Scofield revision of Constitution dangerous
In this article the author attempts to disqualify an Article V Convention. His arguments fall flat as they portray a false image of a COS. I felt compelled to set the record straight.
(My Comments are in parentheses and color blue)
Fred Lanting Sep 27, 2016 2
Not many days ago, a misleading news item appeared that began “The Convention of States is viewed as a way for states to take back control…”
It went on to quote Alabama State Senator Clay Scofield as saying that “The Article V movement” challenges “the ever-growing reach of the federal government.”
The good senator and others who believe that have been duped, hornswoggled, misled, lied to, by reckless politicians who hide the danger of such fiddling with the U.S. Constitution.
Convention of States or Article V convention are slightly disguised terms for a Constitutional Convention (“Con-Con”), as we are told in Black’s Law Dictionary.(This author and Black’s Law Dictionary are misguided or misunderstood. Perhaps it is meant to be interpreted in a broad sense as it applys to other nations. However it simply does not apply to this exceptional nation.
Here is the definition as written in Black’s Law Dictionary: What is CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION? A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.)
Scofield said that three of the proposed amendments to our U.S. Constitution would involve federal term limits, balanced budget, and limitations on regulations. (Sounds like good and needed objectives to me.)
But the biggest and very real danger to an Article V Con-Con is that it would be impossible to limit changes to those three topics, and state legislatures could introduce other changes that would enable politicians to mutilate our Constitution and Bill of Rights.(This is a false statement used by progressives to protect the status quo and preserve their big government schemes. Article V makes no mention of a Constitutional Convention (con-Con))
It would be like, in the vernacular, opening the barn door or letting the cat out of the bag. There would be no limit, no control on what modifications (amendments) would come out of such a move. (False! Reference the recent simulation in Williamsburgh Va. It was limited prior to the gathering and no additional amendments were or will be allowed during the convention. These limitations are decided upon before the opening of the convention by the participating States.)
When I was a schoolboy, we had classes in what was then called “civics” and we studied the Constitution as well as other things that melded government, history, and ethics.
I have a hardcopy of the Constitution next to my reclining easy chair. Having “arms-length access” via computer is not the same because it is extremely unlikely that it would be seen.
Other than immigrants studying for their citizenship exam, I doubt that more than 2 percent of those reading this column can (or do) reach out and open that important document.
We do not need a “Con-Con” (Not a Constitutional Convention. It is an Article V “Convention for proposing amendments,” popularly called a Convention of States which is quite different.) to implement Clay’s desired changes – he should limit his efforts to passing laws that fit to the framework we already have. (The problem is that our government does not and refuses to “fit into the framework.” We need to change that.) Once you say we can change the Constitution with a “Con-Con” (Let me make this as clear as possible. A Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) would be called to write an entirely new constitution, not change the existing one.) (which has not been needed for the past 229 years), (This is precisely why we need to have a COS. Our Government has ignored it’s constitutional restrictions and we and the states have a responsibility to reaffirm those limitations.) you will not be able to control what other changes will be made. (Yes we will. States must agree to limit what topics will be discussed prior to the Article V COS is convened.)
Think hard about some of the politicians now in office. You are sure to see that many of them are not the type you want setting rules that change what has worked for centuries. No, no! (Actually it only worked up until the late 19th Centuary when elected officials, particularly the Progressives began to introduce policies and Constitutional Amendments to expand government beyond what the Constitunal structure was meant to be.)
The Scofield version of the Bible is great, but a Scofield-assisted revision of the Constitution is a very bad, very dangerous idea! (What is really dangerous to the American people is the vast, out of control, unconstitutional growth of the fereral government.)