Topic: History of Liberty in America
The "Erosion of our Constitutional Liberty"--could an AVC end it!?!... Erosion is a curious thing--until you take measures to stop it, it continues and on an increasingly, almost exponential, destructive scale and the more time that elapses between now and the time that you take measures to stop it--the more you lose...by Michael
(libertarian)
Thursday, January 1, 2009
I really wanted My Final Word on an Article V Constitutional Convention (let's move one) to be just that--but due to the commentary posted to it and to my other articles concerning this issue I feel that we cannot move on just yet...
...there really is no hoping to seek "closure" on this issue from either side of the debate. Yes, the Socialists and the Neo-cons currently in power could effectively walk into an Article V Convention and effectively rewrite our existing Constitution (in favor of and more in compliance with our national participation in a collectivist form of Globalism/One World Governance). WHAT!?! Are we waiting for some near future point in time when we foresee them not being in power and when an Article V Convention would be more favorable to the preservation/survival of our Constitution!?!...
...when the numerical requirements are satisfied an Article V Convention is legally binding according to the Constitution--for better or for worse--how could it be denied without being "unConstitutional" and illegal!?!...
...it's a decision to be made between doing nothing or doing something--in reality, potentially a Catch 22 scenario of damned if you do and damned if you don't--if you don't, Constitutional Liberty will continue to be eroded on an exponential scale; why not, no force of objection or opposition has arisen to date and asserted itself to stop the erosion, let alone reverse it (except for Ron Paul's bid and his platform of return to a government as defined explicitly by the Constitution).--if you do, it could quite realistically be usurped by unConstitutional, collectivist Global governance elements--look, within myself, I am still quite conflicted on this issue and still somewhat, in essence, attempting to stand on both sides of the fence...
...the deciding factor within my own mind was the fact that an AVC is Constitutionally legal and binding--no denying that--and perhaps putting some faith in the Founders and the Framers when they forsaw that we would reach this point...
...my initial response was, "A Constitutional Convention!?! God forbid!?!" After being informed of the reality of it within the legal boundaries of the Constitution I was still vehemently against it--"they'd rip the guts out our Constitution!?!." But finally I realized that it was perhaps the only last hope for us stop the erosion and if an AVC failed to do such, well then, the American citizenry were slumbering to the point that they no longer deserve the Liberty afforded to them by their Constitution...
...sort of the classic denial, anger, acceptance scenario...
...if there is yet anything left to be hoped for and to be regained by convening an Article V Convention forestalling it will only facilitate the further erosion of our Constitutional Liberty so that, given enough time, there would no longer be a need for an AVC for our Constitution would long ago have been altogether washed downstream...
...I am not so naive that I am not aware of the real potential threat of a current AVC delivering a swift, decisive (and perhaps merciful at that) death to the Constitution and to our Republic; and if this happens then the majority of the American citizenry will have deservedly lost their Republic due to their past and present complacency, inattention and, in fact, dereliction of duty...
...what's that old adage? Something to the effect, "He who hesitates has already lost."--We, as a nation, have hesitated for far too long already and the consequence has been the erosion of our Constitutional form of government--dare we hesitate for any longer or should we rather press the issue now and hold out for a snowball's chance in hell that we might be of some effect--at least we could say that we tried...
...look, I'm just hoping to say, in the End of all things, that I at least tried to do the right thing for the right reasons and if this is subverted by those who have a different design--well then, let the Judgment be upon them...
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1 thumb 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: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2009-01-01 08:15:03
If you believe in logic then follow this: If you love and respect the Constitution, then you have only two choices: Support the effort to make Congress obey the Constitution and give us what we have a constitutional right to have - an Article V convention, OR support action by Congress for it to propose an amendment to remove the provision in Article V for a convention. You choose.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-01-01 10:58:39
The Article V Convention is a proper noun, please capitalize. Thanks.
State delegates to America's first Article V Convention could not be more dangerous than the slow-motion coup d etat of special interests that is occuring now, today. One is the entire country coming together in the open for all to see, the other is various insiders exchanging favors for funds in cloak rooms.
Our republic is such in name only--it's currently a plutocracy. How can the Article V Convention destroy what we do not have? The Article V Convention is part of our high law for a reason--that reason exists now, today.
What Michael fails to point out is the convention is not the end-all, do-all of the Constitution. It is just the second step of the process, the first being that the states decide to apply for a convention. Assuming an average of a two hundred legislators in each state, and a majority vote in each house, this means that for the applications to even exist, means that at least 3400 state legislators had to approve the idea of applying for a convention.
Given that you have 0ver 650 applications for a convention and that means the number of legislators putting their political as well as personal beliefs on the line easily can soar to a figure well in excess of 65,000 legislators that, throughout the years, have had to decide to support an Article V Convention--and that is just to submit the applications.
Assuming Congress calls the convention, and this is no means certain because Congress, despite the fact it has admitted in open public court that not to call is a criminal offense, has refused to obey the Constitution and call the convention. True, as presecribed by the Founders, the call on the part of Congress is peremptory, a legal term meaning that Congress has no choice in the matter, so whether Congress agrees or not, they must call. Nevertheless, the resistence of Congress is an obstical which so far as served to ensure that no convention will ever be called regardless of what the Constitution states. The problem is, Congress has taken this concept of right to refuse to obey the Constitution and applied it to the rest of the document. Which is why we are in the mess we currently are in.
Then there is the matter of the convention itself. A two-thirds vote of approval is required just like Congress. Again, no small feat. The congressional record offers some insight into all of this. According to public record, nearly 10,000 amendment proposals have been submitted by members of Congress. Only 27 have ever received congressional approval sufficient to cause proposal. For the math minded that's .27 percent. Assuming the same odds at a convention, any proposal has a .27 percent chance of ever even being proposed by convention.
But the course is not done yet. Now comes ratification. Another group of citizens who most likely did not vote on the application, who are not members of Congress and who were not convention delegates (unless during the interviening time they were elected to state legislature office) now take up the issue. Assuming Congress elects that it wants ratification by the states. But now the standard is 3/4th support instead of 2/3rds. Now, assuming the same 200 average, a total of 6,800 state legislators must give their approval for an amendment to be passed.
Unless Congress elects that the method of ratification shall be by state convention. What this means is now the people get to vote on the matter by voting for delegates to the state ratification convention. Because there would be only the issue of the ratification vote, delegate/candidates would have to state their position on the question and of course argue why or why not an issue should be ratified. The people would then vote on these delegates who, in turn, would go to the convention and vote whether or not to accept the ratification of a proposed convention proposed amendment. Still the number is just as high, 3/4th of the state conventions. So, based on the usual voting figures, it could require the consent of millions of Americans to pass an amendment proposal.
And of course everyone ignores the fact that amendments can be repealed using the same process. So if the convention does propose something and it is somehow ratified and it is the greatest mistake in political history....well, a convention or Congress can propose an amendment to repeal it just as done with the 21st and 18th amendments.
And all of this will of course be vetted every step of the way by the press, by the Blogs, by their opponets to every amendment proposal and so forth meaning if there is a take over as is feared, it's going to have to fool a lot of people.
Now, let's look at the other side. Why hold a convention? Why not just practice good old fashioned civil disobedience and simply ignore the Constitution. Join the government as even Michael says, and ignore this small part of the document. Allow by simple fiat of inaction the government to entirely control every action, every right, everything we cherish and put our trust in elections that if we vote for the right person, everything will come out fine. Sort of sounds like what we are doing now. In sum, just keep things as they are.
Well, the world doesn't work that way. Other countries around the world have had similar problems like we have and they have had conventions and improved their governments and form of governments and now those countries are beginning to pull away from the United States and leave us in the dust. If we want to stay competitive in this world, we need fundamental changes to a form of government that hasn't changed (as far as structure) since 1804. Can you image trying to run a modern business based on an 1804 business plan?
The Founders knew that change would be necessary in our country and our Constitution in order for our Constitution to remain viable. That's why they provided so many methods to allow for it but simultaneously made such alterations difficult to prevent the very fears people suggest from happening. Only by a major consensus within our nation can there be an amendment. In short, we really gotta feel we have to have this or it won't happen.
If you want my personal opinion, I'll give it. When the convention is done and the amendments proposed, people will be complaining not that the convention did too much, but that it did too little. There is an assumption that a convention, unlike any other political body, will act as a monolithic body moving as one unit in lock step. Nothing will be further from the truth. The convention will made up of strong willed men and women with strong ideas and thoughts as to how this nation should proceed. They will have been vetted by one of the most difficult elections in history. They will be battled hardened and battle tested meaning an idealism they had when they began the quest to be a delegate will have been blown out of them.
They will realize the responsiblity they have in all of this and that fact along will make them pragmatic for they will know whatever is done, it will be because they have their name on it...for all of history and that can be a very, very long time if you make a mistake. Caution therefore, not rashness, will be the rule.
And, for the record, changing the amendatory system is on the agenda with at least two different proposals under consideration so either way, a convention may end up being the most important, single, historic event in recent American history, never to be repeated again.
As Michael said, we can either stay where we are and sink in the quicksand or we can take a risk and grab at the rope and pull ourselves to safety. Maybe the rope will give way and we will sink back into the quicksand. But does that risk justify us simply staying put? All we end up doing is dying faster. Where's the logic in that?
I am working on the concept that freedom is not the natural state of humans. Our country was created by people who were rejected by or fled from their culture. One of the primary reasons for this seperation was that they did not fit into the existing cultures unfree structure.
A basic tenant of Sun Tzu and his art of war was that you had to know your enemy if you were to have any chance of defeatingh him. Likewise you must be addressing the actual problem if you are going to correct it. Eating a bland diet to treat ulcers is pointless since most ulcers are the result of a bacterial infection.
Some observe what is
The Unnatural nature of freedom
It occurs to me that one of the most stupid and evil thoughts ever is this one attributed to George Bernard Shaw "Some see the world as it is and ask why. I see the world as it could be and ask why not?"
There are two very basic flaws with this statement. The first is that if you do not understand why the world is as it is, and attempt to change it you will, in all probability expend a great deal of resources and only achieve death and destruction if you achieve anything at all. Some of you, upon seeing this statement will offer as counter arguments all of the inventions that man has produced. But those inventions were not designed to change the world, they were designed to solve a small problem. That problem was usually of the nature "I want to do x". Or "I want to do X more efficiently". Sometimes that changed the world, but that was not the goal.
When one wants to change the world, one is usually thinking of changing how humans work. For example consider any religion or mass movement.
If one examines all social mammals one always, with no exception, sees that such groups are made up of a male leader and subordinates, or a herd of females and children where males come to visit, mate with females and then leave. There is no third alternative.
If you examine human cultures you will rarely see anything resembling democratic or free cultures unless they are relatively small, numbering in the hundreds or maybe the thousands.
A lover of freedom looks around and asks, is this true? How can this be? Do people not want to be free? If they do not want to be free then how did the culture that defines the United States come to be?
To begin to answer these and other relative questions we need to seek the answers to such questions as what is the nature of humans, and how does nature interact with them?
Nature plays only one game, though she plays it in a variety of ways on many scales or levels. That game is reproduce. The only players in the game are, at this time anyway, organic entities. Non organic entities constitute the board on which the game is played. This board is not, however static, but dynamic and subject to radical change with no notice. The organic pieces formerly known as dinosaurs can attest to that.
war links: http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050209_warfrm.htm http://www.howardbloom.net/chimpanzees_and_romans.htm http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/55311/ http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/biology-evolution-and-war/ http://www.physorg.com/news140174454.html
Some general comments about this game playing. It takes place on the molecular level (The selfish gene) at the cellular level, at the animal level, and at the tribal or group level. Cooperation and conflict among all of these entities take place within and across all of these sets.
The current crop of humans carries the genetic material that made them the survivors. While I suppose that it is possible to imagine a scenario where when a peaceful tribe meets up with a more warlike tribe, the peaceful tribe comes to dominate, I am not able to imagine such a scenario. If we look at history, the only time that non violence "won" was when the non violent tribe was much larger than the violent tribe, and they were fighting on their home turn far away from the aggressor. And even this was not always the case, as the instance of the more violent Europeans essentially obliterating the residents of this hemisphere shows. Hence, we carry the genes of the stronger, more aggressive, more warlike survivors of previous encounters between individuals and groups.
So, given our biology, how do we come to have the idea of freedom and live and let live? How do we happen to have, as parts of our cultures, entire sub-cultures that appear to teach peace? Perhaps Orwell was right. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." What exactly is freedom? Do people really just want freedom from freedom?
This would be a good chance to examine two ideas. What do people want, and what is this thing that people call freedom.
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.
