NewsWithViews.com
The more I inflict upon myself the details of the on-going,
extensive, and increasingly acrimonious debate about the supposed merits or
demerits of what is called an “Article V Convention of the States”, the more my
mind returns to the scene I have imagined taking place on Titanic. Having
struck the iceberg, the great liner is down fifteen degrees by the head, and
sinking fast, while in the Grand Salon her designer Mr. Andrews, Captain Smith,
and a gaggle of marine engineers are discussing a new ship, to be built
according to a new design which supposedly will obviate the flaw in Titanic that
contributed to her demise. While in theory this discussion might have been very
illuminating to the participants, it obviously would otherwise have been an
irrelevance which could have saved neither Titanic nor a single soul who went
down with her.
This, it seems to me, presents a perfect parallel to the
present “Article V Convention” debate—a debate so completely out of touch with
the actual situation now confronting this country, that one wonders how anyone
could take it seriously as an observer, let alone participate in it. Consider
the following:
• First, the “Article V Convention” debate does not address
the immediate issue of the looming national economic crisis about which every
informed observer is warning this country in no uncertain terms. The General
Government is buried under some 200+ trillion “dollars” worth of unfunded
long-term liabilities. This is an unpayable sum by anyone’s calculus. The
failure to pay it will have catastrophic economic, social, and political
consequences. The problem will not be solved by Congress. In fact, Congress is
making the situation worse. The debt is the great rent in America’s ship of
state through which economic dissolution is pouring in. Congress proposes to
fix this problem by borrowing more money which can never be repaid. This is
equivalent to the lunatic notion that blowing off the rear quarter of Titanic
would have saved the ship by allowing the water surging in at the bow to flow
out through the new hole at the stern!
If this were not enough, almost all Americans are utterly
unprepared to deal with the consequences of the depression, hyperinflation, or
combination of the two which collapse of the national economy will cause.
Nothing anyone has written in favor of an “Article V Convention” has suggested
how any new amendment to the Constitution would deal with this virtual
Marianas’ Trench of unpreparedness. And especially how it would deal with this
danger right now, not at some distant point in the future after the crisis has
broken out and hurled the entire country into chaos.
And if that were not more than enough, the top noises in the
Disgrace of Columbia are even now feverishly preparing to impose so-called
“martial law” throughout America when the economic catastrophe strikes—in which
event, of course, the Constitution will effectively (if illegally) be set
aside, and all talk of an “Article V Convention” (or of the ratification of
amendments proposed at such a shindig) will become blather even more worthless
than it is now.
• Second, even if some part of an “Article V Convention”
were addressed to the impending national economic crisis, the process could not
be made to work in time. Time may not be everything; but everything depends
upon time. The convention has to be called by the requisite two thirds of the
States; it has to be held, for who knows how long; and the amendments it
proposes have to be submitted to the States for ratification. One or more of
the amendments necessary to deal with the crisis must be ratified by three
fourths of the States. Each and every such amendment must then be enforced. How
many years all this will take, and who will see that it is accomplished
(especially with respect to enforcement), is anyone’s guess. And guess is the
appropriate word, because no one can possibly predict when, how, and to what
end this pie-in-the-sky process can and will be put into effect. We do not have
to guess, however, whether the national economic crisis is coming sooner,
rather than later—and certainly sooner than any “Article V Convention” could
produce any useful amendments to the Constitution which States in the requisite
number will actually have ratified.
• Third, one of the more outspoken exponents of an “Article
V Convention” (Timothy Baldwin) himself tells us that “[i]t is time for the
States to ‘take matters into their own hands’ and quit waiting for Congress to
fix itself.” Yes, indeed, it is high time for that. But the question remains,
how best to do it? For quite a while, I have been urging revitalization of “the
Militia of the several States” as the proper way for the States “to ‘take
matters into their own hands’” both in perfect accord with the Constitution and
in a manner which will have an immediate and beneficial effect. It should be
self-evident how, in both principle and practice, revitalizing the Militia
could solve the pressing problems an “Article V Convention” could not possibly
solve (and which its proponents do not even claim it could solve).
Not only is revitalization of the Militia the best way to
overcome the unpreparedness of the American people as a whole to cope with the
effects of a national economic crisis, it is the only way, almost by
definition. If there are constitutional institutions, other than the Militia,
which are designed to take in the entire adult population of this country—and
organize, equip, and train that population to deal with varied Local, State,
and National emergencies—I should like to know what they are. Certainly, no new
amendment of the Constitution has been suggested by the proponents of an
“Article V Convention” which would address the question of Americans’
unpreparedness. So, even if an “Article V Convention” were held, the Militia
would nevertheless need to be revitalized for the purpose of overcoming that
deficiency as quickly and thoroughly as possible.
In addition, revitalization of the Militia is the only means
available to obviate the threat of “martial law”. As my forthcoming book, By
Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”, will explain, “martial
law” as most Americans understand it is anti-constitutional bunkum. The only
“martial” institutions to which the Constitution delegates the authority and
responsibility “to execute the Laws of the Union” are the Militia. So the only
constitutional form of “martial law”—that is, “law” administered in a fully
constitutional manner by some “martial” institutions—must be executed by the
Militia, and only the Militia or only subject to the Militia’s control. The
Militia, of course, are comprised of We the People themselves. So, if
constitutional “martial law” had to be put into effect as the result of a
national economic crisis, it would be controlled by the People themselves, and
on that basis would hardly pose a threat to the People, unless the People were
so politically psychotic that they would go about oppressing themselves. Again,
no new amendment of the Constitution has been suggested by the proponents of an
“Article V Convention” which would address the question of “martial law” (and
no amendment is needed, either, because the Constitution already provides
sufficient authority to the Militia in that respect). So, even if an “Article V
Convention” were held, the Militia would nevertheless need to be revitalized
for the purpose of assuring that “martial law” remained under the People’s
control.
It also should be obvious that revitalizing the Militia
avoids the worst practical problems associated with an “Article V Convention”.
In contrast to the process under Article V: (i) Under the present Constitution
revitalization of the Militia can be accomplished with no need for any
constitutional amendment, convention, or other extraordinary proceeding—a
single statute in each State being sufficient. (ii) Revitalization of the
Militia does not require two thirds, or three fourths, or even a majority of
the States to act in unison, but can be accomplished State by State, one State
at a time, no matter what other States do or refrain from doing. (iii)
Revitalization of the Militia does not require any participation by Congress.
And (iv) revitalization of the Militia involves direct participation by all of
We the People, not just the few who might be selected—by Heaven knows what sort
of political swindle—as delegates to a convention.
• Fourth, even if all the warnings prove to be wrong, and no
national economic crisis breaks out after all, the Militia will still have to
be revitalized. The proponents of an “Article V Convention” all claim that they
wish to preserve the merits of the original Constitution, and simply pear away
by amendments the accretions of usurpation and tyranny which have developed
over the years, particularly at the level of the General Government. If they
are telling the truth, then they must want to preserve—and to see properly
enforced—the Second Amendment and the Militia Clauses of the original
Constitution. For none of them has suggested that some new amendment should
repeal those provisions.
What, though, does the Second Amendment tell us? That “[a]
well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”.
“Necessary”, not optional. Which is also why the original Constitution
incorporates the Militia as permanent parts of the federal system. Are the
Second Amendment and the original Constitution both wrong? If not, then why are
the proponents of an “Article V Convention” not expending at least some of
their considerable energies to revitalize the Militia? Why should anyone
concern himself with amendments to the Constitution, the value of which is
debatable, when the institutions which the Constitution describes as
“necessary”, and the value of which is therefore beyond debate, remain moribund
in every State? Should not everyone’s priority be to revitalize the “necessary”
institutions before taking on arguably unnecessary (and perhaps
counterproductive) tasks? Or are we to accept the glaring self-contradiction
that, although the Militia are “necessary”, nevertheless no need exists to
revitalize them? Can the Militia be “necessary” and yet “unnecessary” at the
very same time?!
Perhaps some proponents of an “Article V Convention” do not
believe that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a
free State”. If so, they should candidly describe what they do consider
“necessary” for that purpose, and just how the new amendments they propose will
achieve that goal even while the Second Amendment and the Militia Clauses of
the original Constitution are left unenforced. Inasmuch as the overriding
purpose of the Constitution as a whole is precisely to guarantee “the security
of a free State” to all Americans, it would seem that if the Second Amendment
and the Militia Clauses are not to be enforced, then something absolutely needs
to be included in the compendium of new amendments in order to perform their
erstwhile function. I, for one, wait with breathless anticipation for the
proponents of an “Article V Convention” to describe the new amendments which
they claim will serve that end.
• Fifth and last, NewsWithViews readers have been instructed
by one of the foremost advocates of an “Article V Convention” that we all need
to be “pragmatic”. Now, one might dismiss such a recommendation with the old
saw that “the problem with pragmatism is that it does not work”. But, being
scientifically trained myself, I am inclined to perform the experiment and see
if the results predicted by theory are confirmed in practice. The Constitution
tells us that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a
free State”. To test that theory, one needs to have “[a] well regulated
Militia”. To have “[a] well regulated Militia” today requires the
revitalization of the Militia, State by State. Once that experiment has been
performed, either the States which revitalize their Militia will achieve, or at
least move in the direction of, “the security of a free State”, or they will
not. The experiment will verify or falsify the theory. And that fairly quickly,
in decided contrast to the elongated process of an “Article V Convention”. So,
as “pragmatists” to the extent of being willing to test the theory of
“pragmatism”, why do we not perform the experiment of revitalizing the
Militia—even in just a single State—and see what happens? If the experiment
succeeds, it may obviate the supposed need for an “Article V Convention”
entirely, or at a minimum put into sharper focus than we have now what ought to
be done through such a convention. If the experiment fails, it may convince the
opponents of an “Article V Convention” to change their minds—for if the
Constitution could be so wrong as to describe the Militia as “necessary to the
security of a free State” when they are not, it could very well be wrong in
many other particulars, and therefore might need a comprehensive overhaul.
In any event, let us not try to “fix” a tool which is not
broken; and let us determine whether the tool is really broken by putting it to
its prescribed use, and gauging the results against the promises made by the
manufacturer.
To be fair to the proponents of an “Article V Convention”, I
must add that most of the opponents of such a convention, too, seem to have
missed the constitutional point I am trying to make. America’s problem is that
We the People who ordained and established the Constitution have defaulted on
their sovereign responsibility to enforce it. And not just indirectly through
their careless selection of incompetent and even disloyal “representatives”.
But by themselves directly. After all, the Constitution explicitly provides
for, and expects, its enforcement by the People through delegation to the
Militia of the authority and responsibility, the power and the duty, “to
execute the Laws of the Union”. To execute that power and perform that duty the
People need to have their Militia extant, operative, and effective. This can be
accomplished without any amendments, conventions, or other essentially “Star
Trek” science-fiction schemes to refashion the Constitution. But it will
require that the People demand it.
© 2014 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin263.htm
Comments
For
the 100th time… a CON CON, a CONVENTION OF STATES and ARTICLE V will DESTROY
OUR CONSTITUTION! STOP LISTENING TO THE
PAID TALKING HEADS. Victoria Baer
No comments:
Post a Comment