In 1818, the people of Connecticut were promised a “limited” treaty. One is a narrow and exclusive dealing with two urgent reforms. That was the food. switch? A brand new constitution and a whole new form of government. This was more than just a revising process. It was a stealth political revolution, and today it serves as a plain warning to all Americans seduced by the “limited” Article V Constitutional Treaty's siren song.
The Treaty of Connecticut
Let's go back to the beginning. In the early 1800s, Connecticut still operated under the Colonial Charter granted by Charles II in 1662. The charter survived remarkably unharmed through the turbulence of revolution and the birth of a new republic, serving as the de facto constitution of the nation for more than 150 years. However, by 1818, pressure was increasing to revise two important aspects of the government structure. It is the unification of power and the explicit intertwining of the church and the state in the general assembly.
Certainly, these issues were real. But they were used ironically and ironically as an excuse for something much more dramatic. It's a complete overhaul of the state government. And that's exactly what happened.
The Connecticut treaty was invoked on the narrow premise of “amending” the existing charter. That's how people were sold with this idea. The cry of unity was reform, not revolution. However, once assembled, the representative of the conference went far beyond their duties. They didn't fix the charter – they dumped it. They did not limit themselves to the separation of religious freedom and power – they rewrite the entire structure of government.
The general meeting has no longer had the advantage. Charters from centuries ago are gone. They had a brand new constitution that fundamentally changed the distribution of power, changed how representatives were chosen, and redefine the relationship between people and their government. In other words, Connecticut people were told they would repair leaky roofs, but they woke up, their entire home was destroyed and rebuilt without consent.
Today's silence song
And that is what dear reader, exactly what we hope for the enemy of the Constitution to withdraw at the national level today.
The siren song for “Limited Conventions” is nothing new. Con-Con crowds love to reassure Americans that Article V Convention is limited to a tidy, small list of topics, even when wearing blue ties or red hats. A balanced budget revision. Duration limit. Campaign finance reform. Make your choice. But the truth is, once the custom is convened, their representatives are seated, and their gabels pound the wood, there is no enforceable limit to what they can do.
Ask Connecticut.
Even the US Constitution itself does not provide safeguards against the runaway treaty. According to Article 5, the legislature states that if two-thirds of the state apply for one, they will “call a treaty to propose an amendment.” But, nowhere, it says what modifications, how many, how much, and how binding is the binding of the topic limit. And once the treaty begins, there is no mechanism anywhere else in Article 5 or the Constitution.
Some supporters argue that state legislatures can “bind” representatives to certain agendas. It's a lovely fairy tale. In fact, it's pure fantasy. The delegation to the national convention draws power from the practice itself, not the parliament itself, in their hometown, which gathered in a sovereign manner, as the original framers did in 1787. Just like the Philadelphia framers, modern representatives believe that “if they are mistaken or thought to be false, they believe that modern representatives believe that they are “mistaked.”
That's exactly what happened in Connecticut. And that's what could happen – it's going to happen – if we open Pandora's box and call today's article V convention.
1787: Runaway Treaty
Remember: the 1787 Philadelphia Conference itself was a runaway treaty. Representatives were sent to “revise the alliance article.” They should not have written a whole new constitution. But that's exactly what they did. why? When sovereignty is framed, it is by definition not constrained by previous restrictions.
Connecticut in 1818 followed the same path. And here is an important lesson. It didn't require any deception, malice or conspiracy. It required only ambition, political opportunity, and an ambitious delegation. If we believe that people are entrusted with the authority to act for others, we cannot “limit” the power of men. Any restrictions you think you've drawn will be erased the moment the door closes and the vote begins.
Today, the promotion of constitutional treaties is surrounded by patriotism. Advocates declare defenders of freedom, reformers of corrupt systems. They argue that they just want to restore constitutional government. But their strategy would put that very constitution on the operating table – and we don't know who the surgeon is or what scalp will behave.
We shouldn't fall on the same bait and switch as Connecticut. Just as the treaty ultimately offered a new constitution rather than an amendment, it is likely that the modern Article V Convention also far exceeds its suspected boundaries. The risk is not hypothetical. It's historical.
A real goal?
Do you hand a loaded weapon to a stranger? Second, do not pass the constitution to a committee of politically appointed representatives.
Even among the defenders of “limited treaties,” there are already rumours that the real goal is to restructure the Supreme Court, nationalize election procedures, or “modernize” the Bill of Rights. Imagine in a horrifying moment when George Soros, Bill Gates, or the Center for American Progress, decides to fund a smooth campaign to select representatives who are globalism, socialism, or worse yet sympathetic. Do you think they won't take the opportunity? Do you think they'll stop at a time limit?
Connecticut didn't get what it was promised. People were told they were seeing modest reforms. They were handed the revolution. And now, two centuries later, we are selling the same scam on a massive scale.
Don't be fooled.
We need to remember the warning from James Madison, who said, “The treaty is neither necessary nor safe.” You should remember what Thomas Jefferson said. “When we protect corruption and tyranny, it's before they embrace us.”
Never forget Connecticut, 1818. This is a case study of how limited treaties become unlimited treaties and how quickly the constitution can be replaced under reform ploys.
