The “Con-Con” Con-I

Recent claims that Article V is the article of the constitution that provides for Amendment by the people is just plain wrong.

Yet supporters of this often cite George Mason's position, according to the records of the convention, recited below with the surrounding actors and their actions, and footnotes:

“The first reference to the use of a convention requested by the States is found in drafts of the Constitution kept by the Committee of Detail.⁹ [Littman 1]After several revisions, the Committee’s final statement stated that “[t]his Constitution ought to be amended whenever such Amendment shall become necessary; and on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the States in the Union, the Legislature of the United States shall call a Convention for that Purpose.”¹⁰ [Littman 2]Hamilton and others argued that in addition to State legislatures, Congress should also have the power to propose amendments, and the Convention approved the addition of language giving Congress the power to propose amendments.¹¹ James Madison proposed new language that removed reference to a convention and gave the national legislature sole authority to propose amendments whenever it would “deem necessary, or on the application of two thirds of the Legislatures of the several States.”¹² [Littman 3] This language was adopted by the Convention, with no discussion about the elimination of the references to the use of conventions.¹³

^“On September 15, as the Convention was reviewing the revisions made by the Committee of Style, George Mason expressed opposition to the provisions limiting the power to propose amendments to Congress. According to the Convention records, Mason thought that “no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.”¹⁴ [Littman 4]In response, Gouverneur Morris and Elbridge Gerry made a motion to amend the article to reintroduce language requiring that a convention be called when two-thirds of the States applied for an amendment.¹⁵ [Littman 5] Madison stated that he did not object to the convention method, but in expressing what proved to be prophetic concerns, he pointed out that “difficulties might arise as to the form” the convention would take.¹⁶ Morris and Gerry's motion was unanimously adopted.¹⁷
[Littman 6]After Roger Sherman expressed concern that the Constitution could be amended to take power away from smaller states,¹⁸ the clause stating ”that no State, without its consent” could be deprived of “equal suffrage in the Senate” was added.¹⁹ No further changes were made to the text of Article V, and the final version of the Constitution was adopted.²⁰”-- Bold, italic, and underline emphasis, alone and combined, mine, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf

Footnotes from the above article:

“9. Van Sickle & Boughey, supra note 4, at 16‐17.

10. 2 RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, supra note 5, at 159.

11. Id. at 555, 557–59.

12 . Id. at 555, 559.

13 . Van Sickle & Boughey, supra note 4, at 20.

14 . 2 RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, supra note 5, at 629.

15 . Id.

16 . See id. at 629–30.

17 . Id. at 630.

18 . See id.

19 . Id. at 631; see also U.S. CONST. art. V.

20 . 2 RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, supra note 5, at 633–34,
662–63.

For a more detailed account of the drafting of Article V at the Constitutional Convention, see Van Sickle & Boughey, supra note 4, at 7–24.”-- Ibid.

The Littman numbered Notes are before their object in factual order of act and deed:

1. The original Article V had language that made no mention of Congress, and appeared to leave the entire Amendment process in the hands of the States, which could easily be abused if one of our two parties of government, State or National, alone had control of amending the constitution.

2. Hamilton responded in order to assure the national government had equal footing, to assure the compound republic and not have the States be given power to cause the National Government to return to its ineffectual state under the Articles of Confederation. James Madison ended up being the one to propose the language to include the Congress.

3. No one at the convention questioned the elimination by James Madison of the “Conventions” that was in the original language.

4. George Mason, as a member of the committee of style, brought his question, but was not the one who proposed any amendment to the language, which, having been the man credited with writing the Virginia Constitution, he surely could have. Instead he left it to Massachusetts Gouverneur Morris to re-introduce the language of the convention. Mr. Mason here, in fact, did little compared to the credit people give him of “protecting right to amend” a Constitution that grants us no rights...

5. Madison had no objections to the convention method, this is very important, and Hamilton uttered no objection in this regard (more below), but Madison's concerns of “form of the conventions” have proven historically accurate after the fact.

6. Roger Sherman was also prophetic, to the extent of thinking the smaller States could be excluded by Amendment to the Constitution, in relation to the State's representation in the Senate, and yet the language added is completely uprooted by the 17^thAmendment.

Before we go to Article V itself, I'd like you to consider the back and forth above between those who believed in State power and those who believed in a stronger National government, and determine if it seems those who interjected a question but took no action regarding their supposed convictions affected anything.

Based on the Constitution being a document directed at government and not granting me one power, one right, one anything, and instead, this instrument sets forth the powers, and limits to them, to assure just government, nothing could be further from the truth regarding Article V as “providing for the People to Amend their Constitution.”

Governments and their magistrates are not the people and are not even representative of the people when it comes to assuring the Will of the People is done to the people's satisfaction. A perfect example would be the numerous State Constitutions at the founding of the nation that were rejected by the people on the grounds they had been drafted and ratified by legislatures for their own ends and not the people themselves.

Those who acted on behalf of George Mason's question were well aware of the difference between the “State” and “the people”, and how a convention is not some right of the people granted by the Constitution, for then the whole instrument is turned on its head.

There is no doubtGouverneur Morris and Elbridge Gerry were cognizant of the difference between the State and the people, and that their adopted language to re-introduce “conventions” in Article V was also to give more validity to what they were doing, a “convention.” This also helped keep the Convention together. Anything assuring the state a means to check the power of the national government at that time would easily be added, as Roger Sherman's issue was also amended to Article V. But these are all in discussion of the balance of power between two republics, the one of each State's government, and the other, the National government in Washington D.C., and retains the absolute power in the people by not mentioning them at all.

And now to review Article V, noting how the phrases are constructed. You be the judge as to whether a Con-Con is not merely what the Progressives want to Con us into because they need us to hand them the keys to where they can destroy the Foundation of the Constitution directly.

First the actual Article V as written:

"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;...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the  Senate."--http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

And now I'll break it down as I see it, the bracketed sections are after what they pertain to:

"Article. V. [Article enumeration in the Constitution] The Congress [object of this article], whenever two thirds of both Houses [condition 1, necessary for authority of object to act under this article] shall deem it necessary [arrive by vote to the conclusion of necessity], shall propose Amendments to this Constitution [responsibility to act if deemed necessary], or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States [condition 2, where the States may want to amend the Constitution], shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments [The object of this article, Congress, is compelled by the Constitution to act to call a convention by this Article if either of the preceding conditions is met, including at the behest of the States], which, in either Case [the following is certain irrespective of the particulars of the preceding*], shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, [condition of time when validity becomes effective follows] when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, [comma notes an additional condition follows, to give context to the preceding] as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress [ending the amendment portion of the Article by restating this Article's application to the object and no one else, note also the use of "may" that further suggests this is a granted power to Congress, that will be withdrawn if abused by Congress in any manner];...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. [added pursuant to Roger Sherman's concerns regarding smaller states as noted above]"

Please note: The specific provisions of the original Article V, separated by semi-colon and relating to particular amendments before certain dates, has long since expired and was not included.

For compare and contrast, I submit Alexander Hamilton's Original “The Hamilton Plan” amendment section:

“Article IX.

“§ 12. This Constitution may receive such alterations and amendments as may be proposed by the Legislature of the United States, with the concurrence of two thirds of the members of both Houses, and ratified by the Legislatures of, or by Conventions of deputies chosen by the people in, two thirds of the States composing the Union.”-- Emphasis mine, http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr003449%29%29

This section is cited in hopes that it helps those who all too often discount and disparage Hamilton as though he wasn't true to the sovereignty of States. You need to understand this was before the committee had decided on language that handed the entire process to the states, their knee jerk-reaction. You'll note Hamilton actually mentioned the people, and with the significance of their choice in the entire matter.

When compared to the grand credit given to George Mason, Hamilton put it in writing for the proposed Constitution he wrote for this nation, of which there are a number of provisions the Tea Party is screaming for, however, please read it yourself at the above link and judge.

Suffice it to say that, according to the history in fact, we ended up with an Amendment clause that places the entire power to call a convention in the hands of the Congress.

And numerous people who want to see a Con-Con, or some sort of amendment convention, have made it a point to argue “the applications made by States for Constitutional Conventions are overwhelming, yet Congress doesn't act.” These pro Con-Con folks erroneously suggest that “the lack of calling conventions is proof that a Con-Con isn't something Progressives want.” I submit that the lack of understanding of Progressives to only take action when the benefit is certain and guaranteed to move the Progressive cause forward is why they arrive at this erroneous conclusion, which is usually along with the erroneous claim, as shown above, that George Mason “preserved the people's right to amend their constitution.” He didn't.

Apparently, that the 17th Amendment was one of those guaranteed moments to strip all States of their State government's representation in the Senate, that to these pro Con-Con folks it is unable to be recognized for its pat Progressive activity: A means to “pressurize the situation” of long sought conventions applied for by States. This pressure is a means for Progressives to gain an advantage by promising action on previous applications, to then return to ignoring the States once more, once they get what they want. The politicians in Congress are notorious for reneging on their promises made to get the votes. The same occurs regularly, and also occurred to achieve passage of the 17^th Amendment.

Thus it is clear Congress has no Honor and does not follow the rules, and it is certain from this history of Congress regarding Article V Con-Con applications, a Con-Con is nowhere near an answer.

There is great necessity for us to understand the reason this document, Our Written Constitution, secures a republic, as this is the key to our keeping it. To never forget the intention of the Constitution, as an instrument of the express circumscriptions of government, is a sure way not to mistake a mention of the “State” in the body of the Constitution as grant or express protection of a right to the people.

Our Creator alone endows us with unalienable rights, not pieces of paper, nor those who draft the words upon them, for their corruption will surely grant us what will assure them a profit at our expense, government and those who want power have one view: Individual Liberty be damned unless the People are understood as above these administrative bodies of Our Will.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman