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: TED Lover, I understand your position, but all of history proves it to be incorrect. To paraphrase your position, it's that the people will be denied their right to a convention because the court has declared it a political question, and therefore up to Congress--that the convention call is discretionary as opposed to ministerial in nature--and in terms of practical politics the Congress is never going to put its powers on the chopping block for a bunch of state delegates to cut into.

    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.
    • thumb
      Dec 5 2012: .
      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.
      • thumb
        Dec 5 2012: Ted Lover, the Constitution is what the people say it is, and the only reason we've never had one is because we've been lied to for over half a century as to what one actually is.

        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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.