To Convene or Not to Convene (an Article V Convention)--that is the Question...
I have to admit that after hearing the argument(s) of those vocal Patriots who support an Article V Convention and after considering their evidence that I've had to reconsider my position in this important matter totally--let me explain to you my changed reasoning on this issue... by Michael
(libertarian)
Thursday, December 25, 2008
When I wrote and submitted the Change article, it was solely in an effort to inform as many as possible that our Democratic neighbor to the North, Canada, now has a (temporary?) dictator and also that, by the count as presented by the alternative Internet media sources, we are only two States away from the convening of a Constitutional Convention and that, as they have editorialized it, this would be a very bad thing for the USA and it's Constitution if it occurred--I wrote the Change article because I felt that these two current issues were, no doubt, not given the coverage in the mainstream media that they deserved--sort of an FYI because I felt that most had not been duly informed of these important issues by the mainstream media...
...then, WOW, Constitutional patriot Bill's comment was there--to me out of left field and out of the blue--arguing that an Article V Convention would be a good thing!?! And this was so "out of context" with the editorial views on the subject to which I had already subscribed that I immediately dismissed such a possibility, took a brief look and overview of the website and fired right back with the Two Camps article--for one reason, and it might be hard for some to feel that this was genuine on my part--but it was, to inform others that there was another and opposite school of thought on this issue to mine and for the other reason to inform others that I did not agree with it and why--I even went too far, so far as to name the enemy of my enemy as my enemy (which I now retract and formally apologize for that statement)--to me this was all in the spirit of debate, not attack, on his part and mine (but thanks and appreciation to those who were in agreement with me at the time and who stepped in to "defend" me in their posted comments)...
...so without further adieu--let me proclaim Constitutional patriot Bill as the winner of this debate--for he has convinced me of his position--and I will go on from here to explain to you my reasoning in this matter...
...it was very nice outdoors today in NITHIA (for a Winter's day) and I had some brush to pile and burn on my property. Of course, you can only pile it just so high before there's no room to pile anymore on until after it burns down some, so inbetween this I contemplated the issue, and then piled more on...
...WOW! The discussion that the Two Camps article engendered--I LOVE IT!!!--can you imagine the impassioned debate that went on before it was finally decided that America would be a Democracy instead of yet another Monarchy!?!--Of course, back then, we're talking about the birth of a Democracy instead of the demise of a Democracy...
...an AVC/ bad result--an AVC/ good result--on the surface, a flip of the coin--call it--50/50 odds; neither position can be proved either way, ergo deeper consideration is needed in order to make a decision/choice...
...my brushpile had burned down enough to pile some more brush on to burn...
...past historical Constitutionally illegal denials of an AVC just water under the bridge--wrong political players currently in place--they'd swoop in and rip the guts out of it--wait a minute--it's already been trespassed upon so far for so long that it's, in reality, already a dead document, in practice--and that ain't right--it's already had the guts ripped out it--what could they do in an AVC but formally announce it's long passed previous demise posthumously, and thereby condemn themselves to treachery and treason--and why has an AVC been so suspiciously denied for so long, historically, as Constitutional patriot Bill has pointed out and exquisitely documented--we should have had almost a score of them (by the numbers) already--and historical denial was Constitutionally illegal, yet they were still denied--only logical conclusion--the AVC must have been a threat to the ulterior designs that have already usurped it...
...brushpile burned down again enough to pile some more on...
...flip a coin--do nothing or do something. Wait a minute. This is like when I decided to vote for Ron Paul! I did something! I voted for a Presidential candidate for the first time in the 50 + years of my entire life! I still have the "Vote for Ron Paul" bumper stickers on my truck and will keep them there until they wear off or they make me remove them--just to make the statement that, "I tried"!--I did something!--I tried to do the right thing for the right reason--genuine or not, he represented and held out for us the promise of returning us to a Constitutional form of government as originally intended, so I and many others did something--we voted for him...
...brushpile burned down sufficiently to again pile some more on...
...hey, back when I decided to vote for Ron Paul, I knew he/we had the proverbial, "Snowballs chance in hell"--given all the historical water under bridge and the current "wrong" political players in place--but I voted for him anyway--so that I/we who did so could bear a truthful witness that at least I/we had tried to interrupt and change the (what I/we deemed to be the too long and errant) course of things in our nation and in our world...
...about dark-thirty now, no time to pile any more on; can't keep an eye on it after dark--sit down and have a beer and contemplate the embers as they burn down in the cool, crisp air as the twinkling stars come out on this Christmas Eve in NITHIA...
...flip a coin--do nothing (a decision based on fear of the results) or do something (a decision based on Hope of the results)--guess I'll have to choose to do something--so that yet again I can say that at least I/we tried--and that I/we tried to do the right thing for the right reason even if it does end up getting subverted and making things worse (think we'd be used to that by now)--but then, hey, that wouldn't be our fault, would it--shouldn't stand by any longer and watch the wrongful players currently in power tell the Constitution, "Eat our dust," as they run headlong away from it, taking us, against our will, along with them...
...Merry Christmas, Constitutional patriot Bill--let's go for that AVC--won't go so far as to summon up the Texican saying of, "Hey, do something, even it's wrong! (but at least do something),"--but almost...
...of course, Bill, yours wasn't the only commentary that swayed me. You are, as "Constitutional patriot Bill," sort of my "Joe the Plumber" of our camp that supports an AVC (pardon my parody here--I couldn't resist)--so likewise thanks to; John, Gordie, David and d.a.n....
...but really, Bill, thanks, you've done the footwork and collected and codified the details immaculately and made the sacrifice and deserve the credit here...
...perhaps the most well-known alternative Internet media source for currently reporting the "two States away from a disastrous Con Con" is World Net Daily and links to other such sites and opinions can be found there...
...they at least owe equal time to the other side of this story...
...has Ron Paul written anything on this that anyone knows of? If not, is there anyone out there close enough to him to request his input?...
...Merry Christmas!!!...
In His Love,
Michael
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7
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.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2008-12-25 11:40:45
Merry Christmas Michael! And in this New Year may we coerce the call out of the Congress and revive our constitutional republic for many decades to come!
 In answer to your question about Ron Paul. He is opposed to obeying the Constitution and is on public record as saying so. Mr. Paul, like all other members of Congress, was a defendent in my 2004 lawsuit, Walker v Members of Congress. In addition, other communications were sent to him asking for support. They are copied in my amicus brief which is on the www.foavc.org website under the FAQ question 9.1. In sum, based on his illegal criminal position (the position of the Solicitor General his attorney) Mr. Paul when it comes to supporting the Constitution, is no different than the rest of them. Officially and for the public record.
Mr. Walker what do you expect would come out of an AVC? What amendments might they add? What sections of the constitution might they alter or delete?
Posted By: Andrew Panken
Date: 2008-12-26 12:30:46
The Consitution doesn't need to be amended. Just as Obama easily won and Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin were buried alive, we would surely lose at a Constitutional Convention. Anyone who thinks otherwise is very naive.
Andrew you said it very nicely and in a way which is obviously true. The country is currently populated by socialists and neo-cons. We who support the constitution are a tiny minority.
Hey now – Come on here – you self-professing Constitutionalist against an AVC -- you need to give our Constitution a break...
Within the course of my line of objective reasoning on this matter it occurred to me that if one claims to be a Constitutionalist – without any degree of qualification or hypocrisy whatsoever – that this would mean accepting, supporting and defending the entire Constitution and not singling out just this one somewhat obtuse, ambiguous, unnerving and possibly threatening debatable aspect of it...
...the debate over "why" the Article V clause was put into the Constitution to begin with is in itself, as a debatable issue goes, solidly unprovable by either side and therefore a moot point – it’s in there nonetheless...
...the important thing is that it is in there, it is legally binding and when the numerical requirements have been satisfied it is illegal to deny its taking place – period! – now the religious, moral and ethical debate over the difference between what is right and what is wrong and what is legal and what is illegal and how the two are divided is an entirely separate debate – the Article V Convention is currently within the realm of the Constitutionally legal/illegal defined issue...
...let’s imagine ourselves sitting down in that tavern of historic repute and from across the table from the Framers and Founders, as we all had a mug of ale, trying to explain to them how and why we have decided to adhere to, support and defend their document –except for just this one thing– it is hard for me to imagine that they would reply, "Bye Golly, you win the prize – you’ve guessed correctly at the one thing that we put in there that we wanted you to ignore and dismiss!"...
...within the context of the previously described scenario perhaps we Constitutionalists could hope for the best. I, personally, quite well imagine Thomas Jefferson taking the questioning-me aside and within a more modern context explaining to me, "See here, it is within the realm of possibility that the Federal government could still gain excesses in power beyond what is intended by this Constitution. Hardly anything has ever been contrived that the mind of man could not eventually subvert. The Article V clause gives a recourse to the individual States to put this in check in the event that this happens. Look at it, the ball is in the court of the individual States. It takes two-thirds of them to call the Article V Convention and three-quarters of them to ratify any decisions made therein. If and when needed it will test and prove, or disprove, the metal of the individual citizens of the individual States if and when the Federal government exceeds its Constitutional bounds. The Article V Convention was put in place in order that the individual States could call the Federal government to the carpet if it exceeds its Constitutional limitations. The agenda of this thing may appear to be undefined, but if you take it within the context of and according to the spirit of the intent of the entire document it is redundantly self-explanatory! (sometimes you have read between the lines) As being "undefined" some might assume that it’s purpose is it to "amend" or "delete" or otherwise change it; and I suppose that the unworthy, if given the advantage, could use it for this purpose – but again, as being "undefined," others might assume that it’s purpose is to "reaffirm" it –what with the ball being placed in the court of the individual States and all, it’s really left to them to decide its agenda and course of action. If it fails to reestablish and reaffirm this Constitution that we’ve just drafted, then the voting constituency has deservedly lost its Republic and will reap the consequences thereof – for they no longer merit the Liberty afforded by it!"...
...NEWSFLASH!!! – The Federal government has so long ago so far exceeded its Constitutional limitations so that an Article V Convention called by the individual States is so far overdue that it is probably so well beyond the point of any retrieval of Constitutional reestablishment and reaffirmation so that it might be so far beyond any such hope to accomplish such – so that we should give it try nonetheless!!!
2. You have no right, any longer, to be a "War Protester" on threat of having your assets seized and frozen and you, yourself, as an individual, being given no social recourse to quarter:
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-12-31 10:15:19
David S
I do not think that it is an arguement over changing the Constitution, it is an arguement over the General Government not following the one we already have.
So then what sir is your recommendation for making them follow the Constitution if they ignore the Constitution and the calls for the AVC?
By doing nothing vs using the Constitution to force the issue, you are condoning the actual problem we are all condeming. Like saying you are breaking the law, so I wont use the law to enforce the law because that might make you follow the law. Does this not sound nonsensical?
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.
