“The Practicality and Desirability of an Article V Convention”

Dr. Larry P. Arnn (president, Hillsdale College) and Michael P. Farris (chancellor, Patrick Henry College)

[@tpdenterprises87]

Two brilliant men whom I hold in the highest regard. Not unlike our Founders, who disagreed with one another on various points, often vehemently, with thought-provoking arguments on all sides. This was a fantastic debate! Best arguments I've heard on both sides. What I see in reality is that the country is sliding downward, and I don't share the optimism or time horizons of Dr. Arnn. The Courts were viewed at our founding as the least threatening to the balance of power, yet they have become the greatest, because they are un-elected and appointed for life, to make national decisions I and most disagree with, and they are the final arbiters. I think the specific areas Mr. Ferris focused on are spot on, and the movement could be successful, and that the timing is now for these. Before it's too late.

[@benray3390]

Hillsdale courses are excellent - thank you! (Strongly suggest people donate to help support worthwhile institution.) Hillsdale should put together a course on Article V: why Amendments, how Article V Congressional actions or a Convention of States differs from Constitutional Convention, the history behind our current Amendments and rules / history of previous States Conventions... there is a lot of material to educate America on this topic.

[@melissamartin4794]

Good point! Article V has been the victim of a disinformation campaign since the 1960's. To limit the power of the People!

[@Wonderboywonderings]

Larry is essentially arguing that the states ought not exert their powers and authorities over the federal government. He apparently does not believe in a check and balance from the states. He's ultimately not a federalist.

[@TheRightPlanet]

I'm relieved to hear Dr. Larry Arnn has serious reservations about a Con-Con. I have great deal of respect for the man and his opinion. Hear, hear, I say. While I do agree with some of Mr. Farris' points, I'll have to side with Dr. Arnn on this matter. Like Dr. Arnn points out, if we start with the claim the Constitution is really good, but they're not following it ... so, let's amend it, and then they will? Could not agree more with that assessment. Good debate. Thanks for posting.

[@ContantContact]

Larry Arn is fearful. And fear does not make for progress and a proper defense of liberty. George Washington showed no fear at the Delaware, and proceeded knowing he had to. So do we need to proceed with amendments that turn power back to the states.

[@CampConstitution]

You folks are the fright peddlers. You claim that all will be lost if we don't hold a convention and then have hissy fits when legislators vote your COS resolutions down.

[@Wonderboywonderings]

Brent Parrish stop spreading misinformation. It's NOT a "con con." That's a dishonest characterization, especially if you actually listened to the explanations in this debate. They are talking about an "amendment proposing convention." Any resulting amendments would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states! Stop the dishonest and/or ignorant fear mongering. By the same token, Larry's position seems to be, "this convention is gonna be hard to call and then might result in amendments not so good. So let's not even try. It's just too hard. Forget it." It's a defeatest attitude at best.

[@fukluk88]

One more would be a "Sunset Clause" on all legislation. For those of you who don't know what that means, it is a review of the law after a period of time to see if it is having the desired effect on society and what, if any and/or to what degree, are the unintended consequenses.

[@sampson1952]

Actually what a "sunset clause" means... is that it expires after a given period of time and must be reimplemented, if they have the votes. I agree, that, then, gives them a chance to examine if it is effective... but checking to see if it was successful is not part of the definition.

[@jerryparks8889]

I believe that is to prevent stalling tactics

[@1812108]

My question: who is empowered to define who the State delegates shall be, and since Congress is empowered to convene such a convention, what's to say Congress may opt NOT to convene such a convention. Also, the more i hear about the Convention of States, the more it becomes obvious that it is a constitutional convention. Finally, the 10th Amendment is already part of the Constitution, so why don't citizens merely organize to insist that their States nullify any and all unconstitutional edicts/rules/laws/regulations. Arnn makes a momentous point about the quality--or lack thereof--of State delegates.

[@charlesjones661]

+Jim Delaney Each State legislature determines their delegates, but each delegation has only 1 vote per State. Once 34 State applications reach congress, congress SHALL [meaning must call the convention for proposing amendments] call the convention for proposing amendments. The application language limits the amendments that may come from the convention. It is fundamentally different from the Philadelphia, or 1787 convention.

[@1angelwarrior24]

yes, we do not need an Article V Convention. It is actually unconstitutional as Article V is not to do amenments. Watch Reign in Big Governments on Article VI. ou ask the major question - who will select these delegates. Nullify unconstitutional amendments is what is needed. Nothing is put in place to actually stop this mess from going forward should someone want to do away with all the rules. It then becomes an 'open' convention where anything goes. Bad idea!

[@marshallwillis9338]

Article V is the ONLY part of the Constitution that relates to amendments. How could someone familiar with the Constitution claim that Article V is NOT about amendments??

[@melissamartin4794]

Put in by George Mason

[@melissamartin4794]

There is a Faithful Delegate Act being passed in many states now. Colorado, NC and others have passed guidelines for this delegate.

[@mikethomas116]

This man whoever he is is defeating the process before it gets off the ground. There are many very capable people who could get this off the ground. Many states are already on board.

[@jerryparks8889]

I believe that people want self governance. Trump is a leader and look how they hate him. Imagine what they think of me?

[@melissamartin4794]

Larry Arn is wrong about the Article V has been tried before. It hasn't. He is out of line in his tone of voice.

[@c4call]

At around just before 30 minutes, poor guy is falling asleep in th crowd... I know Arnn talks slowly, but his talking has never made me anything but attentive, because he always has something smart to say!

[@Hoosurgirl]

I attended the 2nd Assembly of States now known as Convention of States. Invited.. credentialed Ryan Clayton of Wolf-Pac gave those of us opposing a COS the middle finger.

[@sampson1952]

I am shocked at how shallow Larry Arnn's arguments are. He is basically saying that this is difficult and hasn't been successful before, so we shouldn't try it now. He agrees that it is Constitutional, but we shouldn't do it because it is too hard. My opinion of him, personally, has changed greatly after watching this debate.

[@ContantContact]

Exactly. Geogre Washington at the Delaware did not take that kind of argument. And neither did these guys. www.army.mil/article/92856

[@Wonderboywonderings]

David Sampson this was my exact reaction as well. His position is so stupefying as to make one curiously suspicious as to his motivations.

[@TuckertonRR]

2:27 In America, we don't elect "rulers".

[@barbourjohn]

This is the best debate out there on this topic. Larry Arnn skillfully, artfully, and respectfully handles Michael Ferris and his so-called Convention of the States and defeats him. best line," I was going to be a lawyer but I chose to get educated instead". I have studied Constitutional law under individuals; John Eidsmoe and Herb Titus; through a College: Hillsdale, from law professors, and from an educational society that has stood the test of time for 60 years - The John Birch Society. This is the best debate I have seen so far. The best teaching on Article V is done by Robert Brown of the JBS. Look it up. Also, read Article V a bunch of times. Ferris, Levin, et al are reading into the text and relying on statements by George Mason ( who did not sign the Constitution) and their own abilities and their own assumptions of how it will all pan out to defeat this leviathan. The proven way is the Arnn and JBS way. Educate. Article V only gives one power to State Legislatures: the power to apply for a convention. The power to propose amendments is reserved to the convention itself and those chosen, the rules, and the method of ratification are all reserved to Congress. Ferris has let his successes and the pride that came with them, blind him to the truth. Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring. ( Proverbs 27:1) Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”- yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. ( James 4;13-16)

[@CampConstitution]

Farris is proposing "structural changes" to the U.S. Constitution.

[@ContantContact]

Farris is really proposing undoing the structure that caused this: The government follows a 3000-PAGE Constitution www.conventionofstates.com/the_government_follows_a_3000_page_constitution and getting back closer to original intent as seen in the Constitution of 1787.

[@CampConstitution]

You mean a 50 member Supreme Court chosen for six years modeled after the EU or the term limits for Congress that will give us a permanent lame duck Congress? There isn't any 3,000 page Constitution has Farris contends.

[@lynettemiesen3591]

An amendment to stop U.S. treaties from being used in determinations on cases brought before the Supreme Court against the individual. Any amendment proposed is debated and changes made on the floor of the convention. Every step of the way it's voted to accept or reject before a final vote is taken. Balance Federal Judiciary, currently lifetime appointments only dismissed for criminal behavior. The uniting principle is the overreach of the Federal government.

[@melissamartin4794]

The ability to discuss amendments. The structure we have now is not being followed.

[@Randomn66]

For all those opposed I have yet to see a rational answer to the following questions: 1. How will a Convention of the States be "hijacked" by liberal interests? 2. As Chet B noted below, when do the states exercise Article V? Do we follow the Constitution or only the parts of the Constitution we like and/or are not afraid of?

[@cwscamman]

+Randomn66 ... do you pre-suppose that ALL the delegates to such a convention will be of a like mind, to wit, to return to the original intent of the Constitution? ... since delegates to such a convention would supposedly be elected by the individual states, there is equal chance that liberals be appointed as conservatives. We have no guarantees that those who attend such a convention do not have an individual political agenda Also, since state elections are controlled by the same two parties that have brought us to this point, do you not believe that they would also control the selection of eligible delegates? ... just some concerns

[@Randomn66]

Hello Charles - Your first question - no, philosophically speaking, no one is. But if the question is will the delegates act for/towards the same purpose at the convention. The answer is yes (in the aggregate). And for those delegates who have an agenda and try to skew off course, they can/will be recalled by the state legislatures that nominated them. Delegates can only act within the purpose designated, i.e. they are solely subject to state legislative instruction. Your 2nd question, the two major parties try to control the outcome of elections, but they would have limitations since the national party apparatus has far less control of members in state legislatures. 75% of the states need to pass an amendment. Which "liberal" amendment would pass 75% of the state legislatures? Here is an informative resource: www.alec.org/app/uploads/2015/12/2013-article-five-handbook-1.pdf

[@michaelsawyer158]

+Charles Scamman Exactly. The idea that "liberals" won't be injected into the process is a fairy tale where "they all live happily ever after." Go to www.revcom.us and you will find these folks already have a new Constitution written and ready to go. When you find out what "rev com" stands for it might give one pause to rethink the gumdrops and lollipops ideas coming out of COSP.

[@michaelsawyer158]

+Randomn66 Good! Finally someone admits that ALEC is behind this scam. ALEC is a corporate bill mill, where corporate lobbyists meet behind closed doors with state legislators and give them bills already written for them to introduce in their respective state legislatures. In other words corporate fascism. And you believe what these people are saying about the process?

[@ContantContact]

The Liberal Establishment's Disinformation Campaign Against Article-V wiki.conventionofstates.com/doku.php?id=documents:answers:liberal-articlev-disinfo

[@RichardSmith-gl6kj]

A Federal government that has steadfastly ignored the constitution for more then 90 years and violated Article 1 Section 8 as though it did not exist - is suddenly going to adhere to an amendment regarding spending. I could list roughly a dozen Departments of Government and bureaus of government that have no lawful authority to exist and are null and void under article 6 yet the states obey them like sheep. Now the American people are led to believe that a Convention of the states / constitutional convention will simply create more amendments to help the American people and reign in the government. The Constitution will be laid bare before them and we are expected to believe that no natural right will be changed during the compromising phase. Not a single Department government violating the limitations of government currently imposed by the constitution would be abolished. No matter what an American is told do not be fooled. Every signal facet of the constitution will be at stake under a convention. If the convention happens I strongly suggest a Declaration drafted under Article 6 declaring every single violation of the constitution to be null and void an unenforceable under the rule of law at the very beginning of the convention. Otherwise we will have accomplished very little and placed the entire constitution and our natural rights in jeopardy.

[@Hoosurgirl]

About term limits..At this time the representatives MUST come home and campaign for re-election face the people. In their last years of their term think how dangerous they'd be. Term limits happen at the polls where the citizenry are informed and involved. Get out and vote these horrible Representatives out ie Dick Lugar. Hoosiers coalesced and ousted him THATS HOW OUR FOUNDERS INTENDED!!

[@kayclymer592]

Since this presentation was done on April 7, 2015, hopefully you have taken the time, effort, and praying for new attitudes. Dr. Farris invited you to be part of the solution!!!

[@Haramita3]

Dr. Arnn's first argument seems to be that an article V convention is an indirect and weak response, and his second argument is that such a convention could fundamentally change our governmental structure. The two objections seem at odds with each other. Dr. Arnn's remaining arguments seem to be rooted in pessimism in the ability of America to produce principled and passionate delegates. This position certainly seems to guarantee that nothing will change.

[@xabachay]

Haramita3 it's weak in the sense that it is a "quick fix" to a different problem. The real issue here is complacency of the American people and the low level of understanding of why things are what they are in the constitution. What really is needed is to revamp our educational system and start renewing the notion of American Exceptionalism. This republic is not for the weak of heart.

[@melissamartin4794]

That is good assessment of his approach.

[@melissamartin4794]

There is no quick fix. The country is uneducated about the Constitution. They have been through public schools and been indoctrinated with Marxism. We have to spread the word and get people to become engaged and to demand their legislators support a convention of states. Get self-governing citizens to engage with their local and state governments to hold the government accountable and to keep the checks and balances that are in the Constitution and use Article V the way it was intended.

[@tgross42]

While I agree with Levin that there needs to be some major changes to our current government, I also have had the same reservations as Arnn! It occurred to me very early on that the process could be hijacked by liberal political interests and could easily be turned against the libertarian ideals that originally proposed it.

[@ContantContact]

No, that is what we are getting now. And Article V is the only way to stop it. The Liberal Establishment's Disinformation Campaign Against Article-V wiki.conventionofstates.com/doku.php?id=documents:answers:liberal-articlev-disinfo

[@Wonderboywonderings]

Tim Gross so then any of those resulting amendments wouldn't be ratified by 3/4 of the states

[@melissamartin4794]

The reason it will work is because God is in it and the people will engage to make it happen. It will happen!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

amendment to decentralize political government for constitution

[@charlesjones661]

Executive agencies may recommend regulations, but may not write and implement them absent legislation from congress, all of which remain subordinate to the constitution itself. Judicial rulings may decide individual cases [within proper jurisdictions] but may never alter laws or the constitution. Judicial decisions again may form recommendations for congressional legislation, but have no other legal effect. Term Limits are not the answer, they simply rotate tyrants more quickly. We need to find language that actually binds judges to apply, not interpret, the constitution.

[@kylejdahl5358]

The Judicial [Supreme Court] did alter the laws without Congressional authority in mandating all states accept same sex marriage. By Congress remaining silent they in turn allowed the ruling.

[@charlesjones661]

That supreme court decision has no validity constitutionally. It ought not be obeyed or complied with by anyone taking the constitutional oath.

[@cbwification]

Larry clearly has hope for a better future, and a better timing then, if this is indeed truly needed. I agree. Idiots would want to touch the constitution with all sorts of questionable motives these days. The Supreme Court is precarious, at best, right now.

[@ContantContact]

Then apparently you think the Framers and the states (all 13) were idiots as they approved this method, and in fact the Constitution would not have been ratified without it IMO.

[@CampConstitution]

More fallacious thinking on your part. VA and NY did apply for an Article V. These applications were opposed by John Hancock, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson to name a few. The Founders made the amending process quite difficult on purpose. They never said that an Article V Convention had to be called.

[@EmmanuelGoldstein74]

Dr. Arnn is right that it was the people of the several states that ratified the federal Constitution as opposed to the people as a whole. This is no semantic quibble but is crucial to understanding the nature of the Union. Also he's wrong. The oldest constitution in the world is not the US but the Virginia Constitution of 1776. At least the oldest constitution as a single document. It is a sad testimony that we only consider, unconsciously at least, constitutions that are national. Our federal constitution has its pedigree in state constitutions. His quip about Madison and nullification is misinformed. Madison said that nullification is a natural right. What Madison opposed was specifically Calhoun's very distorted view of nullification. I agree with Arnn's skepticism at such an amendment process via States.

[@ContantContact]

Then you disagree with the Framers, the 13 states that ratified the Constitution and its Article V, and more. And Madison: "On the other hand what more dangerous than Nullification, or more evident than the progress it continues to make, either in its original shape or in the disguises it assumes. Nullification has the effect of putting powder under the Constitution & Union, and a match in the hand of every party, to blow them up at pleasure." James Madison

[@EmmanuelGoldstein74]

ContantContact no I don't disagree. It was thirteen states that ratified it. However the people of the 13 did so in their capacity as 13 different states. As for Madison and nullification I addressed that in my comment. He was addressing himself to Calhoun's idea of nullification which indeed was wrong. It wasn't the nullification of the Jefferson in his KY Resolutions.

[@jimmiller8389]

Would it not be an infringement on my freedom and rights to restrict my right to representation in Congress of my choosing? And an exceptionally egregious attack at that? Because somebody who does not live in my State or vote in my District does not like whom I wish to represent me, my right should be taken away? Any proposal to restrict our right to representation of our own choosing, should be rejected out of hand, and the intent of those proposing such should forever be held in doubt, contempt and distrust!

[@jimmiller8389]

I notice with some interest that there appears to be no one asking for the Convention of States who is suggesting that the 17th Amendment be repealed. It would seem that is either because they have not given serious thought on the subject of what ails this Republic and Congress, or they intend to keep things as they are while promoting themselves as working to cure the ills we face! The Senate no longer is interested in securing and protecting the State, but the big money interests that fund and influence their campaigns.

[@melissamartin4794]

We need the ability to debate amendments to the constitution through the convention to address career politicians. 30,40,50 years in office is too long!

[@eugenecloud5758]

Good debate. The COS Project movement is in fact about building consensus. Building it through the debates in the State Legislatures. If, as Dr. Arnn opines, we as a country are too "hotly contested" how will we ever get the necessary changes through national legislation? He seems to suggest that we just wait and work for the next swing to conservatism to manifest its self. As he says if we can just get the Congress to approach "pitiful" can we expect corrective national legislation? Mr. Farris advocates action. He is proactive in a constitutional way. Imagine a Convention of States, with the ablest minds we can muster (Arnn and Farris among them perhaps), along with a few less brilliant (I have in mind Luther Martins less than stimulating speech in Philadelphia by all accounts), televised, with the pros and cons debated, with the consequences examined and the outcomes projected. Let the convention draft its proposals and present them via the U.S. Congress to the American people for their consideration. We know we cannot continue on our current path. We have projects according to a liberal organization as reported by Farris that by 2020, 89% of the U.S. Government income will be spent on just four things: Interest on the debt, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That is not sustainable. Changes are coming, Big changes, Sooner than later. Can we really wait for the next cycle of conservative ascendance to arrive to define those changes? I too am disappointed in Hillsdale and Dr. Arnn. I have supported them in the past and have benefited from their programs. If Dr. Arnn would respond positively to Mr. Farris' plea for him to endorse and embrace the COS Project, he could be a driving force to help define and mitigate those concerns that he has expressed. A sense of urgency is developing in the country. Now is the time.

[@melissamartin4794]

I am disappointed in his attitude about a COS. Listening to him is a shock after listening to Hillsdale Constitutional lectures. He is a negative Nelly. Let's get a positive outlook and some patriotism! God is in the project and we are not going to have a doomsday attitude! We are meeting new people every day and educating people about Article V. We will not lie down and let tyranny take over our Republic!

[@melissamartin4794]

Immigration is the responsibility of the federal government. When they fail the states have the power to protect their borders. States decide what is best for their state when the federal government fails. Big government is the reason immigration is in the trainwreck it is now! Limiting the power of the federal government in this issue is one area where it could be discussed at the convention.

[@male42nfree]

Wow, Dr. Farris, I respect all that you have done over the years immensely - you are a true warrior and a great intellect. BUT you have to stop with the personal attacks and demonizing those who are otherwise on your side!! "You need to stop asking questions... " - You say this to Larry Arn, of all people?! You are scaring me Dr. Farris. I can understand how frustrated you may be given how long and hard you have been fighting the good fight, but you are sounding more and more like a leftist in your response to honest questions and concerns. AWAKE, not woke! -

[@lisaellendirnberger6696]

Article V isn't an amendment. Therefor calling a Convention Of States is bringing the original Constitution to Life for We The People. Stay encouraged folks! Intelligence does not equal Wisdom. God alone knows the future. We The People united under God will Stand. I came across this anonymous quote recently: The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for GOOD people to do nothing. Talk is cheap, let's do this!

[@longusdongus9321]

There are a lot of well-meaning but foolish people commenting on this video who believe there are politicians today who know better and are wiser than our Founding Fathers, and who could "fix" our crisis by tinkering (via Article V) with the document that those better men made. It's as imprudent as it is radical; or have you all forgotten that there already exists a constitutional means to amending our Constitution?

[@jerryparks8889]

Well time has shown that Mr Farris was right

[@christiangomez2100]

Far from it.

[@kellerr13]

Many KZbin channels about an Article V convention have blocked comments, and that alone should be sending alarm bells off in your head.

[@ContantContact]

Odd. I have not run into that. I do know that those who wear the Guy Fawkes mask are supporting terrorism. Alarm bells for that. NOt to mention the connection these days to radical leftists. www.telegraph.co.uk/history/11203115/First-report-of-Gunpowder-Plot-to-be-auctioned.html

[@kayclymer592]

Arnn, you are very much a disappointment on this very important Article V issue. Your arguments are so very weak and you have not stayed on the topic of We the People. You have shown your lack of study, you are not listening, reading, debating to what is happening in USA, the world, you think that "one" day these problems are going to change for the better. Arnn you are not using your good judgment. Your arguments of slavery are not appropriate and your commitment for "wait" is sadly lacking.

[@kayclymer592]

Thank goodness that General George Washington did not have your voice, your attitude, and your lack of courage. What sad comments you are spouting. Your lack of understanding of the history and understanding what is the happening to the We the People today. You are lacking, Dr. Arnn.