We Don’t Need an Article V Convention to “Clarify” Our Constitution!

By Publius Huldah

Those pushing for the so-called “convention of states” 1 say we must amend the Constitution because the people in Washington “don’t understand it”.


Our Constitution is so simple that Alexander Hamilton expected us to be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority”; and he said the people are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” (Federalist No. 16, next to last para).

Well then, if our Constitution is something The People are expected to know and enforce; is it plausible to assert that the Representatives we send to Washington – and even supreme Court Justices – are incapable of understanding it?

Justices on the supreme Court have been perverting our Constitution for a long time. Do they do this because they are so stupid they don’t understand our Constitution? Of course not! They violate our Constitution because they claim the right to impose their own personal views on the rest of us.

As every American over the age of 10 should know, the powers our federal Constitution delegates to Congress and the President are limited & defined – they are “enumerated”.

So! Progressives on the supreme Court had to find a way to get around the limitations imposed by the enumerated powers. And they did it by perverting three clauses: the “interstate commerce”, “general welfare”, and “necessary and proper” clauses.

However, a quick look in The Federalist Papers shows the original intents of these clauses. We don’t need a convention to draft amendments showing what these clauses mean – just look it up in The Federalist! But! You don’t have to – I’ve already done it – and here it is: 2

The “interstate commerce” clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3)

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says “commerce” is the buying and selling of goods.

In Federalist No. 22 (4th para) and Federalist No. 42 (9th & 10th paras), Hamilton and Madison explain the primary purpose of the clause: To prohibit the States from imposing taxes & tolls on merchandize as it is transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling.

The “general welfare” clause (Preamble & Art. I, §8, cl. 1)

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “welfare” as:

“2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.”

It has nothing to do with handouts, public relief, or the feds doing whatever they think is a good idea.

In Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras), Madison points out that Art. I, § 8, employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the “general phrase”. It is “error” to focus on “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; thus, to argue that the general expression provides an unlimited power is “an absurdity”.

So yes! The powers of Congress over the Country at Large really are limited primarily to those few listed at Art. I, §8, clauses 3-16.

Our Framers understood that “general Welfare”, i.e., the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society and civil government, was possible only with a federal government of strictly limited powers. [Let that sink in.]

The “necessary and proper” clause (Art. I, §8, last clause)

This clause delegates to Congress power to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article”; a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power, and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a  tautology or redundancy” (Federalist No. 33, 2nd & 3rd paras). Madison writes to the same effect in (Federalist No. 44, under his discussion of the SIXTH class of powers).

So the clause permits the execution of powers already delegated and enumerated in the Constitution.  No additional substantive powers are granted by the clause.

Learn the enumerated powers delegated to Congress & to the President. With our Votes & Nullification of unconstitutional acts, let’s enforce the Constitution we already have. Don’t let others change or replace it! PH


1 The term, “convention of states”, is deliberately deceptive. The only convention for proposing amendments is the one at Article V of our Constitution – and Congress has the power to “call” it. And since Article I, Sec. 8, last clause, vests in Congress all powers “necessary and proper” to carry out its power to “call” the convention, Congress decides all organizational issues, such as, the number and selection process for delegates.

But once the delegates (whoever they turn out to be) are seated, neither Congress nor the States have any control over them. The delegates can do whatever they want. They can propose a new Constitution with a new method of ratification. Here are two Constitutions already waiting in the wings: The “Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America”, which you can read about from their own website HERE and from JBS HERE; or the “Constitution for the Newstates of America”, which you can read HERE. Do you think that any of the delegates (remember, you have no idea who they will be), can be bribed to introduce and vote for one of these proposed constitutions?

Disabuse yourself of the false notion that “the States have to ratify anything the convention does”. That is the second biggest lie ever told: The proposed “Constitution for the Newstates of America” is ratified by a Referendum called by the President. The States, as political bodies, never get the opportunity to reject it – they are dissolved and replaced by regions answerable directly to the new national government.

The ONLY precedent we have for an “amendments convention” is the federal convention of 1787 which drafted & proposed our existing Constitution.

HERE is the Resolution, made by the Continental Congress on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74), to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:

“…for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

The delegates ignored their instructions and wrote an entirely new Constitution – the one we now have. Furthermore, whereas Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation (LINK) required all of the then 13 States to ratify Amendments to the Articles; Article VII of the new Constitution required only 9 of the 13 States to ratify the new Constitution.

Do you see?

2 Our People don’t have a clue about what these 3 clauses mean. So YOU learn the original intent. On social media, start teaching that original intent to The People. Help turn on the lights in their minds. PH

7 thoughts on “We Don’t Need an Article V Convention to “Clarify” Our Constitution!

  1. If the convention of states would be subverted as you suggest, Publius, what is it that YOU suggest to get the nation’s politicians and bureaucrats to actually follow the Constitution’s original intent.? I agree with your assessment that the Constitution’s intent is quite clear, and the powers that be have flaunted its plain language for a very long time.

    Montesquieu in his Book III of “The Spirit Of Laws” captures what has happened to us:

    When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community.

    It seems that is what has happened. There is insufficient virtue in this world. The absolutely fundamental advice offered in the scriptures are being absolutely ignored. If Montesquieu is right about this, then the question is, “How can we help Him reestablish virtue in the hearts and minds of a) ourselves and b) the people with which we share the planet?”

    Without virtue, there will be mayhem osistm. We are on a difficult path. Keep all your implements sharp. Be prepared.

  2. Pingback: We Don’t Need an Art icle V Convention to “Clarify” Our Const itution! | a12iggymom's Blog

  3. Pingback: We Don’t Need an Article V Convention to “Clarify” Our Constitution! | a12iggymom's Blog

  4. Just to show how far Publius is off base, I will only discuss one point of public record. She cites the call Congress made in 1787 as part of her “evidence” the convention was a “runaway.” What she doesn’t discuss and none of the convention opponents will never discuss is the fact that on September 27, 1787 TEN DAYS after the close of the convention Congress considered the question of whether or not the convention had exceeded its authority in proposing the Constitution. To make a short story short, Congress overwhelmingly voted that the convention was not a runaway. The public record shows those who believed the convention had exceeded its authority numbered four–not states, people. Four members of Congress out of the entire body. Publius needs to learn to get her facts straight, accurate and complete before making a statement. This is not the 1980’s where the JBS ran wild and no one checked anything. Every statement she makes is checked against public record and brevity is the only reason a complete correction of her errors is not made. Besides the corrections have been made before. Her response? Ignore the facts and just keep lying.

  5. Bill Walker, yours is typical of the moronic comments of those who jumped on the COS bandwagon.

    In my footnote 1, I stated the unvarnished relevant Facts, with links to original source documents to prove the Facts alleged:

    1) The Continental Congress called the convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.
    2) Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required all of the then 13 States to ratify amendments to the Articles.
    3) The delegates to the Convention of 1787 disregarded the instructions of the Continental Congress and wrote a new Constitution with a new method of ratification: Only 9 of the 13 States were required to ratify the new Constitution before it became effective (See Article VII, clause 1 of the Constitution of 1787).

    Bare Unvarnished Facts. Proved by hyperlinks to original source documents.

    Whether the Continental Congress later approved or disapproved of what the delegates did is totally irrelevant.

    The adjectives different people come up with to describe the Convention of 1787 are irrelevant.

    Just the Facts, mam.

  6. Rich J,
    You are quite right. So was Montesquieu. Madison and others of our Framers wrote to the same effect. I have always said the problem is NOT our Constitution – it is not Congress, the federal courts, or obama. The problem is the morally degenerate American People who put these people in office. About a 100 years ago, we changed our national motto FROM “In God we Trust” TO “Take it from somebody else and give it to me”. We have the federal and State and County governments WE voted for!
    We willingly surrendered personal responsibility to the growing federal and State governments – after all, they were going to take care of us!
    We abandoned the Faith of our Fathers and embraced moral relativism.
    We didn’t trouble ourselves to learn our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and enforce them with our votes! We watched TV and stuffed ourselves with food.
    No need for me to go on. Bill Walker illustrates this better than I can.
    And our worthless clergy! They willingly surrendered their sacred DUTY to teach the whole Word of God, in exchange for a 501 (c) (3) tax exemption and church growth.
    The ONLY thing which will restore us is for us to fall on our knees, seek God’s Face, repent of our sins, and beg him to heal our Land.
    And in the meantime, let’s keep the Constitution we have – so that it will still be there when WE BECOME WORTHY OF IT.

Comments are closed.

Donate to

Support American Values...