I posted yesterday about the passage of an Article V Convention of States resolution in the Government Operations Committee here in Michigan. This resolution – House Joint Resolution V – deals with the same subjects that 12 other states have proposed. Predictably, the regular naysayers have come out today in Michigan-centric email blasts telling about the evils of using the constitution to allow the people of the states to restrain the runaway federal government.

Here is the wording of the resolution:

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION V September 12, 2017, Introduced by Reps. Chatfield, Noble, Canfield, Johnson, Kahle, Webber, Howell, Iden, Sheppard, Alexander, Kesto, Yaroch, Allor, Kelly, Hoitenga, Cole, Lauwers and Lower and referred to the Committee on Government Operations. A joint resolution applying to the Congress of the United States to call a convention to propose an amendment to the constitution of the United States to impose fiscal restraints onthe federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress. Whereas, the founders of our constitution empowered state legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the federal government, and Whereas, the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending, and Whereas, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent, and

Whereas, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the constitution of the United States, and

Whereas, it is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty of our people, particularly for the generations to come, by proposing amendments to the constitution of the United States through a convention of the states under Article V for the purpose of restraining these and related abuses of power,

Be it therefore resolved by the legislature of the state of Michigan:

Section 1. The legislature of the state of Michigan hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the powers and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.

Section 2. The secretary of state is hereby directed to transmit copies of this application to the president and secretary of the United States senate and to the speaker and clerk of the United States house of representatives, and copies to the members of the said senate and

house of representatives from this state; also to transmit copies hereof to the presiding officers of each of the legislative houses in the several states, requesting their cooperation.

Section 3. This application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the constitution of the United States until the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states have made applications on the same subject.

Now, a little about the naysayers.

I’ve written about the strange bedfellows that argue against any Article V Convention of States that wishes to deal with the overreach of our federal government in, “Article V Convention of States Chugs Along Amidst Strange Bedfellow Naysayers.”

One naysayer here in Michigan is Norman Hughes, who testified against the last resolution Michigan adopted on a Balanced Budget Amendment. Hughes’ email blast argues the same tired and inaccurate theories about why the constitution doesn’t say what it says and how the proposed convention is another constitutional convention.

Once again, Article V states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

What Norman and the Eagle Forum misrepresent firstly, is the reading of the Article. The article has complex sentences. It says, “The Congress,” whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary shall propose amendments to this Constitution. Then, commas separate how else amendments can be proposed through the use of the word “or” and the use of a comma. “Or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states. Then, calling back to “The Congress,” it says, “shall call a convention.” It means that once 34 states can agree on a subject matter, Congress shall call the convention through these applications.

So, Article V says that the constitution may be amended. Then it says it can be done two ways, one way is by Congress, and the other is through the application of two thirds of the states. And upon ratification (of three fourths of the states) the amendments shall be part of the constitution.

And by the way, people can argue this and that against an Article V Convention of States, but just to drive home that our nation has, since our founding, sought to get enough applications to propose amendments to the constitution through a convention of the states, I like to show people this page at foa5c.org. It shows all the different proposals and applications throughout the centuries, scroll down to see the tables. Check it out.

I only show that page to get people who make these false claims in email blasts that pursuing an Article V Convention of States is some off-the-wall suggestion, or that Article V doesn’t say what we know it says.

All this resolution does is follow the constitution, and now 12 states have agreed-upon subject matter, the same subject matter of the proposed resolution. These applications are meant to force the federal government to deal with our spiraling debt, and to stop abusing the people of the states through mandates, as it says in the resolution.

So why do these naysayers try to gloss over the wording of the constitution? I personally think it’s not because they are unable to interpret complex sentences, but rather, because they think us regular Americans can’t do it, so they try to tell us what it says.

It’s a preposterous and condescending maligning of the American people.

Two thirds of the Congress can propose amendments. Or Congress shall call a convention upon application of two thirds of the states to propose amendments. Either way, when two thirds agree on the proposed amendments, and they are ratified by three fourths of the States, they become part of the constitution.

Big hurdles to jump to get there, but I think the people of this country think about this massive debt and seek some way to stop all the spending. An Article V Convention of States is the way to go.

I will, of course, write about these naysayers and rebut them more as the week moves along.

Thanks for reading,

Jen

Share this: LinkedIn

Twitter

Reddit

Print

Facebook

