The national (COS) movement has come back again like a desperate salesman pushing through flawed products. He does something pure, wrapped in misunderstandings of history and the constitution, and hopes that repetition will replace the reason. Their latest screed, filled with rhetorical fluff and historical misconduct, demands a thorough and flinching rebuttal.
Let's start where they do – at a moment of constitutional clarity, give a self-righteous sneer towards Idaho lawmakers who refused to swallow article v bait. Cos calls their opponents “boldly” and “surprisingly ignorant.” In fact, it's a cos showing boldness. They pretend that they are Madison and Mason heirs, trampling on the very principles that those men fought to preserve.
Runaway Treaty: Constitutional Certification, not Canard
COS loves to laugh at what is called “canards” that treaties are “open to destroy the constitution.” But history isn't on their side – it's actually their biggest accuser.
In 1787, representatives were sent to amend the alliance clause rather than drafting a new charter. They went beyond their mission. The outcome was a new constitution – yes, a great achievement. However, the meeting conveniently ignores the precedent COS. Once convened, it is sovereignty in itself. It was drafted “faithfully” though not bound by previous resolutions. There is no constitutional mechanism to enforce pre-established agendas or prevent the rewrite of wholesale establishment documents.
Even Judge Antonin Scalia warned of this danger, even a man not known for his constitutional ti disease. At his 2014 address, Scalia said:
“I certainly don't want a constitutional treaty. …Do you know who comes out of it?”
Later, at a Federalist Association conference in New Jersey in 2015, Scalia called it a “terrifying idea” and held a constitutional treaty in an age when politics was monopolized by people influenced by deep pockets.
“Once you gather those people together, you don't know what they're going to do,” he said. “You get everything, but the kitchen sink is written in the constitution.”
Mason's Letter: Cherry Pick and Twist
If the COS is very committed to “limited government”, they should be aware of the attention of one of the biggest champions of limited government.
COS evokes the correspondence of George Mason, who lamented the slow progress of the 1787 Congress in a rather forced attempt at academic talent. They quote his phrase festival – “Hurry and slowly make it.” However, they failed to mention that Mason refused to sign the Constitution because he lacked sufficient protections to the federal government. Mason's real concern was too much power, not too little.
It was George Mason who said more and claimed that the Constitution contained a Bill of Rights. In fact, if the 1787 treaty was not a constitutional treaty, as the COS claimed, then there would be no Bill of Rights. They were ratified as an amendment to the new constitution created in Philadelphia!
The very article they rely on for supporting their cause exists only because the treaty of 1787 exceeded its duties and created a new constitution.
Furthermore, it was Mason who feared centralization and executive expansion. If Mason were alive today, he would likely be against modern conventions. He will know well enough that opening the document risks empowering the very power he opposed in 1787.
Article V: Shield, not sword
COS claims that the founder did Article V so that the founder could “check the federal government.” It is only partially true – and it is a dangerous semi-truth.
The actual checks on federal overreach are the 10th Amendment, the structure of federalism, and the invalidation of the state, not the constitutional roulette with a 21st century convention. State already have the power to tear the constitution and reject observance of unconstitutional conduct in order to negate the federal takeover without the need to want the best.
Madison, in Federalist 49, frequently appeals to constitutional reforms, “warns that they will take away the government of its worship, and then give it to everything.” The solution to unconstitutional actions is not amendment to the constitution, but submission to the constitution.
False promise of “control”
Cos ensures that everything is orderly, that the representative is faithful and that the Constitution is not at risk. However, they cannot guarantee one of those claims. Article V outlines rules, representative selection process, scope limitations, and enforcement mechanisms. When the convention opens, it's a blank slate, just like in 1787.
And if CoS had even a slight degree of constitutional humility, they recognize and acknowledge this fact. You don't gamble with the best laws of the land, especially if there are safe, safe and constitutionally sound alternatives already in some states.
Conclusion: Keep it firmly in the Constitution and don't rewrite it
State practices are not pioneers of freedom. It is whether it is an agent of constitutional destabilization or not. Their move is not to restore the Constitution. It is to rewrite it under the false pretense that the government could be restricted by a new language rather than a new resolve.
The founders gave us everything we needed to maintain our freedom. A limited enumerated federal government, a robust system of checks and balance, and sovereign states fulfill their obligation to resist federal seizing. The real solution is not a constitutional amendment. It is constitutional fidelity.
As Thomas Jefferson wisely said:
“We should not hear any more confidence in people, but let us tie him down from mischief by the constitutional chains.”
Chains, not conventions. Invalidation, not wise, unnecessary risk taking. Courage is hidden as a reform rather than as a coronavirus.
Resist this reckless siren song and hold it firmly in the Constitution. Don't open it to the tampering hands of modern Medlers, smarter than the founder.
