Did anybody ever believe
we would see a day when so many people would forsake the liberties our nation
has bestowed upon us in favor of false promises of security? With the
possibility of a so called “convention of the states’” gaining momentum, this
is a question that deserves a great deal of attention. While Benjamin Franklin
will always be remembered for his declaration that people who forego liberty
for security will end up with neither; it must be remembered that the
constitution has within its own mechanisms, the very methods in which the
people may abolish it. The constitution is written on the principle that
legitimate power of government is dependent on the will and consent of the
governed. What this essentially means is that only by a voluntary surrender of
our constitutionally derived authority can the people lose it to absolute
despotism. This one principle must be
remembered as we drive ever closer to the possibility of what is being referred
to as an Article V convention. Many scribes have referred to an Article V
convention as a fallacy, while others claiming to be strict constitutional
conservatives hail it as the only way to save the republic. This author intends
to research the legitimacy of a “convention of the states” as it is believed
that only congress can call a constitutional convention, and as Publius Hublah
writes in this article http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/article-v-propaganda-conspiracy-constitution/,
state legislators can only appeal to the congress and apply for a convention,
they can’t run one.
While the
possibility of a convention may be appealing on many levels, the very fact that
the constitution derives its authority from the consent of the governed could
very well cause problems in today’s world. Many millions of people have jumped on board
Obama’s magical, fundamental transformation choo choo train, and could very
well demand its abolishment. As Publius points out in her article, the method
of ratifying the new constitution in 1787 was new and developed as they went.
What would stop people who conspire to do away with it from making new rules
that support the demands of those, which would be represented as, “consenting
to its abolishment?” Or as another author on the subject Robert Broadus asks, “What
will stop progressives from taking full advantage of this convention and
completely rewriting it in their image?” http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/article-v-propaganda-conspiracy-constitution/
When dealing with
the “consent of the governed” issue you have to realize that those seeking to
usurp your liberties know full well that only by your “consent” can they place
you under their thumb. This surely explains why an education concerning the
constitution virtually ends in junior high school. Only a public educated in
the science of constitutional government, a public fully aware of their rights
and a public with the moral intestinal fortitude to self govern will maintain
their personal liberty. The very idea of freedom is now viewed as a reason our
nation has so many problems. The constitution itself has become, in the eyes of
those educated in the doctrines of social justice, as “oppressive.” While those
espousing the principles of liberty understand the necessity of binding the hands
of those that govern, others, having been taught that they deserve an equal
share of society’s resources view it as a means of limiting government’s power
to provide it for them. The system our
founders put in place, as President Obama so often declares, prevents him from
establishing the promised Utopian paradise of socialism and therefore, is
hampering progress.
In other words,
society, through education, is being taught to consent to tyranny. People have
been denied an honest education into constitutional government as a means of
convincing them of the need for social change. By teaching people that they are oppressed, they
are organizing a mass power base in which to carry out their bidding, which
when implemented, is actually being done in accordance with the constitution
itself. Let’s take the words of Justice Story from “Familiar Exposition of the Constitution.”
We shall treat our constitution, not as a mere compact, or
league, or confederacy, existing at the mere will of any one or more of the
States, during their good pleasure; but, (as it purports on its face to be) as
a Constitution of Government, framed and adopted by the people of the United
States, and obligatory upon all the States, until it is altered, amended, or
abolished by the people, in the manner pointed out in the instrument itself. (Meese,
Spalding & Forte, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, 2005)
As it is clearly
stated here, the constitution, being written to instill legitimate powers of
government from the consent of the governed can very well be done away with if that’s
what the “governed” consent to. With the
progressive left being in control of much of our government and a huge portion of
the population completely ignorant on what liberties would disappear with the
abolishment of the constitution, perhaps an Article V convention should be
viewed as a legitimate way for those seeking total power to obtain it. Before
rushing into this potential disaster perhaps an effort to educate the nation on
the constitution is in order. When everyone understands what the constitution
really says and why it says it, if they still want a convention, at least it
will be by “informed consent.”
No comments:
Post a Comment