Without knowing the Framers’ intention for including Article V in the Constitution, the proposed Amendments will appear as though they are constitutional and lawful, when several of them are not.

In addition, regardless of whether the proposals are ratified, the proposals themselves are unconstitutional and unlawful whenever said proposals transgress the Framers’ intent for including Article V in the Constitution.

Many of the well-known originalist constitutional scholars have overlooked or completely ignored this fact. The Framers succinctly stated their intention for including Article V in the Constitution, which is to correct defects and errors discovered through experience.

James Madison, regarded by many as the father of the Constitution, declared the Framers’ intent for including Article V in the Constitution in his Federalist Paper No. 43 and No. 37, which Alexander Hamilton, the most ardent Federalist of all, confirmed in his Federalist Paper No. 85.

Additionally, it was the general consensuses of the majority of Framers that Article V, irrespective of their debates at the Convention regarding its language, was included in the Constitution to correct defects and errors discovered through experience. No Framer regarded the inclusion of Article V in the Constitution as authority for the government to expand, alter, or reverse their core principals and intentions.

Other than this sole purpose of correcting defects and errors discovered through experience, Article V cannot be used by the government to propose Amendments expanding, altering, or reversing the Framers’ core principals and intentions, which several proposals did, such as the Sixteenth Amendment proposal, which reversed the Framers’ intention to not tax income.

Dean