This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
The case for the Article V Convention
We know our approach to existence is being subverted. The War on Terror, the War on Drugs, non-transparent elections, etc. are charades specifically meant to keep humanity enslaved. Politics As Usual keeps the charade in place. If you can stop Politics As Usual, you have a good chance of opening up political dialogue, and thus a chance to galvanize people to break the status quo so it can be reformed..
The Constitution contains a convention clause in Article V. If America held a convention, it requires that delegates would have to be elected by the states, the delegates would then convene to draft/propose amendments, those proposals would then be sent to the states for possible ratification. In other words, the Article V Convention is a three-part national discussion which stops Politics As Usual dead in its tracks. It breaks the current status quo of institutionalized corruption so it can be reformed.
We already know where things are headed with corporate governance--it's in the process of removing all protections. Public government has been drowned in private money. The Article V Convention will engage and re-educate everyone, and we can discuss things--not on a blog--but on the authority of the law, which would become binding if enough people of the states agree to ratify something.
The Article V Convention is the objective solution, based on all we know to be true of history and the human condition. It is a popular discussion the powers that be do not want to have.
Here are links to review:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42592.pdf
http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments
John De Herrera
pat gilbert 50+
John De Herrera
pat gilbert 50+
Regarding the convention clause I am all ears and going to school on you
John De Herrera
pat gilbert 50+
They are both insidious. But I'm not sure it really matters that much in the election as even though 2 billion was spent on the presidential election in the scheme of things it is not that much E.G. Procter and Gamble spends 3 billion a year on advertising.
The problem with the unions are that they are way of life that metatheses in the economy and makes the culture worse.
I get that you are mostly referring to crony capitalism which I agree with. Since you are so aware of the constitution I would hope that you are also aware of economics.
John De Herrera
pat gilbert 50+
Robert Winner 50+
Could items like the use of Executive Orders be on the table?
Could a reset to a constitutional government be addressed and all agencies be reviewed independently for deletion?
Could we require that all elected officials past and present are subject to the law ... no opting out?
Could we limit terms and set wages and stop congress from managing their own salary? Perks? Etc ...
What would be the limits of what could be addressed?
Barry Palmer 50+
The major media will make it into a propaganda tool.
You might find more information at this sight: http://www.conconcon.org/
I have not yet looked at it beyond the introductory page, but it looks like it might be educational.
John De Herrera
Tom Preusser
the direct election of senators, and this occurred I believe some 100 years ago. Up until that time US senators
were elected by state legislators. There were major problems with having state legislators elect US senators
including numerous instances of corruption (bribery) and partisan gridlock where lacking a winning vote states
went for years without a US senator position being filled. In other words there was a compelling problem/issue
driving the change.
It seems to me you need to pick a problem/issue that is just as compelling to drive this Article V proposal.
John De Herrera
Tom Preusser
John De Herrera
pat gilbert 50+
I read part of your link and the greatest sucess was prompting congress to pass the 17th amendment. That sucks, as that amendment further deteriorated the Republic for the same reason TL brings up the 1819 SCOTUS case.
John De Herrera
pat gilbert 50+
John De Herrera
pat gilbert 50+
edward long 100+
John De Herrera
edward long 100+
John De Herrera
John De Herrera
According to your position, the Constitution is what the Congress or court says it is, whereas all of history shows that the Constitution is what the people say it is. Political science shows that once a tipping-point is achieved, the gate-keepers of the status quo will move out of the way or face even greater problems.
There are many aspects of our history which politicians and judges don't talk about--for instance what you state above, that the court has ruled that what was meant to be ministerial in nature--the convention call--is discretionary on the part of Congress, i.e. the court has ruled that the ultimate right to alter/abolish is up to the politicians in Congress. If Americans were told that, there would be problems, so the statists never discuss it. Not because they don't feel like it, but because there would be hell to pay if the people understood what was going on.
On the other hand, if the people understood that a convention is not only not dangerous, but mathematically impossible to be so, not to mention the only objective way to redirect the course of government, then they would desire it, a tipping-point would be achieved, and the convention would be called.
You may have noticed one of the links above, a report put out by Congress this past summer about the Article V Convention. Congress did not request the report because it/they had nothing better to report. They know more and more folks are beginning to ponder it.
Gail . 50+
I disagree with your analysis. You say, "According to your position, the Constitution is what the Congress or court says it is, whereas all of history shows that the Constitution is what the people say it is.". That is not the case (easily proved with documentary evidence). It has become more and more of the case in recent history, but it was never the intent or the law, as government was not supposed to consider anything not authorized by the constitution. This WAS our greatest protection, as individuals and residents of our states. States were (pre McCulloch v. Maryland) sovereign nations that were part of a treaty organization.
If I look at our history and delete the parts where most people were not wealthy enough to vote, or where an unconstitutional civil war forced many states to submit to an unconstitutional authority, under duress, I can begin to make sense of your position, but it's not an accurate rendition of history, thus it is misleading. Americans have been intentionally lied to in our formal educations, and people think that government is something that it was never supposed to be (thanks to the Bill of Rights and those states who successfully blocked ratification of the Constitution without a Bill of Right, and maintained their right to secede).
Today, thanks to the overthrow of the constitution as the law of the land, neighbor is pitted against neighbor and there are no more certainties or safeguards. We have become a divided nation and government has become all-powerful.
About 10 years ago, there was a movement for demanding an Article V convention based on several hundred applications over our history. It turns out that Congress doesn't keep track of these applications, so it couldn't audit them. Not being able to audit them prevented them from authorizing it, even though a search of state records showed that applications had been submitted.
The peoples' will was thwarted again.
John De Herrera
If one knows what it is in actuality--a three-part national discussion which breaks the status quo of politics as usual--then anyone sincere would immediately begin scheming how to popularize it.
As mentioned earlier, the Congressional Research Service issued the paper this year. The powers that be know that people are waking up to the idea.
The Constitution cannot be overthrown, it can only be ignored. Once enough of us want it to be obeyed, it will be, and in a natural progression of events it will return us to its founding principles.
Gail . 50+
Won't work. Here's why:
Back in the 1980s, congress gave itself a 25% pay raise with the stipulation that 8 years later (when G. W. Bush was out of office) that cost of living increases would kick in making pay raises automatic without the required vote. People were outraged, but what could they do? One student in Texas had an idea. Knowing that one of the original Bill of Rights (that failed raitification) prohibited pay raises until an election has intervened, began lobbying state houses across the country. In 1992, just as the raises were to be implemented, it became our 27th amendment.
Congress was furious when the archivist announced that it had passed. They claimed the right to accept or reject Article V Amendments, but the people objected. Congress had to find another way around it. It took a few days, but they found one.
It was a time of high inflation, caused by congress intentionally increasing the money supply in order to cause inflation so that the value of the huge national debt (thanks to Regan) would be devalued. This, congress said, meant that for as long as they do not give themselves cost of living increases, they are in violation of the amendment because their pay was being decreased. Judge Sporkin of the 9th district court agreed, saying that those who filed suit were miscreants and that congress should never be held hostage by the people. It was then official. A cost of living increase in pay is not a pay increase.
The Supreme Court never had the authority that it claims today until it gave itself unconstitutional powers in a bloodless coup d'etat in 1819. It decreed that the Constitution is not law (no matter that it says it is), but is a guideline. Now, no matter what amendments Article V would come up with will be invalidated if congress & the courts consider it a "political matter".
We need to re-ratify the 10th amendment first, because until that is done, the Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
pat gilbert 50+
Gail . 50+
You also fail to mention that the senate was Republican during three of the four Reagan congressional sessions, and no spending bill became law without the consent of the (large majority republican) senate and the republican president - Ronald Reagan - who pushed his massive spending bills through with full support of the Republicans.
Both sides agreed that inflation was necessary in order to reduce the "value" of the Reagan debt, which was as terrifying then as today's debt is to us.
Hate doesn't help. We need to be able to talk about history as it happened, no matter how much we don't like looking at ourselves as we do so.
pat gilbert 50+
The senate does not create the budget. It was mostly a deception by the Tip O'Neil in other words he lied and Reagan regretted agreeing to it.
Again one of the most powerful people is the speaker of the house and they are the ones who have the most control over the budget. Which I suppose is why the senate not submitting a budget in years is not as big a deal?
Gail . 50+
Furthermore, Ronald Reagan's entire campaign theme was "Reagonomics", called trickle-down economics. He wasn't talked into it. He campaigned on it. It involves massive government spending that is supposed to put money in the hands of the wealthy so that they could become job creators, and in this way increase revenues. The only thing that Reaganomics gave us was inflation and massive debt that it took Clinton to begin to get us out of. Then came Bush 2 who merely took Reaganomics and put it on steroids and broke our government.
I will grant that Obama seems to like the failed Reagan policies, but he is no worse than the two mentioned above who came before him.
Before you argue about government, perhaps you should learn about it. Read the constitution perhaps? I keep correcting errors in your posts that anyone with a basic understanding of government should know before they take such hardened stances, such as the house originates all spending bills and congress authorizes and funds various government departments, etc.
pat gilbert 50+