False Orthodoxy vs. Historical Truth
By Mike Kapic – Feb. 1, 2022
The following email was sent to a South Carolina Senator requesting he vote NO on a bill intended to join his state others asking Congress to call for an amending convention to propose a balanced budget amendment. The constituent’s issues are addressed and clarified in the follow up reply below.
This is a real email, but the names have been omitted because it is not about these two individuals, but the larger issue of American history. It shows one of us caught in a false belief and the other from the far side of history.
I think we’d agree that America is in trouble today and part of that trouble lies inside the DC beltway. How can we expect the politicians to fix their own problems when they don’t even recognize them? The Founders gave the people a tool inside the Constitution for times like these: the states action through federalism and Article V.
I live in your district and demand that you oppose S. 1006 and all other attempts to apply for (or to force Congress to call) an Article V convention of the states, also known as a Con-Con.
A Con-Con will not actually limit the federal government. There’s also a real risk of an Article V convention getting out of control and resulting in unintended amendments and, perhaps, even a new constitution. S. 1006 dishonestly uses aggregation as its strategy for achieving a convention — this only increases the danger.
In 2015, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that “This is not a good century to write a constitution.” Considering the socialist, radical left, this is very true.
Any changes to the Constitution will need approval from across the entire political spectrum, from left-liberals and right-conservatives alike. The resulting document won’t be superior, or even equal, to our current constitution.
A Con-Con is an dangerous idea. To guard us against federal power-grabs, use Article VI, not Article V.
Reject and vote “NO” on S. 1006.
Thank you for your participation in our republic’s representative democracy. Please find below my answers to your objections to S. 1006. I hope you will reconsider and join with me in demanding Congress call the Article V Convention for proposing an inflation-fighting budget-balancing Amendment soon and letting the people vote to ratify it.
The Constituent writes:
“I live in your district and demand that you oppose S. 1006 and all other attempts to apply for (or to force Congress to call) an Article V convention of the states, also known as a Con-Con. A Con-Con will not actually limit the federal government.”
False: Article V says, “a Convention for proposing Amendments,” only, with no mention of a Constitutional Convention or a con con as you refer to it. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any authority to ‘rewrite’ the Constitution. It authorizes only a proposed amending process.
“There’s also a real risk of an Article V convention getting out of control and resulting in unintended amendments, and, perhaps, even a new constitution.”
False: An Article V can only PROPOSE amendments. Nothing changes as a result of a convention debating and voting on an amendment to propose to the states for approval or ratification.
From the thousands of conventions occurring over 400 years, the records of 651 have been located and analyzed by historians and scholars. All were administratively successful.
“S. 1006 dishonestly uses aggregation as its strategy for achieving a convention — this only
increases the danger.”
False: The constitution states, the Congress “…on the Application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a Convention for proposing amendments…” which, according to Congressional and state listings of Applications, occurred in February 1979. (See: Article V Library)
“In 2015, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that “This is not a good century to write a constitution.”
True. However, the actual Apr.14, 2014 quote (at 1:06) was, “A constitutional convention is a horrible idea. This is not a good century to write a constitution.” And the Article V movement agrees. The entire quote argues ‘for’ an amending convention and ‘not’ a constitutional convention. The Constitution reads, “Congress…shall call a convention for proposing amendments…”
“Any changes to the Constitution will need approval from across the entire political spectrum, from left-liberals and right-conservatives alike.”
True: That is why S. 1006 is urging Congress to select the “state convention” mode of ratification which is a vote of the people for yes-pledged delegates in three-quarters of the states. (See: Ratification of the 21st Amendment & the Constitution’s Article VII)
“The resulting document won’t be superior, or even equal, to our current constitution.”
False: Are you suggesting women’s suffrage, free speech, the end of slavery, and the end of Prohibition was less than superior?
Or: Is our country better off since Congress violated its Constitutional mandate to call the balanced budget amendment proposing a convention in 1979? Since ’79, it has added $30 trillion more debt to all of us and 70% decline in the value of our dollar? Will Congress ever limit itself?
“A Con-Con is an dangerous idea. To guard us against federal power-grabs, use Article VI, not
If by a Con-Con, you mean a Constitutional Convention, you’ve mistaken the Foundation’s documents here. The Constitution’s Article V only authorizes “proposing amendments.” The Declaration of Independence gives the “right of the people to alter or to abolish it (their government).” Article V is the Constitution’s change authorization, Article VI is not.
“Reject and vote NO on S. 1006.”
If you still say no, consider remarks from a few who have meant much to this Nation:
“…it is incumbent on their successors to improve and perpetuate (the Constitution).” James Madison
“Commissioners (are) authorized to conclude nothing, but…at liberty to propose anything.” – James Wilson (PA), signer of the Constitution.
“I am the one here who is least terrified of a convention…The people do not feel that their wishes are observed. They are heard but they are not heeded, particularly at the federal level…. The one remedy specifically provided for in the Constitution is the amendment process that bypasses the Congress.” Justice Antonin Scalia, 2015
There are much misleading information available and good people hear it and promote it without knowing the actual and factual recorded history of the convention process going back 400 years.
For your country’s future, search for the Truth. For more information: Let Us Vote a BBA, AMAC Action, Hunt For Liberty, Article V Library, Conventions That Made America, Far From Unworkable. Make it your business to understand your Nations little known history.
Kudos to that South Carolina state senator for a cogent, wise response to his constituent!