AMENDMENTS “CHANGE” THE CONSTITUTION…

The Convention of States Project followers have been misinformed.

First, COS followers think that…

“Convention of States is NOT changing the Constitution, it IS adding Amendments to the Constitution, just like the 27 Amendments that were added by Congress over the past 200+ years.”

Fact is, the original constitution has already been “changed” nine (9) times through amendments…

Article I: amended four times –
Jul 9, 1868 (XIV Am.)
Feb 3, 1913 (XVI Am.)
Apr 8, 1913 (XVII Am.)
Jan 23, 1933 (XX Am.)

Article II: amended three times –
Jun 15, 1804 (XII Am.)
Jan 23, 1933 (XX Am.)
Feb. 10, 1967 (XXV Am.)

Article III: amended once:
Feb 7, 1795 (XI Am.)

Article IV: amended once
Dec 6, 1865 (XIII Am.)

Then there are the Amendments that “changed” Amendments –
12th Amendment – Jan 23, 1933 (XX Am.)
18th Amendment – Dec 5, 1933 (XXI Am.)

Second, COS followers have been led to believe that a “convention of states” is different from a constitutional convention.   Article V is 143 words.  Only 2 bodies are sanctioned to “propose” amendments;
1. Congress
2. A constitutional convention (aka Article V convention)

These are the facts.

As Thomas Jefferson said:
…if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
…“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free…it expects what never was and never will be.”

Why does one suppose that the COS organizers teach such deception?

2 thoughts on “AMENDMENTS “CHANGE” THE CONSTITUTION…”

  1. Ms. Harless, I don’t know the source of your quote that “Convention of States is NOT changing the Constitution, it IS adding Amendments to the Constitution, just like the 27 Amendments that were added by Congress over the past 200+ years.” Can you provide a source and some context to that statement? As a COS supporter, I’ve never heard anyone say that. (Doesn’t mean no one ever has, but that’s why I ask for a source and its context. I’d like to know.)

    Of course that’s not an accurate distinction to draw; amendments by definition alter the structure of government. That’s the whole point of calling this convention. You are no doubt aware that you and I and the State governments are only two of the three parties in the federalist system; the third is the central government, and if you examine its history you will be astonished to discover that it has been furiously busy for over a century changing it. Partly through amendments but mostly through judicial action. Through neglect in its duty to check itself. Through executive decree. Think about it, please. While you and I have been closely guarding the blueprints, the central government has gradually shuffled us to the corner, walled us in, and turned the meeting room into a labyrinth. But by golly, the blueprints are more or less the same…

    If you believe that a convention between the States is identical to a constitutional convention, you’re operating under two false premises: one, that you understand what a convention is empowered to do and how that makes it different by definition; and two, that America has had no fewer than 37 conventions between the States in its history and that only one of them changed the Constitution. So how is it remotely legitimate automatically to link those two terms?

    1. Sadly, comments here cannot be edited so a follow-on is necessary. My previous comment requires an editorial correction:

      “one, that you understand what a convention is empowered to do and that there is no difference in the definitions of ‘to propose’ and ‘to amend;’ ”

      With apologies for having written too fast…

Leave a Reply