution will be followed?**
  
-We agree completely with the sentiment that, on the whole, our country is not following the original meaning of the Constitution. However, there are certain subjects where the Constitution has been interpreted accurately in light of original intent. For example, the Second Amendment has been on good footing lately. The Full +We agree completely with the sentiment that, on the whole, our country is not following the original meaning of the Constitution. However, there are certain subjects where the Constitution has been interpreted accurately in light of original intent. For example, the Second Amendment has been on good footing lately. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is functioning well. Term limits on the President are being obeyed.
- +
-<sup>2</sup> Even if Congress chooses State ratification conventions as the method for ratification, the State legislatures choose the method of selecting the delegates for such conventions. If the States believe that the process has been abused, they will surely choose a method for naming the delegates that will follow their desires. For example, nothing would stop a State from saying that the ratifying convention would be composed of delegates appointed by each member of the house and senate, with each representative getting to choose one delegate. +
- +
-Faith and Credit Clause is functioning well. Term limits on the President are being obeyed.+
  
 The core answer to this question relates back to the answer to the first question. Our government is operating in substantial compliance with the Constitution //as interpreted by the Supreme// //Court. //Thus, the government has a plausible claim that it is// //currently obeying the Constitution. The core answer to this question relates back to the answer to the first question. Our government is operating in substantial compliance with the Constitution //as interpreted by the Supreme// //Court. //Thus, the government has a plausible claim that it is// //currently obeying the Constitution.
Line 352: Line 355:
 [[https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/145/attachments/original/1410015960/Answers-to-JBS-arguments_Long-Version.pdf?1410015960|Click here to download a PDF]] of this document. [[https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/145/attachments/original/1410015960/Answers-to-JBS-arguments_Long-Version.pdf?1410015960|Click here to download a PDF]] of this document.
 ---- ----
 +-----------------
 +{{page>:wiki_footer}}
 +------------------
 ===== End notes ===== ===== End notes =====
  
Line 372: Line 378:
  
 //Farris has been awarded the Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship by the Heritage Foundation, a Lifetime Achievement Award by The Family Foundation of Virginia, and was named one of the Top 100 Faces in Education of the 20//<sup>//th//</sup>// Century by Education Week magazine.// //Farris has been awarded the Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship by the Heritage Foundation, a Lifetime Achievement Award by The Family Foundation of Virginia, and was named one of the Top 100 Faces in Education of the 20//<sup>//th//</sup>// Century by Education Week magazine.//
 +
 +
  
documents/answers/answering_the_john_birch_society_questions_about_article_v_jbsqa.txt · Last modified: 2021/02/28 12:10 by Oliver Wolcott