Unconventionally Speaking

In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments, it has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed . . . - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 85.

Hamilton wrote the final language of Article V of the Constitution, which we'll look at in a moment. After the above statement in the Federalist Papers, he goes on to say that he thought the above statement unmerited. Boy, was he wrong!

Here's Article V:

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.

Wikipedia clarifies . . .

Whenever they "deem it necessary," two-thirds of both houses of Congress may propose an amendment. This means two-thirds of those members present—assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast—and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress. It was suggested that the two houses first adopt a resolution indicating that they deem an amendment necessary, but this procedure has never been used—the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives instead directly proceed to the adoption of a joint resolution, thereby proposing the amendment with the implication that both bodies "deem" the amendment to be "necessary." Up to this time, all amendments have been proposed and implemented codicil to the main body of the Constitution.

If at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the states so request, Congress is required to call a convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment. On the questionable assumption that only state requests addressing the same possible amendment are to be counted by Congress, which is not stated in Article V, the requisite number of states never made such a request although two proposals have come just two states shy of the required number. However, over 500 state requests for an Article V convention have been made and some believe that Congress should have already called a convention. There is much controversy as to how such a convention would operate, how its delegates would be chosen, the necessary vote required to propose a particular amendment, and many other lingering questions. The state legislatures have, in times past, taken advantage of the fear of the unknown by using their power to apply for a national convention in order to frighten Congress into proposing the desired amendment. For example, the movement to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators began to see such proposals regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate from the early 1890s onward. As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called, thus pressuring the Senate to finally relent and approve what later became the Seventeenth Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—might stray to include issues above and beyond just the direct election of U.S. Senators . . .

An organization has been formed, Friends of the Article V Convention (FOAVC) to generate support for an Article V Convention (there's a direct graphic link on our sidebar). This is their Mission Statement:

---- To Preserve the Constitution of the United States;

---- To restore the principle of local governance by empowering the people, pursuant to Article V, to discuss, draft and propose relevant amendments to our Constitution;

---- To exercise the authority granted by the Framers of our Constitution to the people of this nation to actively participate in their governance;

---- To require Congress to call an Article V Convention, as mandated by our Constitution, in response to the 568 applications submitted to it by the States.

---- To serve as a public forum to educate, inform and discuss with the general public at large the true facts surrounding an Article V convention; to dispel the myths, half-truths, fears and misinformation regarding the convention call and the Article V Convention; to bring to the public's attention the actions of Congress regarding an Article V Convention.

---- To refrain from supporting any specific amendment proposal that may be proposed at an Article V Convention.

----- To help the public understand the difference between an Article V Convention, which FOAVC fully supports, and a "constitutional convention" that would rethink the entirety of our current Constitution, which FOAVC emphatically does not support.

FOAVC also emphatically states:

A "constitutional convention" is not the same thing as an Article V Convention. The language of Article V in the United States Constitution clearly limits an Article V Convention to "proposing amendments...to this Constitution." Therefore, the only constitutional power the Article V Convention possesses is to propose amendments to the existing Constitution. It is merely an alternative methodology provided by the Framers to discuss and submit amendments for the states to consider. Regardless of how amendments are proposed, either by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress or by Application of the Legislature of two-thirds of the States [which is the Article V Convention method], it would still be necessary for three fourths of the states to ratify such proposals before they would become effective.

On the other hand, a 'constitutional convention' -- one that seeks to literally discard, replace and re-write the current Constitution -- is blatantly extra-constitutional. It is neither authorized by our Constitution nor is it sanctioned elsewhere by any federal or state law. In short, a 'constitutional convention' would constitute a quasi-rebellious act if not an outright direct assault on our constitutional republic which, in the view of many constitutional scholars, would violate numerous federal and state laws. This is the type of convention that deserves the scorn of the American people. FOAVC absolutely and categorically opposes a constitutional convention.

First, let me state that FOAVC's website is thoroughly and intensely informative. Second, this blog is an official, registered supporter (we're on their links page), so you'll begin to see lots of information about this as the movement builds. (Note also, that our good friend (and frequent contributor to P!) Jason Miller, of Thomas Paine's Corner is an original and ardent supporter. In fact, not long ago, Jason published an interview with Joel Hirschorn (which was also published here at P!). Joel is author of Delusional Democracy: Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government and an FOAVC co-founder.)

A recent email to members from FOAVC co-founder Bill Walker notes, "The founders feel that there are two methods to achieve a convention. (1) Working through Congress or (2) working through the state legislatures. Frankly we feel any effort aimed directly at Congress would be an entire waste of time and effort and feel the best chance at a convention is working through the states." So what FOAVC is about is getting three-fourths of state legislatures to call for a convention in which constitutional amendments may be proposed.

This ain't gonna be easy. The primary stumbling block, as we see it, is generating interest at the public level in pressuring state legislatures to propose an Article V convention. The advantage to this approach is that it does not involve proposing specific amendments - it just establishes a convention which may do that.

FOAVC is non-partisan. An email exchange between Mr. Walker and FOAVC member Steve Moyer further illustrates FOAVC's focus. Here are some excerpts:

Steve: "I am concerned that this might appear as a Republican group. I suggest you look at ways of moving simultaneously into other political organizations as well. If it starts to smell like a Republican initiative it's dead on arrival . . ."

Bill's response: "FOAVC has at least three known liberals as Founders. Another Founder is presenting a scholarly work on the convention to the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, an institution that is hardly recognized for its conservatism and Republican roots. But beyond this our first attempt at national recognition was going to Senator Mike Gravel and Gore Vidal, both of whom are on public record as supporting a convention and asking for their endorsement. There has been no response whatsoever from either nor have many other attempts by FOAVC to the mainstream liberal news media shown any sign of success. In short the liberal community at this point has shown no real interest in the issue or FOAVC despite some of its major leaders already being on record as supporting its goals and purpose and our many attempts to interest them in it.
Now, if on the other hand, the opposition is at least willing to hear our presentation and give us the opportunity to present it at what can be termed a national stage, I personally feel FOAVC must use it. If the liberal community and most especially its leaders who have expressed support for our issue will not or are unwilling to come out in support of us, that is their problem to resolve, not the fault of FOAVC and certainly not a fault for lack of trying on the part of FOAVC. In sum, if the issue were somehow to become a "Republican" issue, it will be the fault of the liberals, not us, for making it so.
Finally, Steve, remember that FOAVC is non-partisan as is this issue. We are interested primarily, exclusively and solely in a convention call by Congress. We support no amendment proposal, liberal, conservative or otherwise. We may cite amendment proposals for the purpose of example or evidence in our presentations but in no way does this imply FOAVC supports that specific proposal. The convention call is strictly a constitutional issue and is entirely non-partisan. The convention certainly will and was always intended to be a political matter, that is that groups, individuals and so forth would meet to advance ideas, thoughts and proposals to amend the Constitution. To suggest that politics will not occur or be involved at the actual convention is ludicrous. Naturally people will band together to present a common viewpoint and support it which is politics. They will attempt to persuade others to that point of view and others of a dissimilar mind will argue against that hoping to persuade others to their point of view and with all politics, a vote by the convention and later, assuming convention approval, votes by the states either in legislature or convention will take place. All of that is political and it is good politics. The people will be involved in process and part of it and will be able to be heard and there is nothing wrong with that kind of politics. It was and is what the Framers of the Constitution intended.
I hope that FOAVC can participate in every political rally and party presentation possible and I can assure you if the Democrat Party, the Green Party or any liberal political group or individual today contacted one of our members or the FOAVC directly and asked us to make a presentation at one of their events, our answer would be an enthusiastic "yes". They just haven't done so. . . ."

So, what can you do? The FOAVC page has several ideas. Let me make some suggestions here. First, join FOAVC. Second, if you have a blog, publicize your membership and write posts about an Article V concention. Third, agitate your state legislature members to educate themselves and act. Fourth, write a letter to the editor of your local paper (or maybe even to WaPo or NYT).

Why do all this? There are many reasons. I imagine that most Americans feel extreme distance from the government and powerless to affect change. They feel that avenues of redress are narrowly limited. The federal government, especially under the last three presidents, has shifted power upward, but responsibility downward.

Some local municipalities and states, like Vermont, have begun to flex their muscles, however. Vermont has perhaps the best track record of participatory democracy in the nation through its powerful town meeting processes. In 2005, 48 Vermont towns voted against the Iraq War. There's also a lot of impeachment energy in the state, again relying on the town meeting system.

The formation of an Article V convention working through state legislatures is a fully populist concept. It gives power and voice to the individual citizen and demands participatory democracy. If nothing else, think of the educational value of a national convention discussing constitutional amendments on the environment, on war and peace, on gun ownership and arms manufacturing and distribution, on immigration, on reviving the Equal Rights Amendment. The possibilities are endless.

Take responsibility, dammit. You've got nothing to lose by doing so, and potentially a lot more to lose through inaction.

Categories: FOAVC, Article+V, US+Constitution, Article+V+convention, states+rights, participatory+democracy, constitutional+amendments

......................................

   Del.icio.us
Keep P! going. Donate to our emergency fundraising program.
Any amount is gratefully accepted. Thank you. Be at peace.