On Monday, 1/27/2025, Chris Salcedo had Mark Meckler (President and co-founder of Convention of States Action) as a guest to promote a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) for proposing amendments to our federal Constitution.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Meckler has insulted and disparage those who disagree with him, even though they have a number of legitimate concerns and many unanswered questions with regard to calling a second Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Meckler recently testified before the NORTH DAKOTA SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SCR 4003 - JANUARY 22, 2025 LINK and stated the following:
“I know that you frequently receive advice from self-described “scholars” who predict all sorts of horrible outcomes from an Article V Convention. They have no actual scholarly qualifications, and their reasons for opposing Article V are totally based on irrational fears. Their ramblings are completely at odds with the collective wisdom of the nation’s top, peer reviewed, professors and scholars.”
Perhaps Mr. Meckler is unaware that James Madison, popularly referred to as the “Father of the Constitution”, warned against the calling of a second Convention. He wrote:
” 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. See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788
And let us not forget the Conservative Icon, Phyllis Schlafly, while alive, and the late Howard Phillips, often referred to as “The Conservative’s Conservative”, both opposed the calling a second Con Con as being a very dangerous idea.
I too, as far back as the late 1980s, became suspicious of those calling for a Con Con supposedly “to write a balanced budget amendment” (which today is again being given as an excuse for calling a convention) because the very advocates calling for a convention supported various balanced budget amendments, each of which curiously had the same defects. If adopted, each of their proposed amendments would not only make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, but each of their amendments would allow Congress to continue to add to the national debt, year after year. Not one of those claiming to want stop Congress from adding to the national debt year after year, expounded upon or proposed our Founder’s remedy (found in a number of our Constitution’s State Ratification documents) which has been promoted for decades as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, and is the only proposal, to the best of my knowledge, which would actually and effectively stop Congress from adding to the national debt year after year.
Mr. Meckler also asserts: “As for convention delegations disregarding the limitations placed on them by their state legislatures, that is also nonsense. Every law student learns that pursuant to the principles of basic agency law, an agent cannot simply disregard the instructions and limitations of his or her principal.”
In his haste to convene a convention and quell concerns over the calling a second Convention, Mr. Meckler finds it quite easy to disregard former Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, Warren Burger, wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, and warned:
“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
The truth of the matter is, Delegates sent to the Convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording, forbid the Articles of Confederation to be altered unless agreed to by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did, ignoring the requirement of unanimous consent by the various states.
The Delegates also ignored the command ”for the sole and express purpose”
So as it turns out, Mr. Meckler has been providing inaccurate information in order to obtain support for calling a second Convention, has insulted and disparage those who disagree with him even though they have a number of legitimate concerns, and Mr. Meckler even, by innuendo and inaccurate statements in his presentation before the NORTH DAKOTA SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, asserted those who express concerns over the calling of a second convention are supposedly limited to “. . . the radical left . . . ” in order to deflect from actually discussing the expressed dangers and consequences of opening the door to a second Convention.
I think Mr. Meckler, if sincere in wanting to effectively stop Congress from adding to the national debt year after year, which he notes is now over 36 Trillion dollars, and appears to be a primary concern of his, perhaps Mr. Meckler ought to support our Founder’s remedy, currently promoted as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER
It is interesting to note that Mr. Meckler has insulted and disparage those who disagree with him, even though they have a number of legitimate concerns and many unanswered questions with regard to calling a second Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Meckler recently testified before the NORTH DAKOTA SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SCR 4003 - JANUARY 22, 2025 LINK and stated the following:
“I know that you frequently receive advice from self-described “scholars” who predict all sorts of horrible outcomes from an Article V Convention. They have no actual scholarly qualifications, and their reasons for opposing Article V are totally based on irrational fears. Their ramblings are completely at odds with the collective wisdom of the nation’s top, peer reviewed, professors and scholars.”
Perhaps Mr. Meckler is unaware that James Madison, popularly referred to as the “Father of the Constitution”, warned against the calling of a second Convention. He wrote:
” 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. See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788
And let us not forget the Conservative Icon, Phyllis Schlafly, while alive, and the late Howard Phillips, often referred to as “The Conservative’s Conservative”, both opposed the calling a second Con Con as being a very dangerous idea.
I too, as far back as the late 1980s, became suspicious of those calling for a Con Con supposedly “to write a balanced budget amendment” (which today is again being given as an excuse for calling a convention) because the very advocates calling for a convention supported various balanced budget amendments, each of which curiously had the same defects. If adopted, each of their proposed amendments would not only make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, but each of their amendments would allow Congress to continue to add to the national debt, year after year. Not one of those claiming to want stop Congress from adding to the national debt year after year, expounded upon or proposed our Founder’s remedy (found in a number of our Constitution’s State Ratification documents) which has been promoted for decades as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, and is the only proposal, to the best of my knowledge, which would actually and effectively stop Congress from adding to the national debt year after year.
Mr. Meckler also asserts: “As for convention delegations disregarding the limitations placed on them by their state legislatures, that is also nonsense. Every law student learns that pursuant to the principles of basic agency law, an agent cannot simply disregard the instructions and limitations of his or her principal.”
In his haste to convene a convention and quell concerns over the calling a second Convention, Mr. Meckler finds it quite easy to disregard former Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, Warren Burger, wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, and warned:
“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
The truth of the matter is, Delegates sent to the Convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording, forbid the Articles of Confederation to be altered unless agreed to by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did, ignoring the requirement of unanimous consent by the various states.
The Delegates also ignored the command ”for the sole and express purpose”
So as it turns out, Mr. Meckler has been providing inaccurate information in order to obtain support for calling a second Convention, has insulted and disparage those who disagree with him even though they have a number of legitimate concerns, and Mr. Meckler even, by innuendo and inaccurate statements in his presentation before the NORTH DAKOTA SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, asserted those who express concerns over the calling of a second convention are supposedly limited to “. . . the radical left . . . ” in order to deflect from actually discussing the expressed dangers and consequences of opening the door to a second Convention.
I think Mr. Meckler, if sincere in wanting to effectively stop Congress from adding to the national debt year after year, which he notes is now over 36 Trillion dollars, and appears to be a primary concern of his, perhaps Mr. Meckler ought to support our Founder’s remedy, currently promoted as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER
