[fbabooksales]

In Presentation 2, the idea is brought forward about having a present-day Constitutional Convention. While there is a lot of talk about that today, with ideas of various amendments being added, some groups (The John Birch Society et al) maintain that a modern-day convention would be disastrous given the lack of knowledgeable, virtuous, and liberty-minded individuals who would be chosen as delegates. A Con-Con is also viewed very suspiciously because of its backing and support by many New World Order types such as George Sorros; individuals and groups who hate personal liberty and American sovereignty. I believe that even James Madison himself feared the results if yet another convention were to take place. Also, I’m not a “Constitution worshiper” as some are, as I actually believe the Constitution took us AWAY from the level of individual freedom that was had under the Articles of Confederation; but, given the increased centralization that occurred as a result of the 1787 Convention, I shudder to think what the results would be of a Constitutional Convention today. I would greatly appreciate any comments, either yea or nay. Thank you.

[gutzmank]

Under our current system, presidents make wars whenever they want, Congress legislates on whatever it likes, and federal judges make rulings completely unrelated to the Constitution. What would be worse if there were a constitutional convention? I favor the limited one advocated by the Compact for America, and I’m a member of the Compact for American Education Foundation’s board of advisors.

Here’s my account of the rise of the current movement:

Do We Need a New Constitutional Convention?

Here’s my review of an anti-Article V book by the then-president of the Arizona Senate:

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/07/02/review-andy-biggs-the-con-of-the-con-con/

Here I debate a John Birch Society official about it on The Tom Woods Show:

Ep. 498 Should We Hold an Article V Amendments Convention? A Debate

[fbabooksales]

Thank you for your response. Obviously, I have more studying and thinking to do regarding this matter. I suppose my greatest apprehension concerns what might be removed rather than what might be added. On a positive note, I celebrated the holiday yesterday by joining Liberty Classroom at the Master level, and also by a lifetime subscription to the Tenth Amendment Center. Obviously, I know how you feel about LC, but what is your opinion of the TAC, the work they do, and how they fit into the fight for liberty?

[gutzmank]

They tweeted one of my essays 13 minutes after you posted this query, and Tom Woods and I were among the featured experts in their documentary on Nullification.

Here we are on the case:

https://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Rightful-Thomas-E-Woods/dp/B008BVYV4G/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1499297707&sr=8-4&keywords=gutzman

[evassar92]

Hello there,

I read your post, and I find your thoughts on a Constitutional Convention interesting. I agree with Dr. Gutzman that the General government today does not function or look like the government of 1789. The out of control legislature passing laws not enumerated in the Constitution, presidential war powers and others, and don’t even get me started on the SCOTUS.

I have pondered this same question about a second convention, and while I don’t think the Constitution as ratified was any hinderance to liberty, I think the bigger question is: “Is a Constitution actually the best means of creating and limiting a government?” I don’t hold the the Constitution to be this holy document that shouldn’t be touched or altered, but I have to think about how the Union throughout American history has slowly moved more toward centralization. I bet even Hamilton would be scared of what our government looks like now. So, once again, is a Constitution really the best solution to rein in government and enhance peoples’ liberties? I find this question to be very interesting. I do agree that a second convention isn’t a bad thing at all, and I would love to be involved in a second Constitutional Convention, but I would also like to discuss perhaps an alternative to restricting government that is more effective that a Constitution.

I do not have an answer To this other than somehow educating the common citizen about liberty and history, but it seems so inadequate especially if the government gets its paws on the educational system like it already does in the States. This is something to ponder. Just my thoughts.

Evan

[gutzmank]

Until some other means comes into being, we have to make do with the state-initiated amendment process.

[Author]

Posts