Hawaii House of Representatives Calls for an Article V Convention & Wants to Add Obamacare to Constitution
We’ve been hearing a lot of calls for an Article V Convention from those who seek to destroy our Republic and mold it into something it was never designed to be. Then we have also heard calls from those like Mark Levin, whose book The Liberty Amendments, has sparked a lot of calls on the right to deal with the corruption in Washington by means of Constitutional amendments. Several of our writers have engaged the issue, but it seems to me that those who favor nullification and not supporting an Article V convention are now seeing evidence of what they have been warning about.
Hawaii called for an Article V Convention in 2012 and passed a resolution to that effect in the House. However, more than calling for an Article V convention, the Hawaii state legislature also called for something else. According to HCR 114, here’s what else the resolution calls for:
(1) A declaration of the constitutionality of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance;
(2) An amendment to Article I, Section 5, to prohibit the supermajority cloture requirement under Rule 22 of the United States Senate for ending floor debates and filibusters, to facilitate a more reasonable voting standard for cloture;
(3) An amendment abolishing the electoral college established under Article II, Section 1, and providing for the direct election of the United States President and Vice President by voters; and
(4) An amendment to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, to require that Senate confirmations of appointments of officers of the United States be made by a simple majority vote within sixty days of the nomination.
If these were to be adopted, and don’t think many people wouldn’t agree with several of these in our culture, it would turn our Republic into a Democracy. I hope no one in this audience wants that. It would make Obamacare part of the Constitution, abolish the electoral college and any appointees the president wants, he gets by a simple majority vote in the Senate, not to mention that filibusters and real debate would end on matters.
According to Open States, the bill passed the House on April 5, 2012, but was never voted on in the Senate. It also was brought up against in 2013, where it passed the House again on April 12, 2013. In both cases, only Democrats were sponsors.
No doubt, these same people may try and push the same resolution in 2014.
While Mark Levin has assured everyone that there is no danger with an Article V convention, others have not been so quick to believe him. Our own Publius Huldah has called Levin out on the issue here and here.
I am a firm supporter of nullification. States have that right and if the federal government wants to bully the states, then we need governors willing to stand up to the bully. I also recognize the Constitution does allow for an Article V convention. However, there are several things to consider. First, remember what took place in the first Constitutional Convention. Delegates were sent to rework the Articles of Confederation and they came out with a brand new Constitution. You can read about that in Conspiracy in Philadelphia by downloading it here.
Second, I will remind conservatives that everyone who wears the Republican jersey is not a conservative (make note of that as you read Madison’s words below). Many are not even fiscal conservatives or social conservatives.
Third, if the criminals in Washington aren’t following what is written now, what do you think they will do with more words? That’s right, they’ll ignore, bend and break them and continue their criminal behavior.
Finally, I’m reminded of the words of James Madison when he was asked about such a convention. Here’s what he said:
“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville
Madison said this about the “present temper of America.” How much more the present temper of America in our day? Make no mistake that a call for such a convention will not just be about an amendment here or there. In this climate, it will result in a full-fledged con-con, regardless of the desires of many who are calling for it.
While I believe there are many patriots who want to do the right thing and I don’t know their motives, I’m not one that is for an Article V Convention. I say we simply exercise our rights as the creators of the federal government and bring our creature back under control via nullification…. Or simply abolish it.
On a final note, I would highly recommend you read Dr. Joel McDurmon’s article on Mark Levin’s comments about nullification, and also view the challenge by Tom Woods to debate the issue of an Article V convention below: