Topic: History of Liberty in America
There Are Two Camps of Constitutional Patriots... I was not aware that there were patriots of the Constitution out there who support a current Constitutional Convention in order to reaffirm and reestablish the Constitution as it was originally intended by its Framers--I suppose this divides us into two separate camps...by Michael
(libertarian)
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Patriot,
Thank you for informing me of "the other half" of the story. I was not aware that there were patriots of the Constitution out there who support a current Constitutional Convention in order to reaffirm and reestablish the Constitution as it was originally intended by its Framers. You and your organization decidedly have a genuine and authentic historical grievance [exquisitely documented in detail at your website]:
against the Federal government for denying the citizens of the USA many times over in the past the Constitutional right to an Article V convention--it was indeed "illegal" for this to have happened historically...
...I suppose this divides us into two separate camps, then; those patriots who think a current Constitutional Convention would be a good thing to insure the future liberty of our citizens by reaffirming the Constitution as it was originally intended and those patriots who think a current Constitutional Convention would be a bad thing for such--but then again, the enemy of my enemy is my friend...
...the 650 plus historical applications for an AVC by the individual States are now, unfortunately and regrettably, "water under the bridge"--unConstitutional; YES!--"illegal;" YES!--but nonetheless, water under the bridge...
...it is the current aspect of a Constitutional Convention, not the past chances where we were historically denied them, that concerns me for, let's just say, the atmosphere has changed somewhat of recent...
...although this was perhaps a major contributing factor within this history of the denial of past AVC's when the Constitutional requirements for them had been met--and perhaps if allowed back then we would not be in the mess that we are in now--nevertheless, I am not a member of a group or a person who works to set up the fear in people of an AVC--I am, rather, a person who says that within the context of the past three or four decades, and especially currently, it would be DISASTROUS to the continued insurance of the future liberty of our citizens and to the maintenance of our national sovereignty according to the intent of the original Constitution to have one now!!!--simply because the wrong players are currently in power...
...a quote from your website:
"They ignore the fact that the Framers also provided a safety mechanism to prevent such a fiasco: all amendments proposed by the convention must be ratified by three-quarters of the states before they become effective. There is no danger that radicals on either side of the political spectrum could bring about such an outcome." [emphasis mine]...
...unfortunately, currently, we are not battling "radicals on either side of the political spectrum" in order to salvage our Constitution in its original state of intent--we are battling radicals on both sides of the political spectrum who are successfully promoting an agenda of Globalism, One World Government and a New World Order--and there is no room in these designs for our national sovereignty or our Constitution!!!...
...I suppose the straw that broke my camel's back was fourteen years ago when the US Senate and House of Representatives voted on and passed our nation's joining of the GATT/WTO under very suspicious and questionable circumstances--something which I only just recently revisited in my Nolan Chart article The Birth of the Beast Revisited--an event after which I could no longer find any comfort whatsoever in the "safety mechanism to prevent such a fiasco" by a ratification of three-quarters of the individual States--we're just now beginning to witness the results of what Sir James Goldsmith warned of back then in the massive hemorrhage of capital and the massive hemorrhage of jobs almost fifteen years after-the-fact--sow unto the wind/reap the whirlwind...
...and of course, along with this, the consideration of many other very suspicious and questionable circumstances/events which have occurred since then which have subsequently further eroded our liberty as formerly guaranteed by the Constitution...
...I suppose the current nomenclature of the enemy is the "Social Progressives"--and if you don't think for a second that the "Social Progressives" are not already poised and ready to dive headlong into a Constitutional Convention to effectively rip the guts out of the Constitution in order to make it more compliant to the designs of a One World Government--well then, there are still two camps of Constitutional patriots who disagree--and the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend...
...I feel that with us being only two States away (and they're letting us know about it this time around, finally--thanks for informing us of the past, Patriot) from an AVC that one is looming, unavoidable and inevitable (because now the "powers that be" want it--they need to put us down--once and for all). So what would be the recommended course of action? Is there time for the voting constituency of the individual States to vote for and install true Constitutionalists to their State governments in order for them to represent the preservation of the Constitution according to its original intent when the AVC is eventually convened!?!--Are there even enough of us awake and not slumbering to do it!?!--Time will tell...
...it's worth a shot, anyway...
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Michael only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Michael is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Although the President should follow the law and declare an Article V convention, I don't see that happening soon. The current political parties have no interest in giving up power. Electing incrementally better Congressmen would be a better use of energy. Time to start thinking of 2010!
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-12-23 09:37:19
Liberalism always gains ground in the long run. The Constitution has been a strong restraint on some of the liberal/progressive desires.
I understand the desires of those who advocate a Constitutional Convention but there is simply no guarantee that anything good will happen as a result; especially given the history of the Constitution with regard to those who have worked to undermine its built-in restraints, flawed as they are, on pure democracy and monarchy.
The seventeenth ammendment is a great example of how the trend toward populism has resulted in eliminating one of the fundamental checks and balances written into the Constitution.
My fear about a Constitutional Convention is that the opponents of individual liberty will attack the electoral college. This one aspect of our constitution is the glue that binds our union. Elimination of this safe-guard will pave the way for a single national entity where states are irrelevant, individuals are irrelevant and a global government becomes an obvious and easy next step.
The following information provides context for my opinions:
"A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.
The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.
These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government."
Our constitution is being systematically destroyed by politicians and bureaucrats who simply ignore it or claim that it means something different than what it says. If we lose the constitution all of our rights will go with it and America will become as horrible a tyranny as any that ever existed. We must prevent this from happening.
Possible solutions:
The ballot box- If the people could be educated about the constitution and the dangers of losing it they would vote for politicians who would restore it and uphold it. Problem solved. But the people are wholly ignorant of the constitution and they resist efforts to teach them. Many people who are intelligent and well educated are clueless about the constitution and are not interested in even talking about it. We should not give up on this approach but we should also not count on it.
The Bullet box - Our founders created this country by picking up arms against a tyrannical government and fighting a long and bloody battle until victory was achieved. And certainly they encouraged future generations to do the same should circumstances warrant it. But this should be regarded as a means of last resort to save our constitutional rights. The people should exhaust every other means before resorting to such a thing.
The courts: -The third branch of government has been somewhat effective at preserving the constitution. In the case of DC v. Heller the supreme court upheld the second amendment by a 1 vote margin. Although in Kelo v. New London the court dealt a blow to property rights. Nonetheless the court system offers some hope for preserving our constitution.
Constitutional Convention - It has been proposed by one individual on this forum that a constitutional convention could be used to restore our constitution. But the author does not spell out how this would come about. And there are many questions about the procedures involved. Would ratification be by the state legislatures or state conventions? Article V allows either method and leaves it to congress to decide which. So we don't even know who would be involved in the ratification process. Does ratification by a state require a simple majority vote? If so, ratification could be achieved in 3/4 of the states while not even having a majority of state legislators nationwide in support of it.
A constitutional convention could add or remove portions of the constitution or rewrite it entirely. That is a very great danger. Unless the proponents of the con con can explain how it would restore our constitution and not destroy it then we should stay away from it.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2008-12-23 11:06:35
It appears that a "constitutional convention," or as it's properly referred to, the Article V Convention, is a big grey wall open to interpretation for most: What would happend? Who might control it? Etc.
But then think about the steps to take place, and the context:
1) Congress is coerced to issue the call. (This act would send shivers down the spine of most corrupt politicians, because they would have no idea what's coming down the pike. The dynamic would be akin to telling a corrupt accountant that an outside audit is going to commence. Sending shivers down the spines of corrupt politicians seems a healthy thing for representational governance.)
2) The states hold special elections for delegates. (Anti-Conventionists fear this as they fear the same corrupt individuals will be elected, but upon close inspection, the Article V Conveniton works in our favor: First, it's a special election, not a Repub/Dem politics as usual election. The field of candidates will range far and wide, and corporate interests will not be able to corner all those cats. We'll find some true patriots willing and wanting to be part of America's first AVC. When the convention actually convenes, what do you think corrupt individuals will do? Propose that everything remains corrupt? What will the patriots do? Lastly, convention delegates do not legislate, they simply build consensus about possible amendment proposals. They will not want to go home failures, but work to craft at least one amendment with a good chance of garnering the approval of 38 states.)
3. The period between the call and the convention. (During this time human interest stories of who these delegates are and what they want to propose will emerge. This aspect of a national convention puts the spotlight on Congress, i.e. "Why didn't they think of that?").
4. The convention itself. (The delegates work together to craft amendment proposals, along with the good/bad/ugly renegade proposals. For entertainment value alone the convention would pull the country togehter--simply as a civic ceremony. If it is the job of politicians to produce wedge issues to divide the electorate, wouldn't the Article V Convention be a good thing in bring us all to the table?).
I'm always puzzled by the illogical position, "We shouldn't hold a convention because the forces in power MIGHT gain power?" If the forces in power would enjoy a convention, why haven't they manufactured consent, had one, and done away with the Constitution?
Also, I'd like to ask the author how the applications on record are "water under the bridge?" How could we be two states away from convoking a convention, if they're water under the bridge?
To fear the Article V Convention is to fear our own Constitution. To fear the Article V Convention is to fear open discussion. Does anyone think members of Congress have a monopoly on good ideas for change? Does anyone understand that even if a member of Congress is honest for change, that their ideas never make it to a vote?
To the Anti-Conventionists, I ask you why the convention clause is part of our high law? Why is it there?
Let's get our terms correct right from the outset -- it's an Article V Convention, not a Constitutional Convention or a Con Con. The later two terms are for the under-educated and those of soundbyte mentality, respectively. This is about the LAW OF THE LAND, not misnomers or survivalist boob tube shows.
Abraham Lincoln said: "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
The duopoly (two party system) of plutocrats (wealthy citizens who can't relate to you and I) run the government covertly from bottom to top; if you don't believe it, just try to gain a high political office on your good looks without caving into the wealthy power brokers! Even IF a few patriots can make it to the higher echelons, they'll soon become tainted or they'll never accomplish anything supposedly for the people. That's the name of the current game! Time for Game Change!
It's long past time for Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments -- over 650 remain stagnated on the books, as it were. Why didn't Congress issue the call for a convention when the original numerical quantity was met? It's their FEAR that "We The People..." will make changes through an Article V Convention that'll compel them to straighten up and fly right. What would Congress do if they had to adhere to a Constitutional Amendment that required them to BALANCE THE BUDGET? Congress' handlers -- Wall Street and Investment Bankers -- would have an absolute fit, because they wouldn't be able to easily do what you see happening in the marketplace today.
A wonderful test of how our Constitution works might be to hold a Mock Article V Convention to show the doom-sayers they have nothing to fear but fear itself. The blood must run cold in these anti-Constitutionalists' veins -- unlike the Founding Fathers who stood up to be counted.
Will all the nilly-willys please sit down, and study the Constitution and U.S. History.
"A wonderful test of how our Constitution works might be to hold a Mock Article V Convention."
OK lets try it out. You take the lead and guide us through the process. I volunteer to be a delegate. But the first thing is will the ratification be done by state legislatures or delegates? Article V allows either. And how will the delegates be selected?
I\\\\\\\'m open minded about this. If it could really restore our constitution I would be for it. But my thinking at this time is that it will destroy the constitution. Show me I\\\\\\\'m wrong.
I would ask the author only one question. He states:
"the 650 plus historical applications for an AVC by the individual States are now, unfortunately and regrettably, "water under the bridge"--unConstitutional; YES!--"illegal;" YES!--but nonetheless, water under the bridge.."
All of his other comments are premised on this unproven, unreferenced, clearly his own opinion statement. He praises FOAVC for providing "exquisitely documented" evidence to support our position, which we do.
Yet, he does not seem to feel he is bound to that standard. He makes a statement that all of these applications are "illegal", "un-constitutional" etc. All Michael, let's cut through the B.S. Back up your statement with verifiable, provable documented evidence.
Cite something in otherwords that is a clearly recognized official ruling by a court, for example that states all these applications are "water under the bridge", "illegal" or most important "unconstitutional." Tell us how they are such. And by the way, you should know that the states, to this day are still applying for a convention so they don't seem to think or agree with your opinion.
Oh yeah and did I mention the U.S. Supreme Court and the recent federal lawsuit where the government admitted for the public record that 1) a convention call was based solely on a numeric count of applying states with no other terms or conditions (meaning that they are not water under the bridge or illegal) and that for Congress to refuse to obey the Constitution is a violation of federal criminal law.
Now, either produce hard evidence and proof of your claim or have the honesty to retract it. In other words, put up or shut up. There are email addresses given at FOAVC as to how to contact us. If you want to contact us to discuss the truth, please feel free to do so.
Bill Walker I have been searching for a legitimate means of forcing government to abide by the constitution. If a constitutional convention would do that I would be supportive of it. But I see nothing to demonstrate how it would achieve that result. Please stop attacking Michael and show us how this would work. And show us what protections exist to keep the convention from doing something really undesirable, like deleting the bill of rights.
Fair enough. Prepare to do a little reading. Go to http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/brief.pdf . That's the overlength brief I filed in federal court in 2000. If I've typed the link wrong, go to FAQ pages of www.foavc.org and read question 9.1. The link is there.
The brief, some 781 pages in length, contains 208 Supreme Court rulings which deal with every aspect of question that has been raised in all these protests and, to sum, shows that already existing law prevents what people fear. For example, it is against the law right now to attempt to overthrow the government and because Article V only permits amendements to the current Constitution, anyone at a convention trying anything else would be in criminal violation of law.
In fact when it comes to a convention, most of the law is criminal law, not civil law.
In any event, after you've finished up on that, if you still feel there are no protections, prove it to me. Michael might want to read it also.
______________________ Michael writes: simply because the wrong players are currently in power... ______________________ So what is your recommendation?
Just ignore the violation of the Constitution?
What makes you think ignoring the Constitution will make anything better?
It takes a lot of corruption to destroy a nation, but we should always fight corruption when and where we see it. Especially when Congress is out of control.
Yes, you are right that the severely bloated federal government are not the right players, but voters chose to reward 86.9% of the incumbents in Congress with re-election.
Congress won't allow an Article V Convention, because they know damn well they'll be facing term-limits, campaign finance reform, and other reforms. They don't want to lose any bit of their power and opportunities for self-gain.
Anyway, the 650+ Article V applications are not irrelevant, or illegal, or unconstitutional. That's pure unsubstantiated nonsense. It doesn't matter if anyone thinks it is a good idea or not; it is the supreme law of the land. Anyone who doesn't like it should submit an amendment to change that law. Then see how far you get.
781 pages? The entire constitution including all of the amendments plus the Declaration of Independence fits into a pocket sized booklet of 60 pages. Why don't you give us the short story on the AVC.
So far what you have told us sounds like obfuscation. Tell us in a paragraph or two what you expect to come out of an AVC. What amendments would be added? What amendments or articles would be changed. And how would these things cause congress to "get religion" and stop violating the constitution?
Posted By: Nelson Lee Walker
Date: 2009-01-23 15:15:38
A question for AVC supporters:
Why is it that after 650+ applications from all 50 states, there has not been any visible movement or coalition of state legislators (or legislatures) to demand that the Congress respect their call for an Art V convention ? Given the enormous egos of state politicians, I would have expected that they would not put up with being so flagrantly "dissed' by Congress.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
