Topic: American Culture
Tyranny: The American Approach Rationale for the Article V Conventionby John De Herrera
(libertarian)
Monday, January 26, 2009
Conventions, as a means of amending written constitutions, are a distinctly American institution.The word constitution is used on both sides of the Atlantic to signify something superior to legislative acts: a single text of fundamental principles of government beyond the control of a legislature, executive, court, private group, or private individual.
A constitution is a social agreement--a compact, a covenant, a contract--by which the whole society agrees with each citizen, and each citizen with their society; that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good; that government is based upon a contract between a people and a state--as opposed to a contract between a people and a god. The American colonies were bound not only by the terms of the unwritten British constitution, but more directly by charters (think corporation). These charters, of course, became suspended the moment the colonies declared independence.
As you may or may not know, our Constitution has a convention clause written into it. Over the years this clause has been erroneously referred to as a "constitutional convention," but because the U.S. Constitution is unique in all political history, so to its convention clause, which is properly referred to as the Article V Convention. This convention specific to our constitution has very clearly defined powers, as the framers did not leave such affairs to chance. The Article V Convention can only propose ideas, it cannot ratify them.
If America is to one day find a tipping-point majority of citizens fed up enough with the current status quo of governance, and the call for a national convention were coaxed out of the legislature, the inevitable would follow: the states would hold special elections for their delegates; those delegates would convene in the capitol on a date; once assembled, they would then propose ideas for a 28th Amendment to our Constitution; once all amendment proposals were on the table, the convention would adjourn, and the ratification process would begin. If any of the proposed amendments garnered the approval of 38 states, it would become part of our constitution.
The bar for ratification is set at an approval rating of 75%, which means whatever the idea for amendment, whether conservative or liberal, it must get all of one side signed on, plus at least half of the other. In other words, ratification sanctifies the popular will.
In the past there have been arguments against the Article V Convention based on the notion that simply discussing an idea in public might somehow accidentally turn into a new law. Such fears should more properly be applied to the runaway government (corporate charters) currently operating in our capitol.
We Americans are all taught that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are our premier founding documents, but we are not taught that the former was written into the latter: the Article V Convention.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John De Herrera only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John De Herrera 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: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-01-26 17:47:12
Hi John,
I don't think the Article V Convention really needs rationale.
It is a clearly defined mechanism. The only questions are:
1. Will Congress honor that mechanism?
2. What is the likely result of the Convention?
Since #1 is totally out of my ability to change, I'm only concerned with the 2nd question.
I can understand your disdain for anyone who would base their opinion of the likely result on the "notion that simply discussing an idea in public might somehow accidentally turn into a new law. " That's akin to someone who thinks talking about sex will cause pregnancy. I hope you don't run into very many people who have that notion. I know public education is taking an enormous toll on intelligence in the USA but, really? Do you know people who think talking about something can make it accidently become law? I'm having a hard time believing that but I'll take you at your word.
We have experienced a rapid acceleration to the left since 1973 when Nixon gave the progressives the eventual control over our nations economy and finances. Today, we are on the verge of descending into totalitarianism by popular vote.
I count those who voted for either Obama or McCain as having cast a vote FOR the status-quo. They have cast a vote FOR our rapid descent into the hell of Socialism. These supporters of the status-quo account for roughly 98.6% of voters.
The primary goal of liberal politics is to gain control of the power to outlaw opposition. Conservatives used to let their support for limited government outweigh such tendencies. Now that the neocons have made it the norm for conservatives to pursue legislative elimination of their opposition, the only difference between folks voting for one party and folks voting for the other is what issues they are willing to sacrifice my liberty for.
Please address the 98.6% support for the status-quo. How can the defenders of liberty hope to stave-off the codification of our slavery to the state against such an overwhelming super majority who want exactly that?
I figure the convention is going to happen; sooner or later. I think the best thing anyone who understands and appreciates the value of liberty for the individual and for the greater good can do it to explore ways we can keep the Convention from resulting in the end of our existence as individuals with rights in the face of government.
Any debate regarding the likely outcome of the next convention that doesn't address our 30+ year slide into Socialism and the overwhelming support for it from the American voters is off point and irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-01-26 19:37:17
jfe, i stated the obvious result: the states will hold Special Elections (not simply repub/dem), the delegates convene (year after the call), they build consensus about what could possibly be ratified today (as disfunctional and as embarrasing as we are at this moment).
since building consensus is natural, the first issue to be addressed is voting (or taxes [and if so, voting would be next]).
consensus will be to secure The Vote from private interests, because consensus currently/already is to secure it.
i've been to every corner of this country two or three times now, everyone wants the The Vote secured from private interests. and everyone wants to throw members of congress into a lake because they haven't done it.
without transparent elections, you don't have a free society. the two are one in the same.
perhaps you'll soon hear talk about amending the constitution, but none of the proposals out of congress will concern The Vote.
no matter where you land on the nolan chart, or even if your designation changes because of reading the nolan chart, every american alive today owes their life to their right to vote--their sovereign power that was signed into law in paris a long time ago. we're about to lose it via the legislature.
can the 111th congress be coerced to issue the call? i think so, and there are various drives to do that: http://www.articlev.org
in the end, it doesn't matter what you or i think, and it shouldn't. it should only matter what 38 states think. simply being aware of the convention clause and discussing a "constitutional convention" here and again is beneficial. not everyone reads political blogs, as you know.
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.
