Convention of States

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: index » documents » cosproject » surge » article_10-finalconstitutionaloption
documents:cosproject:surge:article_10-finalconstitutionaloption

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
documents:cosproject:surge:article_10-finalconstitutionaloption [2018/03/23 22:18] – Oliver Wolcottdocuments:cosproject:surge:article_10-finalconstitutionaloption [2021/06/13 16:19] (current) – Oliver Wolcott
Line 4: Line 4:
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
 {{tag>surge}} {{tag>surge}}
-{{:documents:cosproject:surge:article-10-top.png|}} +{{:documents:cosproject:surge:article-10-top.png|The problem, which hardly needs stating, is that the federal government has become the very monster the Founders anticipated.}} 
-<blockquote> +----
-The problem, which hardly needs stating, is that the federal government has become the very monster the Founders anticipated. +
-</blockquote>+
 ===== The Final Constitutional Option ===== ===== The Final Constitutional Option =====
 **Bob Berry** **Bob Berry**
Line 21: Line 19:
 Obviously, what is needed is a way to trump the Beltway ruling class from without. Obviously, what is needed is a way to trump the Beltway ruling class from without.
  
-Enter Article V, which prescribes the amendment process. Article V establishes the amendment process as a two-phase affair: proposal, followed by ratification of three-fourths of the states. The states have no way to ratify that which has not first been pro-posed. From the beginning, the states have re-lied on congressional super-majorities to do the proposing.+Enter Article V, which prescribes the amendment process. Article V establishes the amendment process as a two-phase affair: proposal, followed by ratification of three-fourths of the states. The states have no way to ratify that which has not first been proposed. From the beginning, the states have re-lied on congressional super-majorities to do the proposing.
  
 But the Founders knew that Congress would be loath to propose anything that would limit federal power, so they included a way for the states to propose amendments in an ad hoc assembly that Article V styles as “A Convention for Proposing Amendments.” But the Founders knew that Congress would be loath to propose anything that would limit federal power, so they included a way for the states to propose amendments in an ad hoc assembly that Article V styles as “A Convention for Proposing Amendments.”
Line 35: Line 33:
 The critics would have none of it. The critics would have none of it.
  
-{{:documents:cosproject:surge:article-10-center.png|}} +{{:documents:cosproject:surge:article-10-center.png|The new reformers would do well to press on with the case for state-initiated amendments and ignore the tired conspiracy theories of the past.}} 
-<blockquote>The new reformers would do well to press on with the case for state-initiated amendments and ignore the tired conspiracy theories of the past. +----
-</blockquote> +
 In appeals to the public, the critics insidiously left out any mention of the ratification process by three-fourths of the states — the implication being that once the proceedings began, there would be nothing that could be done to hold it back when, inevitably, extreme elements moved to dissolve the Constitution. When challenged on this, the foes weaved the assertion into their conspiracy theory that the out-of-control assembly would simply declare its own sovereignty and dispense with the ratification process altogether! In appeals to the public, the critics insidiously left out any mention of the ratification process by three-fourths of the states — the implication being that once the proceedings began, there would be nothing that could be done to hold it back when, inevitably, extreme elements moved to dissolve the Constitution. When challenged on this, the foes weaved the assertion into their conspiracy theory that the out-of-control assembly would simply declare its own sovereignty and dispense with the ratification process altogether!
  
Line 49: Line 45:
 In 2009, an academic from the University of Montana was surveying opportunities for re-search. Of particular interest to Professor Robert G. Natelson were areas of constitutional scholarship characterized by a scarcity of research, poor research, or, optimally, both. In 2009, an academic from the University of Montana was surveying opportunities for re-search. Of particular interest to Professor Robert G. Natelson were areas of constitutional scholarship characterized by a scarcity of research, poor research, or, optimally, both.
  
-Intrigued by the vestigial Convention for Pro-posing Amendments mentioned in Article V, Natelson was struck by the paucity of modern-day scholarship on the topic, despite an abundance of original source material.+Intrigued by the vestigial Convention for Proposing Amendments mentioned in Article V, Natelson was struck by the paucity of modern-day scholarship on the topic, despite an abundance of original source material.
  
 Quietly, he set to work. Quietly, he set to work.
Line 63: Line 59:
 Most importantly, Natelson drew a strong distinction between the assembly mentioned in Article V and the oft-mentioned Constitutional Convention. For this reason, he is quick to correct anyone mistakenly referring to the Convention for Proposing Amendments as a “Constitutional Convention.” Most importantly, Natelson drew a strong distinction between the assembly mentioned in Article V and the oft-mentioned Constitutional Convention. For this reason, he is quick to correct anyone mistakenly referring to the Convention for Proposing Amendments as a “Constitutional Convention.”
  
-Natelson’s research trove smashed the conspiracy theories of the 1980s and has become the intellectual base of the resurgent Article V movement that has been joined by Levin and other prominent reformers. When the history is written, it will record that this was the mo-ment the Article V movement achieved critical mass.+Natelson’s research trove smashed the conspiracy theories of the 1980s and has become the intellectual base of the resurgent Article V movement that has been joined by Levin and other prominent reformers. When the history is written, it will record that this was the moment the Article V movement achieved critical mass.
  
 The new reformers would do well to press on with the case for state-initiated amendments and ignore the tired conspiracy theories of the past. Having been marginalized to an almost comic degree, the foes of yesterday have been effectively dispatched. The new reformers would do well to press on with the case for state-initiated amendments and ignore the tired conspiracy theories of the past. Having been marginalized to an almost comic degree, the foes of yesterday have been effectively dispatched.
Line 70: Line 66:
  
 ---- ----
-Sign the COS Petition, be a leader https://conventionofstates.com/take_action \\ +{{page>:wiki_footer}}
-Volunteer here https://conventionofstates.com/take_action/volunteer +
- +
-||[[https://conventionofstates.com|{{ :cos-footer-logo.png |}}]] || +
-(540)441-7227 | [[https://conventionofstates.com|CONVENTIONOFSTATES.COM]] | [[https://facebook.com/conventionofstates|Facebook.com/ConventionOfStates]] | [[https://twitter.com/cosproject|Twitter.com/COSproject]]| [[info@conventionofstates.com| Email us]] +
- +
- +
- +
documents/cosproject/surge/article_10-finalconstitutionaloption.txt · Last modified: 2021/06/13 16:19 by Oliver Wolcott