DELEGATES TO AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION CAN'T BE

DELEGATES TO AN ARTICLE V

CONVENTION CAN'T BE

CONTROLLED BY STATE LAWS

By Publius Huldah

January 24, 2015

NewsWithViews.com

Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) sets forth our long forgotten Founding

Principles that:

• All men are created equal.

• Rights come from God.

• People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of

our Constitution throw off the European model where political power originates

with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the

“pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22,

last sentence).

• When a government seeks to take away our God given rights, we have the right

to alter, abolish, or throw off that Form of government.

These are the Principles which justified our Revolution against a King.

These are also the Principles which permit us today to throw off our Form of government by

discarding our existing Constitution and replacing it with another one. This is why the

language at Article V of our Constitution, which authorizes Congress to call a convention “for

proposing amendments”, does not restrict Delegates to merely “proposing amendments”:

Delegates are invested with that inherent pre-existing sovereign right,

recognized in our Declaration, to abolish our existing Form of government (our

Constitution) and propose a new Constitution.

This has happened once before in our Country. I’ll show you.

The Federal Convention of 1787: Federal and State Instructions to Delegates

Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress

resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74) to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia

“for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

The Continental Congress authorized each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the

convention. Twelve of the States[1] made laws respecting the appointment of Delegates and

issuing instructions to Delegates. Ten States instructed their Delegates to propose alterations

to the Articles of Confederation; and only two (North Carolina and New Hampshire) gave

instructions which arguably permitted their Delegates to do more than propose alterations to

the Articles of Confederation.[2]

Page 1 of 6

201

htt

://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah133.ht

N-2

Assembly Committee: Legislative Operations and Elections

Exhibit: N Page 1 of 6 Date: 03/26/15

Submitted by: Janine Hansen

But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution.

Because of this inherent authority of Delegates, it is impossible to stop it from

happening at another convention.

The Delegates also instituted an easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the

Articles of Confederation required approval of all of the then 13 States before an amendment

could be ratified; Article VII of the new Constitution provided that only 9 States were

required for ratification of the new Constitution.

Why is an Article V Convention Dangerous?

So! Do you see?

If we have a convention today, there is nothing to stop Delegates from proposing a new

Constitution with its own new method of ratification.

New Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention. Here are three:

• Fifty years ago, the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution

for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by a referendum called by the

President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a convention, and Delegates propose the

Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to the States for ratification – it goes

directly to the President to call a Referendum. The States are dissolved and

replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

Read the Newstates Constitution and tremble for your country.

• The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has a Constitution for The New

Socialist Republic in North America.

• The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by

Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein

and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by

the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push

for an Article V convention.

Warnings from the Wise

Brilliant men have warned against an Article V convention. It is immoral to dismiss their

warnings:

• Alexander Hamilton writes of “the utter improbability of assembling a new

convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as

those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded…” Federalist

No. 85 (9th para)

•James Madison writes in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he

“trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V

Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious

views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of

our Country. In Federalist No. 49, he shows that the convention method is NOT

GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t

philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very

legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention

so they could control the outcome.

Page 2 of 6

201

htt

://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah133.ht

N-2

• Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his

Sep. 14, 1986 article in The Miami Herald, that at the convention of 1787, the

delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of

proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new

Constitution. He warns that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda [of

the convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”

• Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger warns in his

June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly that “there is no effective way to limit or

muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention”; “After a

Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we

don’t like its agenda”; and “A new Convention could plunge our Nation into

constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”

Can State Laws Control Delegates?

Convention supporters say we don’t have to worry about any of the above because States can

make laws controlling their Delegates.

Really? James Madison, Father of our Constitution and a consistent opponent of the

convention method of proposing amendments, didn’t know that. Two US Supreme Court

Justices didn’t know that. They said there is no effective way to control the

Delegates.

But in case you are uncertain as to who is telling you the Truth – and who isn’t - I will show

you how easily State laws which pretend to control Delegates can be circumvented.

Let’s use House Bill 148, recently filed in the New Hampshire Legislature, to

illustrate this:

Section 20-C:2I.of the New Hampshire bill says:

“No delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention shall have the

authority to allow consideration, consider, or approve an unauthorized

amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.”[italics mine]

Section 20-C:1 V. of the bill defines “unauthorized amendment” as:

“any amendment outside the scope permitted by the Article V petition passed by

the general court of New Hampshire”.

What is wrong with this?

• It doesn’t prohibit New Hampshire Delegates from proposing or approving

anew Constitution.

• Article V of the US Constitution provides that Amendments will be proposed at

the convention. Any state laws contrary to Article V must fall under the

supremacy clause at Article VI, US Constitution.

• New Hampshire Delegates can’t restrict Delegates from other States.

• It ignores the inherent sovereign authority of Delegates to throw off both their

State governments and the federal government by proposing a new constitution

with whatever new mode of ratification they want. Remember! Under the

Page 3 of 6

201

htt

://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah133.ht

N-3

proposed Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by

regional governments answerable to the new national government.

And if the States already know what amendments they want, they should tell their State

congressional delegations to propose them in Congress. This is the method James Madison

always advised.

Section 20-C:2II. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any vote taken by a delegate from New Hampshire at the Article V convention in

violation of paragraph I of this section shall be null and void. Any delegate

making this vote shall be immediately disqualified from serving as a delegate to

the Article V convention.”

What is wrong with this?

• What if the Delegates vote to keep their proceedings secret? At the federal

convention on May 29, 1787, our Framers made rules restricting

publications of their proceedings.

• What if the Delegates vote by secret ballot? As long as some vote “for” and

others vote “against” every proposition, there is no way to tell who did what.

Section 20-C:2III.of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Every delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention called for by

the Article V petition shall be required to take the following oath:”

“I do solemnly swear or affirm that to the best of my abilities, I will, as a delegate

to the Article V convention, uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States

and the state of New Hampshire. I will accept and will act according to the limits

of the authority as a delegate granted to me by New Hampshire law, and I will

not vote to consider or approve any unauthorized amendment to the

Constitution for the United States of America. I understand and accept

any penalties that may be imposed on me by New Hampshire law for violating

this oath.” [boldface mine]

Does one need to comment on the efficacy of Oaths of Office in our degenerate times? Article

II, §1, last clause,of our Constitution requires the President to take an Oath to “preserve,

protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and Article VI, last clause,

requires everyone in the federal and State governments to take an oath to obey the

Constitution.

Who today honors his Oath of Office?

Section 20-C:2IV. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any delegate who violates the oath contained in paragraph III of this section

shall be subject to the maximum criminal penalty under RSA 641:2.”

Any criminal defense attorney worth her salt can figure out how to get around this one:

Page 4 of 6

201

htt

://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah133.ht

N-4

• As shown above, if the proceedings of the convention are kept secret, or

Delegates vote by secret ballot, one would never know if any one Delegate

violated his oath. Defense counsel would get any attempted criminal prosecution

of any particular Delegate dismissed at a pretrial hearing.

• Congress can pass a law granting immunity from prosecution to the Delegates.

• The Delegates can insert a clause in the new constitution granting themselves

immunity from prosecution.

• If the new constitution abolishes the States, as does the Newstates Constitution,

there is no State left to prosecute Delegates.

• The local prosecutor is the one who decides whether he will prosecute any

criminal offense under his jurisdiction. Politics are a deciding factor in deciding

whether to prosecute. Remember Eric Holder refused to prosecute Black

Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place?

Do you see? James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Justice Warren Burger were

right: It is impossible to restrict the Delegates.

Everything to Lose, Nothing to Gain

If there is a convention today, George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and

Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you. Who will the Delegates be? You don’t

know. Do you trust them?

Our Framers never said that when the federal [and State] government violate the

Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution they violate. They never said the

remedy is to file a lawsuit and let federal judges decide.

They expected us to act as they did – with “manly firmness”[3] - and resist unconstitutional

acts of the federal and state governments. Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – it needs

to be read and enforced by our votes; and failing that, by manly opposition - resistance -

nullification.

Endnotes:

Subscribe to NewsWithViews

Daily Email Alerts

*required field

Email Address

First Name

Page 5 of 6

201

htt

://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah133.ht

N-5

1. Rhode Island boycotted the Convention. See RI’s Statement of Reasons in document at 2

below

2. For the texts of the States’ instructions to their Delegates and a helpful commentary, go to

Principled Policy Blog HERE.

3. The 7th paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says:“He has dissolved

Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on

the rights of the people.” [boldface mine]

Printer Friendly

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Publius Huldah is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law

degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and

epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution,

using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how

federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their

personal opinions and beliefs.h

E-Mail: [email protected]

Home

Page 6 of 6

201

htt

://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah133.ht

N-6