Constitutional Basics

During June of 1776, the Second Continental Congress, realizing that thirteen separate and independent colonies had little chance of winning their war for independence, appointed a committee to draft what became known as the “Articles of Confederation”. This document, once ratified by the colonies in March 1781, was the basis of a political union to be known as “The United States of America”. Under this, our first constitution, the Articles set the rules for operating the new "United States" confederation, which was only allowed to make war, negotiate diplomatic agreements, and resolve disagreements regarding the western territories. The individual states retained sovereignty over all other governmental functions. But, with no authority to raise tax revenues, or to call an army into being, Congress was left with no other option than to literally beg the individual colonies for funds and troops when necessary. Further, the articles left the central government nearly powerless, in that there was no mechanism by which the individual states could be made to accede to the lawful orders of “Congress Assembled”. It soon became apparent that while the Confederation was an improvement over the prior situation, it left many of the original problems unsolved, and eventually caused deep divides between the states that the national government could not resolve.

What later became known as the Annapolis Convention was called to address the difficulties caused by the many political differences between the States. Finding themselves without a quorum, the few state delegates in attendance endorsed a motion that called for all states to meet in a "Grand Convention" at Philadelphia in May, 1787 to discuss ways to improve the Articles of Confederation. This Philadelphia Convention (now known as the Constitutional Convention) took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787, to address the problems of governing the United States of America. Although the Convention was intended only to revise the Articles of Confederation, the intention of many of its proponents was to create a new government rather than to "fix" the existing one. George Washington was selected to preside over this convention. In late July the convention appointed a “Committee of Detail” to draft a document based on the agreements that had been hammered out. A second committee, the “Committee of Style and Arrangement” produced the final version, which was submitted for signing on September 17. Not all of the delegates were pleased with the results; some left before the ceremony, and three of those remaining refused to sign. George Mason demanded a Bill of Rights if he was to support the new Constitution, which was finally added and is considered the final compromise of the Convention. Of the 39 signatories, probably no one was completely satisfied, and their views were aptly stated by Benjamin Franklin who said, "There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. ... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies..." On March 4, 1789, the Constitution of the United States of America became the law of the land.

The Preamble tells us that government gets its powers from "We the People," and not the other way around. The Framers of our Constitution handily gave us a limited federal government with severely limited authority which is specifically identified. Then there is the Tenth Amendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States . . . or to the people." And that amendment is our primary defense against abuses by the national government. A second safeguard is the separation of powers among the three branches; legislative, executive, and judicial. As Mr. Obama continues what gives every appearance of becoming a very unusual term in office, he, and a seemingly endless procession of unelected "czars" (32 at last count), would be well advised to examine the very first sentence of Article I: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." Only the legislature, not the executive branch via appointed Czars, is authorized to make laws. (For the moment however we could just call him "Czar Obama".) Mr. Obama is a remarkable man of course, and with 12 years as lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, he is certainly no stranger to the Constitution, and should well know that our government is “bound down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.". Yet he accepts the fashionable notion of a "living" document, which has sufficient flexibility to accommodate rapidly changing social, economic, and technological conditions. With this, he is happily appointing judges who "stand up for social and economic justice" and have "empathy... to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." While none of us are opposed to social and economic justice, the question is whether a judge’s ideas about those values should dictate how the Constitution and our laws are interpreted. One legal expert that I consulted informs me that once a law is passed it is most certainly “writ in stone”, and not subject to “flexible interpretation”. As the basis of all law in the United Stated is derived from our Constitution, I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if we have a flexible “living” document or not.

There are two ways our Constitution can be changed. One is through the amendment process which requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress to pass an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states to ratify it. The second does not require those elected representatives, and is called a Constitutional Convention. Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention (a "Con-Con") if two-thirds of the states request it, and there are no other rules or guidelines. We don't know how delegates would be apportioned or elected. We don't know what rules the Convention would operate under, or whether changes to the Constitution could be made by a simple majority or a super majority. We don't know if the agenda could be limited or would be wide open to anything. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once claimed that "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda." All this would mean that Congress will set the rules, and the basic law of the land could be changed forever at the whim of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. While many people may deny the accusation, the far left most certainly is calling for a Con-Con.

All that is needed is for two more states to ask for a Constitutional Convention... Article V says that it takes a request from two-thirds of the states to force a "Con-Con", but it doesn't set a time limit on getting that total. Thirty-two states have already issued a call for a "Con-Con" over the last few decades for various reasons, now only two more states are required. The call from California was only to consider changes to their state constitution, but Ohio recently issued (and then withdrew) a call to consider changes to our national constitution…

Benjamin Franklin was once asked: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?" “A Republic, if you can keep it.” was his response.