The brand Democrats use
It is perhaps a bit ironic to memorialize Constitution Day with reference to two articles that help explain a method for changing it restoring it.
Most people are familiar with the workings of the process whereby Congress proposes and the states ratify. But the Constitution’s Article Five amendment process also provides for largely bypassing Congress through the state convention route. That route has been called for by Mark Levin in his best selling book The Liberty Amendments. Levin calls for such a process in the interest of restoring the Constitution to historic understanding and potency.
The state process has been criticized by liberals and many conservatives for one reason or another. With true irony, liberals fear conservative results and conservatives have feared liberals would high-jack the convention to their ends. The highjacking aspect is authoritatively written about by Rob Natelson, former constitutional law professor at the University of Montana and currently the senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute and Montana Policy Institute. Natelson is considered to be the foremost expert on the state convention process.
The two brief articles are: The Article V State Convention Process, Explained which is a transcript of an interview Mark Levin did with Natelson on his radio program. The transcript is provided through Jon Dougherty writing at Absolute Rights. Natelson also very recently wrote an article for American Thinker, The Myth of a Runaway Amendments Convention, which in particular addresses conservative concerns. Recommended reading this day! R Mall
In the end, whether it be by congress or convention, it is the people themselves that will have the final vote. No one, but the people themselves, have the true authority to change the very constitution itself, otherwise, it could not be considered a government by, of, and for the people.
But the question is, do the people recognize their constitution as an instrument to restrict government, or to enslave the people? Only the people will decide their fate based on that understanding by the majority.
Can’t argue with M. Elliot’s assertion that “only the people will decide their fate based on …(their understanding of the Constitution)…”.
How depressing is that! Our president’s apparent understanding of the constitution is that it does not…or at least…should not “restrict government.” An example is the fact that he has “total confidence” in an Attorney General who decides which laws he will uphold and which ones he will not (ie. immigration laws where one state (Arizona) passes laws in support of federal laws vs. other states, California, for example) which make their own declarations that they will NOT observe federal immigration laws…”sanctuary cities”, as one example). So…exactly where do “the people” get the understanding to recognize the Constitution’s purpose? from our President? from the media like the QC Times ed board? from our education system? As it is said, “Good luck with that!”