Article V
The Development of Article V, U.S. Constitution, at the Federal Convention of 1787
By Publius Huldah
Hyperlinks to Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 are provided. Use them! See for yourself what went on at the Convention!
After July 4, 1776, we operated under our first Constitution, The Articles of Confederation. Article XIII required approval of amendments by the Continental Congress and by every State.
Summary of the Dispute at the Convention of 1787
The dispute at the convention of 1787 was whether Congress (under the second Constitution then being drafted by the Delegates) should have any power over amendments:
- Mr. Randolph & George Mason wanted The People to be able to make amendments without the assent of Congress (May 29, June 11) and in a manner which did not depend on Congress (Sep 15, 1787).
- Several questioned the propriety of making Congress’ assent to amendments unnecessary (June 11, 1787).
- Gov. Morris, Hamilton, & Madison thought Congress ought to be able to propose amendments (Aug 30, Sep 10, 1787).
Some delegates spoke of a “convention” in connection with amendments:
- With Congress calling the convention (Aug 6) whenever Congress pleased (Aug 30, 1787).
- Mr. Gerry worried about States obtaining a convention and binding the Union to innovations which subverted State Constitutions (Sep 10, 1787).
- Mr. Hamilton said Congress should have power to call a convention to propose amendments to correct defects which would probably appear in the Constitution (Sep 10, 1787).
- Mr. Madison remarked on the vagueness of the terms, “call a Convention for the purpose”: “How was a Convention to be formed? – by what rule decide? – what the force of its acts?” (Sep 10); and “difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, &c., which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided” (Sep 15, 1787).
The final version of Article V provides two methods of proposing amendments to the Constitution: Congress either:
- Proposes the amendments; or
- “Calls” a convention when the Legislatures of 2/3 of the States apply for it. Since Art. I, §8, last clause, delegates to Congress the power to make the laws to carry out its power to “call” the convention, Congress has power to organize and set up the convention and determine how delegates will be chosen and even who they are.
So the dispute was won by those who thought Congress should be involved in the amendment process.
From James Madison’s Journal (Farrand’s edition) at the Library of Congress
May 29, 1787 (p 20, vol. 1): The work of the Convention begins. Mr. Randolph presented 15 resolutions to “open the great subject of their mission”. Randolph’s 13th resolution was:
“Resolved, that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union, whensoever it shall seem necessary; and that the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required thereto” (p 22).
June 5, 1787 (p 121, vol. 1): Randolph’s 13th resolution is taken up:
- Mr. Pinckney “doubted the propriety or necessity of it.” (p 121)
- Mr. Gerry favored it, pointing out that the “novelty and difficulty” of what they were doing required periodical revision; that the prospect of such a revision would give intermediate stability to the government; etc. (p 122)
The matter was postponed for further consideration. (p 122)
June 11, 1787 (p 202, vol. 1): Randolph’s 13th resolution for amending the national Constitution, hereafter, without consent of the national Legislature, was considered:
- Several members did not see the necessity of the Resolution, nor the propriety of making the consent of the National Legislature unnecessary. (p 202)
- Geo. Mason said the Constitution now being formed “will certainly be defective”, as the Articles of Confederation have been found to be. “Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.” Mr. Randolph agreed. (p 202-203)
The words, “without requiring the consent of the National Legislature,” were postponed. The other provision in the clause passed unanimously. (p 203)
June 13, 1787 (p 231, vol.1): The Committee of the Whole presented a revised set of resolutions. Randolph’s 13th resolution was renumbered as the 17th resolution, and now read:
“Resolved that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union, whensoever it shall seem necessary.”
July 23, 1787 (p 87, vol. 2): The 17th resolution was agreed to unanimously.
August 6, 1787 (p 188, vol. 2): The Report of the Committee of Detail presented a draft Constitution. Article 19 read:
“On the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the States in the Union, for an amendment of this Constitution, the Legislature of the United States shall call a convention for that purpose”.
August 30, 1787 (p 467, vol. 2): Article 19 was taken up. Mr. Gov. Morris suggested that “the Legislature should be left at liberty to call a Convention whenever they pleased”. The Article was agreed to unanimously.
September 10, 1787 (p 557, vol. 2): Mr. Gerry moved to reconsider Art.19.
- Mr. Gerry said the Constitution they were writing would be paramount to the State Constitutions. It follows from Art.19 that two-thirds of the States “may obtain a convention, a majority of which can bind the Union to innovations that may subvert the State Constitutions altogether”.
- Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion for reconsideration, but for a different reason than Mr. Gerry. An easy mode should be established for supplying defects which will probably appear in the new system. The mode proposed was not adequate. State Legislatures will apply for amendments to increase their own powers. The National Legislature will be the first to perceive, and will be most sensible to, the necessity of amendments; and ought also to be empowered, whenever two-thirds of each branch [of the Congress] should concur, to call a Convention. There is no danger in giving this power, as the people would finally decide. (p 558)
- Mr. Madison remarked on the vagueness of the terms, “call a Convention for the purpose”, as sufficient reason for reconsidering the article. “How was a Convention to be formed? – by what rule decide? – what the force of its acts?” (p 558)
On the motion of Mr. Gerry to reconsider: 9 States “Yes”; 1 State “No”; and 1 State divided.
Mr. Sherman moved to add the following to Article 19:
“or the Legislature [Congress] may propose amendments to the several States for their approbation; but no amendments shall be binding until consented to by the several States.”
Mr. Wilson moved to insert: “three-fourths of” before “the several States”; this was agreed to unanimously.
Mr. Madison then moved (p 559) to postpone consideration of the above amended proposition, in order to take up the following proposed revision:
“The Legislature of the United States, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part thereof, when the same shall have been ratified by three-fourths, at least, of the Legislatures of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Legislature of the United States.”
Mr. Hamilton seconded Mr. Madison’s motion.
Mr. Rutledge could not agree to give a power by which the articles relating to slaves might be altered by non-slave States. So this was added to Mr. Madison’s proposal:
“provided that no amendments, which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the fourth and fifth sections of the seventh article.”
On Madison’s proposed revision, as amended by Rutledge: 9 States “Yes”; 1 State “No”; and 1 State divided.
September 12, 1787 (p 602, vol. 2): The Committee of Revision presented a new draft of the Constitution. Article 19 was renumbered as Article V:
“The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution; which shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part thereof, when the same shall have been ratified by three-fourths at least of the Legislatures of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one of the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the __ and __ sections of the ___ article”
September 15, 1787 (p 629, vol. 2): Article V was taken up.
- Mr. Sherman expressed fears that three-fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to other States; and wanted more protection for slave States (p 629).
- Geo. Mason said the plan of amending the Constitution was “exceptionable and dangerous”. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind, would ever be obtained by the people, if the government should become oppressive.
Mr. Gov. Morris and Mr. Gerry moved to amend the Article so as to require a Convention on application of two-thirds of the States.
- Mr. Madison did not see why Congress would not be as much bound to propose amendments applied for by two-thirds of the States, as to call a Convention on the like application. He saw no objection, however, against providing for a Convention for the purpose of amendments, except only that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, &c., which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided.
The motion of Gov. Morris and Mr. Gerry was agreed to unanimously (p 630).
On the question to agree to the Constitution, as amended, all the States voted “yes”. The Constitution was ordered to be engrossed, and the house adjourned (p 633).
September 17, 1787 (p 648, vol. 2): The Constitution was signed, as finally amended. Article V reads:
“The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution; or, on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
(p 648-649).
All members of the Convention signed except for Mr. Randolph, Mr. George Mason, and Mr. Gerry
Revised Dec. 2013; Dec. 2014; April 2015; April 2016.
[…] James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted. He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is. […]
LikeLike
Pingback by What the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution | Building Blocks for Liberty | June 8, 2022 |
[…] James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted. He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is. […]
LikeLike
Pingback by What the Framers Really Said About the Purpose of Amendments to our Constitution | Building Blocks for Liberty | March 20, 2022 |
Hello, sorry this is in the wrong thread. Where can I find information on what can be done to those who violate their oath to the Constitution? I’m a civil servant and see a disheartening amount of fellow civil servants who lack understanding or care that they are not honoring the oath to support and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.
LikeLike
PB, the Law has disappeared in this Country. We are no longer under the Rule of Law – those holding the power do whatever they want. Rioters who loot & burn & destroy private property; and those who commit crimes against Humanity (Fauci, Biden, et al) are not being prosecuted. But Moms who speak at public School Board meetings against CRT or mask mandates are being investigated by the federal Dept. of “Justice”. Patriots who committed no crime but who attended the Jan 6 rally for Trump are being persecuted.
The Oath of office is meaningless – like the marriage vows. There never was provision for criminal prosecution of those who “violate their oath of office” – the remedy was to fire them, or impeach them & remove them from office; or not re-elect them. But Congress is so morally degenerate that they will not impeach & remove civil officers who violate their Oath; civil service laws protect civil “servants” from being fired; and our elections are so dishonest that we no longer have the power to throw out office Legislators who violate their Oath.
But we have a Remedy: Resistance. Resistance. Resistance. Do not submit to Tyranny. The good news is that we are finally seeing some spine among the American People – they are resisting!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your great service to our country PH! I expected such an answer unfortunately. I am seeing success with public surety bonds. When a sworn public authority acts outside the authority bestowed then a claim against the bond seems to be working in many instances. Might you have any insight on this process?
LikeLike
I haven’t heard of people making claims against a public authority’s “public surety bond”. If you have any specific documentation on this, please send it to me.
LikeLike
Check out bonds for the win. I went so far as to file a FOIA and got the bond but here in Virginia the bond is a bit different. Our Governor Youngkin ended the mask mandates while I was figuring my next move so I kinda just stopped pursuing it. I need to follow through so I know the specifics.
LikeLike
bond?
LikeLike
[…] James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted. He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is. […]
LikeLike
Pingback by What The Framers Really Said About The Purpose Of Amendments To Our Constitution – World Truth | August 25, 2019 |
[…] James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted. He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is. […]
LikeLike
Pingback by What the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution – Building Blocks for Liberty | March 25, 2019 |
[…] Article V […]
LikeLike
[…] James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted. He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is. […]
LikeLike
Pingback by News With Views | What The Framers Really Said About The Purpose Of Amendments To Our Constitution | November 3, 2018 |
[…] Article V […]
LikeLike
[…] he presents no proof – and can’t because no one at the federal convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) said such a thing. As proved in The George Mason […]
LikeLike
Pingback by interesting Column about the article V debate- Publius Huldah | June 14, 2018 |
[…] he presents no proof – and can’t because no one at the federal convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) said such a thing. As proved in The George Mason […]
LikeLike
Pingback by News With Views | Honest Discourse About Article V Convention Needed | May 19, 2018 |
[…] he presents no proof – and can’t because no one at the federal convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) said such a thing. As proved in The George Mason […]
LikeLike
Pingback by A GREAT Letter From Constitutional Scholar Publius Huldah on the Dangers of the Article V Convention of States! | Virginia Right! | May 12, 2018 |
[…] he presents no proof – and can’t because no one at the federal convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) said such a thing. As proved in The George Mason […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Honest discourse about Article V convention needed | NoisyRoom.net | May 12, 2018 |
[…] a Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up—here it is. Madison’s Journal shows what the Framers really said about the purpose of […]
LikeLike
Pingback by The George Mason Fabrication - Fairfax Free Citizen | June 19, 2017 |
[…] Article V […]
LikeLike
[…] Article V […]
LikeLike
[…] Pinckney said on September 15, […]
LikeLike
[…] called by Congress and pursuant to Article V is but a creature of the state legislatures, the only convention Article V authorizes States to convene is one within their respective border to either ratify or reject an amendment proposed by Congress […]
LikeLike
[…] and dishonest claim that the purpose of amendments is to control the federal government is based on Mason’s & Randolph’s comments you can find here. Theirs was the minority view; Art. V provides for Congress’ involvement in both methods of […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Propaganda And The Conspiracy Against Our Constitution | Grumpy Opinions | August 23, 2015 |
[…] Mr. Pinckney said on September 15, 1787: […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Article V Convention: How “Individuals of Insidious Views” Are Stealing Our Constitution | Grumpy Opinions | August 23, 2015 |
[…] Publius Huldah’s Blog […]
LikeLike
Pingback by COS Debate – Wilson Co Tea Party of Lebanon TN – June 22, 2015 | Tennessee Watchman | July 10, 2015 |
I think there is a parallel between what will happen if parental rights come under federal control with how marriage has now come under federal control since the Supreme Court ruling. Watch in shock and horror as it unfolds! I hope people will finally open their eyes and stop supporting the PRA. Our government is anti-family, or at least the current administration is. We can’t expect marriage or parental rights to be protected by this administration. We need to stop giving them more power!
LikeLike
Oh yes, they enemy wants the federal government controlling FAMILY LAW. But People are so short-sighted…. if it sounds good, they are all for it.
LikeLike
How can nullification be used to reform the federal government?
LikeLike
1. Please follow thru on my response to your questions about Scalia’s comment about a convention. You are not a honey bee buzzing from plant to plant – leaving one before you finish it to move on to another. FOCUS and think things through to the end.
2. Read this and tell me why it can’t reform the federal government. I ask you to show me why it won’t work b/c it seems self-evident to me that it would work. And it IS – as you will have to admit I proved – one of the two remedies our Framers actually advised us to use. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense/
LikeLike
Nullification as a concept is fine and I think it’s worth pursuing. However, it has a couple problems. 1) it’s insufficient for correcting defects to the constitution, which you yourself insist is the reason for amending the constitution in the first place. 2) using the 10th amendment as a mechanism would grant to every citizen the power to ignore federal law, and that’s crazy.
LikeLike
I suggest your comment reveals that you don’t understand the concept of nullification! Summarize in a few sentences what James Madison & Thomas Jefferson said about it.
LikeLike
Can you explain how using the 10th Amendment as a “mechanism” (to what?) would “grant” every citizen to ignore federal law? I don’t find that the 10th Amendment will ever result in lawlessness, but that unchecked federal gov’t leads to unlawlessness.
LikeLike
No, I can’t because it isn’t true – on several levels.
All the 10th Amendment does is to reiterate that the federal gov’t has ONLY the Delegated powers – that all other powers [except those listed at Article I, Sec. 10] are reserved to the States or the People.
It doesn’t grant any “rights” to the States or the People. It can’t – because the Declaration of Independence recognizes that “Rights” come from the Creator God. With the US Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE created the federal gov’t, and we delegated to our “creature” specific enumerated powers – only those and nothing more. We certainly didn’t give ourselves any “rights” in the Constitution – the Constitution isn’t about our Rights – it’s about the specific powers which WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the fed gov’t.
Our Framers advised resistance – nullification – as the remedy to usurpations by the fed gov’t. Yes, unchecked federal gov’t leads to lawlessness – and the people have that “original right of self-defense” to resist all such usurpations.
It is a serious mistake to claim that the “right” to resistance – nullification – arises from the 10th Amdt. Instead, it arises from that natural right of self-defense given to us by our Creator. Alexander Hamilton was particularly insistent on this point! Do learn the arguments in this paper – and look up the original source documents so that you can be confident that it is True and then you will be able to speak boldly on this. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense/
Another reason it is such a serious mistake to say that the right of resistance arises from the 10th Amendment is this: Article III, Sec.2, clause 1, lists the enumerated categories of cases federal courts are allowed to hear. One of the categories is “cases arising under this Constitution”. The 10th Amendment “arises under this Constitution”. So if one ignorantly asserts that the right of nullification arises from the 10th Amendment, he is saying that the federal courts have judicial power over nullification!
Do you see how people who write of matters they don’t understand shoot themselves {and everyone else in the Country} in the foot? They make mistakes like this because (they don’t understand federal litigation procedures) AND because they don’t read original source documents to see what our Framers wrote. If you read the original source documents linked in my nullification paper, you will see how they stressed that nullification is a NATURAL RIGHT – it is most manifestly NOT a “constitutional right”.
LikeLike
That’s the problem, you won’t engage in a civil conversation. You have assumed your opinions to be infallible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ha ha ha ha ha ha – Do you know the difference between a Fact and an Opinion? Explain the difference, if you know.
LikeLike
Ok here is proof that the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in 1787 was NOT a Run -A- Way Convention.
This was taken from the archives of Congress concerning the Annapolis Convention of 1786 , the letters sent to the Confederation Congress and the Several States Legislatures by James Madison and the Chairman of the Annapolis Convention. Then the proceedings of the Congress in Feb. 1787 calling the Philadelphia Convention.
Annapolis Convention Sept. 1786
The Annapolis Convention was a meeting at Annapolis, Maryland of 12 delegates from five states (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) that called for a constitutional convention. The formal title of the meeting was a Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government. The defects that they were to remedy were those barriers that limited trade or commerce between the largely independent states under the Articles of Confederation.
The convention met from September 11 to September 14, 1786. The commissioners felt that there were not enough states represented to make any substantive agreement. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and North Carolina had appointed commissioners who failed to get to the meeting in time to attend it, while Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina and Georgia had taken no action at all.
They produced a report which was sent to the Congress and to the states. The report asked support for a broader meeting to be held the next May in Philadelphia. It expressed the hope that more states would be represented and that their delegates or deputies would be authorized to examine areas broader than simply commercial trade.
The direct result of the report was the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.
________________________________________
On 19 September 1786 the Maryland Journal printed the first public notice about the Annapolis Convention. Its author commented, “Should this Address have its Effect, we may hope to see the Federal Union of these States established upon Principles, which will secure the Dignity, Harmony and Felicity of these confederated Republics; and not only rescue them from their present Difficulties, but from that insolent Hauteur and contemptuous Neglect, which they have experienced as a Nation.”
(Clearly the States were in distress having a lot trouble between the States and needing to be given direction and a centralized government for providing an army and taxing authority.)
________________________________________
Introduction letter to the Congress by James Madison:
Having witnessed, as a member of the Revolutionary Congress, the inadequacies of the powers conferred by the “Articles of Confederation,” and having become, after the expiration of my term of service there, a member of the Legislature of Virginia, I felt it to be my duty to spare no efforts to impress on that body the alarming condition of the U. States proceeding from that cause, and the evils threatened by delay, in applying a remedy. With this, propositions were made vesting in Congress the necessary powers to regulate trade, then suffering under the monopolizing power abroad, and State collisions at home, and to draw from that source the convenient revenue it was capable of yielding. The propositions, though received with favorable attention, and at one moment agreed to in a crippled form, were finally frustrated, or, rather, abandoned. Such, however, were the impressions which the public discussions had made, that an alternative proposition, which had been kept in reserve, being seasonably brought forward by a highly respected member [of the Virginia legislature], who, having long served in the State [Virginia] councils without participating in the Federal, had more the ear of the Legislature on that account, was adopted with little opposition. The proposition invited the other states to concur with Virginia in a convention of deputies commissioned to devise and report a uniform system of commercial regulations. Commissioners on the part of the State were at the same time appointed, myself of the number. The convention proposed took place at Annapolis, in September, 1786. Being, however, very partially attended, and it appearing to the members that a rapid progress, aided by the experiment on foot, had made in ripening the public mind for a radical reform of the Federal polity, they determined to waive the object for which they were appointed, and recommend a convention, with enlarged powers, to be held the year following, in the city of Philadelphia. The Legislature of Virginia happened to be the first that acted on the recommendation, and being a member [of the Virginia Legislature], the only one of the attending commissioners at Annapolis who was so, my best exertions were used in promoting a compliance with it, and in giving to the example the most conciliating form, and all the weight that could be derived from a list of deputies having the name of Washington at its head.
________________________________________
Sept. 14, 1786 Letter to the Congress from the Chairman of the Annapolis Convention.
Proceedings of the Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government, Annapolis in the State of Maryland. September 14, 1786.
To the Honorable, The Legislatures of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York – assembled at Annapolis, humbly beg leave to report.
That, pursuant to their several appointments, they met, at Annapolis in the State of Maryland on the eleventh day of September Instant, and having proceeded to a Communication of their Powers; they found that the States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, had, in substance, and nearly in the same terms, authorized their respective Commissions “to meet such other Commissioners as were, or might be, appointed by the other States in the Union, at such time and place as should be agreed upon by the said Commissions to take into consideration the trade and commerce of the United States, to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial intercourse and regulations might be necessary to their common interest and permanent harmony, and to report to the several States such an Act, relative to this great object, as when unanimously by them would enable the United States in Congress assembled effectually to proved for the same.”…
That the State of New Jersey had enlarged the object of their appointment, empowering their Commissioners, “to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations and other important matters, might be necessary to the common interest and permanent harmony of the several States,” and to report such an Act on the subject, as when ratified by them, “would enable the United States in Congress assembled, effectually to provide for the exigencies of the Union.”
That appointments of Commissioners have also been made by the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and North Carolina, none of whom, however, have attended; but that no information has been received by your Commissioners, of any appointment having been made by the States of Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina or Georgia.
That the express terms of the powers of your Commissioners supposing a deputation from all the States, and having for object the Trade and Commerce of the United States, Your Commissioners did not conceive it advisable to proceed on the business of their mission, under the Circumstances of so partial and defective a representation.
Deeply impressed, however, with the magnitude and importance of the object confided to them on this occasion, your Commissioners cannot forbear to indulge an expression of their earnest and unanimous wish, that speedy measures be taken, to effect a general meeting, of the States, in a future Convention, for the same, and such other purposes, as the situation of public affairs may be found to require.
If in expressing this wish, or in intimating any other sentiment, your Commissioners should seem to exceed the strict bounds of their appointment, they entertain a full confidence, that a conduct, dictated by an anxiety for the welfare of the United States, will not fail to receive an indulgent construction.
In this persuasion, your Commissioners submit an opinion, that the Idea of extending the powers of their Deputies, to other objects, than those of Commerce, which has been adopted by the State of New Jersey, was an improvement on the original plan, and will deserve to be incorporated into that of a future Convention; they are the more naturally led to this conclusion, as in the course of their reflections on the subject, they have been induced to think, that the power of regulating trade is of such comprehensive extent, and will enter so far into the general System of the federal government, that to give it efficacy, and to obviate questions and doubts concerning its precise nature and limits, may require a correspondent adjustment of other parts of the Federal System.
That there are important defects in the system of the Federal Government is acknowledged by the Acts of all those States, which have concurred in the present Meeting; That the defects, upon a closer examination, may be found greater and more numerous, than even these acts imply, is at least so far probably, from the embarrassments which characterize the present State of our national affairs, foreign and domestic, as may reasonably be supposed to merit a deliberate and candid discussion, in some mode, which will unite the Sentiments and Councils of all the States. In the choice of the mode, your Commissioners are of opinion, that a Convention of Deputies from the different States, for the special and sole purpose of entering into this investigation, and digesting a plan for supplying such defects as may be discovered to exist, will be entitled to a preference from considerations, which will occur without being particularized.
Your Commissioners decline an enumeration of those national circumstances on which their opinion respecting the propriety of a future Convention, with more enlarged powers, is founded; as it would be a useless intrusion of facts and observations, most of which have been frequently the subject of public discussion, and none of which can have escaped the penetration of those to whom they would in this instance be addressed. They are, however, of a nature so serious, as, in the view of your Commissioners, to render the situation of the United States delicate and critical, calling for an exertion of the untied virtue and wisdom of all the members of the Confederacy.
Under this impression, Your Commissioners, with the most respectful deference, beg leave to suggest their unanimous conviction that it may essentially tend to advance the interests of the union if the States, by whom they have been respectively delegated, would themselves concur, and use their endeavors to procure the concurrence of the other States, in the appointment of Commissioners, to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May next, to take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to, by them, and afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State, will effectually provide for the same.
Though your Commissioners could not with propriety address these observations and sentiments to any but the States they have the honor to represent, they have nevertheless concluded from motives of respect, to transmit copies of the Report to the United States in Congress assembled, and to the executives of the other States.
plural ex•i•gen•cies
Full Definition of EXIGENCY
1
: that which is required in a particular situation —usually used in plural
2
a : the quality or state of being exigent
b : a state of affairs that makes urgent demands
See exigency defined for English-language learners »
See exigency defined for kids »
Report of Proceedings in Congress; February 21, 1787
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS IN CONGRESS,(1)
WEDNESDAY FEBy 21, 1787
Congress assembled as before.
The report of a grand comee consisting of Mr Dane Mr Varnum Mr S. M. Mitchell Mr Smith Mr Cadwallader Mr Irwine Mr N. Mitchell Mr Forrest Mr Grayson Mr Blount Mr Bull & Mr Few, to whom was referred a letter of I4 Septr 1786 from J. Dickinson written at the request of Commissioners from the States of Virginia Delaware Pensylvania New Jersey & New York assembled at the City of Annapolis together with a copy of the report of the said commissioners to the legislatures of the States by whom they were appointed, being an order of the day was called up & which is contained in the following resolution viz
(The following was written by the Congress as a Resolution to be sent to the states you will notice the congress was wanting to allow the commissioners the necessary latitude to do what ever they feel is needed to render a document adequate to the exigencies of the Union.)
“Congress having had under consideration the letter of John Dickinson esqr chairman of the Commissioners who assembled at Annapolis during the last year also the proceedings of the said commissioners and entirely coinciding with them as to the inefficiency of the federal government and the necessity of devising such farther provisions as shall render the same adequate to the exigencies of the Union do strongly recommend to the different legislatures to send forward delegates to meet the proposed convention on the second Monday in May next at the city of Philadelphia ”
(The following was presented by and from the delegates for the State of New York, again suggesting Revising the Articles of Confederation. Revising as defined by Webster is to re-write. Now please note they are adding the point of having the new document be approved by not only the Congress but the States as well. (point if the document is approved by both the Congress and the States then the commissioners did exactly as they were instructed by their States and Congress.)
(The delegates for the state of New York thereupon laid before Congress Instructions which they had received from their constituents, & in pursuance of the said instructions moved to postpone for farther consideration of the report in order to take up the following proposition)
” That it be recommended to the States composing the Union that a convention of representatives from the said States respectively be held at on for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the United States of America and reporting to the United States in Congress assembled and to the States respectively such alterations and amendments of the said Articles of Confederation as the representatives met in such convention shall judge proper and necessary to render them adequate to the preservation and support of the Union ”
(The following is a motion presented by the delegates from Massachusetts, which was the final one and after being amended was agreed to and sent to the States. One must understand the States at this time in the Countries life had all the power and they chose what to instruct their commissioners to do. Note also in all of these the perpetual Union of all the States the most important thing to preserve.)
A motion was then made by the delegates for Massachusetts to postpone the farther consideration of the report in order to take into consideration a motion which they read in their place, this being agreed to, the motion of the delegates for Massachusetts as taken up and being amended was agreed to as follows
Whereas there is provision in the Articles of Confederation & perpetual Union for making alterations therein by the assent of a Congress of the United States and of the legislatures of the several States; And whereas experience hath evinced that there are defects in the present Confederation, as a mean to remedy which several of the States and particularly the State of New York by express instructions to their delegates in Congress have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these states a firm national government.
(Notice in the Resolve the Congress gives their consent to the delegates to do what is necessary ie.. revising (meaning to re-write), the Articles of Confederation. But even more important the commissioners are instructed to report said changes to the Congress and the Several Legislatures . Which by the way is exactly what was done by the members of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 and the Congress agreed with the changes as did the state legislatures, otherwise the document and the changes to the ratification process would never have occurred or been allowed to go out for ratification.)
Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.
The above clearly shows the Commissioners did exactly as they were instructed, you cannot ignore the fact that not only the Congress but the Legislatures from all 13 States agreed with the document and the new process for ratification otherwise the Congress had the power to not send either the Amendment to the Articles of Confederation under Article XIII changing the number of states required for ratification but also approving the new proposed Document that later became the Constitution of the United States.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All that stuff you copied from COS and pasted here is irrelevant. They have you bouncing on their string. They have you so focused on irrelevancies you can’t see obvious Facts. For Heaven’s Sake, Think for yourself!
Of course, the convention of 1787 wasn’t a “runaway”. The 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence recognizes the inherent right of a People to throw off their “Form of Government” and institute a new one. THAT is what our Framers did at the Convention of 1787. They threw off our first Constitution (The Articles of Confederation), and wrote a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification (Our Constitution of 1787).
It’s that simple.
And it can be done again. That is the COS plan – to “re-write” our Constitution. They have said so!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, they “threw off” the Articles of Confederation at the recommendation and request of their states.
The US Constitution does not authorize its own overthrow. People could try to seize that power under the Declaration, and they don’t need an Article V convention to do so.
Ending the Constitution would be an extra-Constitutional process at which point no state would be under any obligation to follow or obey it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When on June 21, 1788, the ninth State ratified our Constitution of 1787, the Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution) was replaced with a new Constitution. The Articles of Confederation did not “authorize its own overthrow”. It purported to be “perpetual” and to require the consent of the Continental Congress and unanimous consent of all of The States before it could be changed!
But as the Declaration of Independence proclaims, The People set up governments. And The People have the self-evident right to take them down. Just as The People had the Right to throw off King George; and the Right to throw off the Articles of Confederation and the government it created; so they have the Right today to throw off our present Constitution and the government it created and set up a new Constitution which creates a new government.
New Constitutions are already out there waiting in the wings for an Article V convention! So I am by no means the only person who understands that at an Article V convention, a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification can be imposed on us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The DOI does explain our right to throw out the Constitution, not that I would think of doing so.
LikeLike
And since YOU would never think of doing so, neither would anyone else, right?
I expect it is too much to hope that there may be a glimmer of light in your mind?
LikeLike
http://www.conventionofstates.com/_video_lying_about_the_liberty_amendment
LikeLike
Two Questions:
1. Does anyone in COS ever tell the Truth? Who? When? Where?
2. Does anyone in COS have an IQ above 50? Who? When? Where?
All the COS stuff is geared to morons!
LikeLike
How can you expect anyone to agree with you or see your point of view when constantly attack other peoples character? Honestly you are behaving like liberals do. Very arrogant, and your fear of a runaway convention blinds you. You don’t engage those who disagree, you attack them. I fear a runaway government more than I do a runaway cos. If one follows your logic then we are already doomed, with or without a convention.
LikeLike
Rob John! Calm down. Can you address the substance of my comment? I’ll repeat it:
Address that first.
Then we can discuss whether COS followers unthinkingly repeat what they have been told. And if they do so, is it not my duty to point it out?
LikeLike
Do you ever not bend interpretations yourself. After reading many of your articles, I regularly trip over errors in your own logic along with various of your interpretations which you frame as facts.
That’s not to say you’re not doing great work. In many cases you are. But I find that you’re also a little enamored of your own echo chamber at times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
errors in Logic? Oh, do show us. Point them out!
LikeLike
[…] place with 1/3 vote –Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]
LikeLike
Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results | askmarion | May 4, 2015 |
[…] The Development of Article V, U.S. Constitution, at the Federal Convention of 1787 […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Convention of States | Lincoln Report | April 29, 2015 |
[…] place with 1/3 vote -Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]
LikeLike
Pingback by The Razor » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken: April 24, 2015 | April 29, 2015 |
[…] Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]
LikeLike
Pingback by The Razor » Blog Archive » Council Submissions: April 22, 2015 | April 29, 2015 |
[…] many questions about Article V conventions; and James Madison raised them on two occasions at the Federal Convention of 1787: […]
LikeLike
[…] place with 1/3 vote -Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article Vsubmitted by The Right […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Watcher’s Council winners for April 24, 2015 | April 25, 2015 |
[…] place with 1/3 vote – Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results – 04/24/15 | April 24, 2015 |
[…] place with 1/3 vote -Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]
LikeLike
Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results — 04/24/15 | therightplanet.com | April 24, 2015 |
[…] place with 1/3 vote –Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]
LikeLike
[…] place with 1/3 vote -Publius-Huldah’s Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results | April 24, 2015 |
[…] Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Watcher’s Council Nominations – On The Trail Edition | April 22, 2015 |
[…] </br> <li><b>Publius-Huldah’s Blog </b> – <a href=”https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/” target=”_blank”>Article V </a> submitted by <b>The Right […]
LikeLike
[…] Blog – Article V submitted by The Right […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Waqtcher’s Council Nominations – On The Trail Edition | Virginia Right! | April 22, 2015 |
[…] Article V […]
LikeLike
[…] Article V link […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Reason why Convention method was put into Article V | NCRenegade | February 5, 2015 |
Once again, very good information. Thanks for taking the time to put this together for our benefit. By the way, Merry Christmas PH.
LikeLike
Thank you, Mike and Merry Christmas to you as well!
LikeLike
[…] Pinckney said on September 15, […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Constitutional Trojan Horse : Compact for America Article V. Constitutional Convention | Family Survival Protocol - Microcosm News | April 15, 2014 |
[…] • Mr. Pinckney said on September 15, 1787: […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Why We Must Stop an “Article V Convention of States” « Cherilyn Eagar | March 6, 2014 |
[…] Article V […]
LikeLike
[…] Pinckney said on September 15, […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Article V Convention: How 'Individuals of Insidious Views' Are Stealing Our Constitution | American Clarion | February 20, 2014 |
[…] This little chart illustrates our Constitution & Declaration and the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. For 100 years, we elected politicians who ignore them. We don’t understand that the amendments proposed by Michael Farris, Mark Levin, Randy Barnett, & Nick Dranias increase the powers of the federal government because we don’t know the list of enumerated powers in the Constitution. You could remedy that: Print out the chart and read the Constitution & Declaration! […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Publius Huldah Warns Art. V Convention to Steal Constitution | USA NEWS FIRST | February 19, 2014 |
[…] Article V […]
LikeLike
[…] and dishonest claim that the purpose of amendments is to control the federal government is based on Mason’s & Randolph’s comments you can find here. Theirs was the minority view; Art. V provides for Congress’ involvement in both methods of […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Bridge for sale…cheap! | Scanned Retina Resource | January 25, 2014 |
[…] anyway it wants, and to appoint whomsoever it wishes as delegates. 6 Now look at this: The chart on Article V shows that James Madison, Father of our Constitution, remarked on the vagueness of the term, […]
LikeLike
Pingback by The “Convention of States” Scam, the War over the Constitution, and how the States Sold the Reserved Pwers to the Feds. by Publius Huldah | CenLA Patriots | December 22, 2013 |
[…] Article V […]
LikeLike
[…] Article V […]
LikeLike