1:4 – 1787: A New Government Instituted
At the beginning of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, delegates from Virginia proposed a more national form of government. Under the Articles of Confederation, we had a purely federal form of government.
Gouverneur Morris, a delegate from Pennsylvania, felt that it was necessary to define the difference between “federal” and “national.” He defined “federal,” as “resting on the good faith of the parties,” meaning participation was voluntary. “National” had “compleat and compulsive operation,” meaning that the general government would have the power to force the states to comply.
In response, New York delegate John Lansing raised the objection that “the power of the Convention was restrained to amendments of a Federal nature… the [state delegate commissions] all proved this.” Numerous other delegates raised the same concern.
Were they correct?
As we look at Mr. Lansing’s commission from New York, we find that, yes, his commission instructed him to “render the FEDERAL constitution adequate.”
How many of the other state commissions had similar language?
… ALL OF THEM. And significantly none of them suggest any idea of empowering the delegates to create a national form of government. So how did they justify moving forward?
Initially, the delegates entered the convention representing their state governments bound by their state commissions.
But in order to proceed with creating a more national form of government, the delegates looked not at their commissions but instead sought approval from the highest power in the land — the people themselves.
As Madison explained: “The plan to be framed and proposed was to be submitted to the people themselves.”
To do this, they changed the ratification process to the people, represented in conventions.
As Madison declared, “The people were in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties were got over. They could alter constitutions as they pleased.”
So, why does this matter today?
The 1787 Convention set a precedent that a limited convention can justify ignoring their limits and change the ratification process, altering constitutions as THEY please.
Learn more about Article V and the amendment process by visiting JBS.org.
Recommended for you
View All
3:5 – If An Article V Convention Is So Dangerous Why Did The Founders Include It In The Constitution?
An Article V convention is like a gun, it is neither good nor bad. It is just an extremely powerful tool. A gun in the right hands can be used for good. In the wrong hands, it can do terrible destruction. An Article V convention in the wrong hands can destroy what we have left ...
Watch Now
3:4 – Proof That COS Project Utilized Fraud To Peddle Article V ConventionÂ
In recent years, state legislators have been receiving boxes of petitions allegedly from constituents demanding a “Convention of States.” These petitions are computer generated with names and addresses. But fail to include any signatures, phone numbers, or email addresses to verify. There are many legislators who have called some of these people and asked if ...
Watch Now
3:3 – COS Project’s Response To JBS Claims That 1787 Convention Was A “RunawayÂ
The debate between Convention of States Project leaders and The John Birch Society regarding the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and whether or not it was a “runaway convention” has been going on for years. In an interview with Bill Walton in October of 2022, Mark Meckler, president, and co-founder of COS said: “There’s never been ...
Watch Now
3:2 – What Would A Constitutional Convention Look Like If It Were Held Today? Â
Have you ever considered, what would a convention look like today in today’s political environment? First, who would choose the delegates? If I’m the one handpicking the delegates to the convention, I think it would be a very different outcome than if Nancy Pelosi were doing so. He who chooses the delegates chooses the outcome. ...
Watch Now