By no stretch of language is an Article V Convention of States with a limited purpose of reigning in the Federal government abuses and officials a Constitutional Convention. A Constitutional Convetnion is the rewriting of the whole governing document as the Framers were given the task to amend the Articles of Confederation, “to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate for the exigencies of the Union.” A limited Convention of States is meant to perfect our governing document.
Constitutional Convention was a term used by a radical Liberal Justice Burger and other Liberal cohorts to silence states from using their authority to overturn their decisions.
Nullification is not a right of the States. Why are we calling to assert a purely theoretical right? Convening to propose IS a right. States cannot act as a legislative and judiciary above the Federal level as Virginia was rightly rebuked for putting forth its resolution to nullify. People authorize the Constitution’s powers, not the States.
Texas did not call an Article V Convention in 1977, as it is not listed in a database of called Conventions. There are 27 resolutions in the 2012 Republican platform a Convention of States can potentially fulfill.
This, as Mark Levin says, is Federalism at work.
Sadly I was not able to cite all of the rich resources I listed above, This speech or resources are just the surface of the wealth of knowledge that is becoming available in regard to the history and understanding of the Article V process. I’d encourage everyone to check out Convention of States, Rob Natelson, and the ongoing series on RightScoop.
I gave my speech in favor of an amendment to strike new language from Collin County’s proposed revisions to the 2012 Republican platform that opposes a Constitutional Conventions. In my opinion, the revisions equate two vastly different things, and cuts off our chance to stop the encroachment of the Federal government. Our amendment was defeated but I feel confident that our testimonies encouraged others to seriously look at the matter.
This just means we’ll need to take our fight to the State Convention.
My advice to anyone who hears talk of “national unity” is to grab your wallet and run, as fast as you can. There is no reason to expect anything approaching unanimous consensus on anything but a few core issues, most of which are nicely covered in the Constitution. There are not many activist projects “everyone,” or even nearly everyone, energetically supports. Therefore, there aren’t many things a lawful and humble federal government should be doing. How does it make sense to seek, or demand, “unity” from a nation of 300 million diverse people, scattered across dramatically different regions?
And yet, when the invocation of the “nuclear option,” which the Post, Times, and Reid found morally repugnant in 2005, served to benefit them in 2013, they all reversed their positions on cue. What does this tell you about how intellectually and morally corrupt all of these partisans are?