What good is a new constitution, if our current crop of political elitists won’t even obey the current one?
That is a question we must all be asking ourselves, as more people engage in talk about an Article V “Convention of the States.”
What many who advocate such a Convention forget is that our current higher law is the direct result of a Convention of the States. In 1787, such a convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation. And this they did… by throwing out the Articles and replacing it with our current Constitution, much to the disgust of such Revolutionary War greats as Patrick Henry, who became one of the key firebrands of the anti-federalist movement. Henry supported a reform of the Articles… but not an entirely new constitutional system. At least then we had reasonably honest, and in some cases, brilliant individuals to frame the new constitution.
Our problem today is not so much the Constitution, though some amendments need to be discarded, just as the XVIII (regarding Prohibition) was repealed in 1933. Our problem is one of strict verses loose constructionism as to how to read the Constitution.[1] Loose constructionists don’t want to be held accountable to the rule of law. Rather, they want to “read” into law their heart’s desire to increase the power of the state.
So dear reader, ask yourself these two questions: if we have a “Convention of the States,” what kind of people will go to this convention? Street-smart, humble people who are strict constructionists in the way they approach right and wrong? Or so-called “educated” loose constructionists, the typical Democrat and RINO that permeates not only the swamp in Washington, but also the fabric of our local political structures?
And the next question we need to ask: can we keep these people from throwing out the entire Constitution and writing a new, radical leftist version?
I think we all know the answer to these two questions.
If you want to have an idea of what kind of constitution we would get out of such a convention, one can run down a copy of Rexford G. Tugwell’s The Emerging Constitution.[2] This version would create an all-powerful centralized state, enshrined as the law of land. It is a Neocon’s dream come true. And when that happens, loose constructionists suddenly become hyper-strict constructionists, screaming “you will obey, or else!”
Rather than a new constitution, we need local political leaders to stand up and demand adherence to the one we currently have. And it takes time to cultivate and develop people who will become these leaders, who are honest and strict constructionists.
Sadly, today we have very few. But there is hope on the horizon, if we remain patient and continue working to create such leaders for the future. Until then, we must labor where we are, in exile in the land of Egypt.
Russ Rodgers has several books published on Amazon.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
[1] See my article on this issue of strict vs. loose constructionism: https://afnn.us/2024/04/10/alexander-hamilton-lied-perhaps/
[2] Rexford G. Tugwell. The Emerging Constitution. New York: Harper’s Magazine Press, 1974. I have tried to find an online version of Tugwell’s proposed “Newstates of America” constitution. Unfortunately, I have not. However, here are a few points to note: first, freedom of movement can be restricted in times of declared emergency; secrecy of communication between political leaders; practice of religion is a privilege (not right); every person is liable to serve the state (in essence, the medieval “corvee”); only the police and military will be armed; the Senate becomes a lifetime aristocracy; new states will be formed, and new constitutions for each created. While there are aspects of his proposal that appear, on the surface, good, the essence of Tugwell’s proposal is a totalitarian state with a façade of so-called “democracy.”