TED Conversations

John De Herrera


This conversation is closed.

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:




Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 5 2012: .
    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.
    • thumb
      Dec 5 2012: You fail to mention that Tip O'neal was the speaker of the house at that time and the spending increase was his doing as it always is the purview of congress. Just as Pelosi foisted Obama care on the American people. Just as the Clinton surplus was created by Newt Gingrich.
      • thumb
        Dec 5 2012: In your zeal to damn Democrats & liberals (who are not necessarily the same animal, by the way) rather than see the larger picture, you misrepresent history. It is very unfair. You fail to mention that the huge national debt was ENTIRELY the result of the Regan revolution and Regonomics. It was a bipartisan doing led by Reagan's popularity.

        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.
        • thumb
          Dec 5 2012: Again it was not a result of Reaganomics.

          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?
      • thumb
        Dec 5 2012: You have so little understanding of how government works, yet you are furious about mistakes in your own thinking. The reason you have not seen any spending bills come out of the senate in recent years is because ALL spending bills MUST originate in the house. They CAN'T originate in the senate.

        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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.