Topic: Article V Convention
The MIAC Report and an Article V Convention Despite the massive protests over the recently released MIAC Report, not all of the report missed the mark.by Bill Walker
(libertarian)
Monday, March 30, 2009
To say the political right is upset over the eight-page MIAC Report (http://documents.scribd.com/docs/1xduds3zv8npsq67kt0c.pdf) discussing the militia movement would be a gross understatement. The confidential report, entitled "MIAC Strategic Report, 02/20/09, The Modern Militia Movement." was written by Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) and, according to several sources, was released to the public by an unidentified member of the Missouri state police. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Information_Analysis_Center) describes MIAC as "fusion center' combining resources from the federal Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, in particular local agencies. It collects intelligence from both the local agencies and the Department of Homeland Security and uses these combined sources to analyze threats and better combat terrorism and other criminal activity. The center opened in 2005 and is located in Jefferson City, Missouri."
According to a column written by Chuck Baldwin on March 27, 2009 entitled "Missouri Scraps MIAC Report" Mr. Chuck Baldwin notes that "no left-leaning political ideologies were identified. No Islamic extremists. No environmental extremists. Only people holding 'conservative' or 'right-wing' philosophies were identified in the MIAC report." Perhaps Mr. Chuck Baldwin should reexamine the title of the report. The report deals with a particular political span of individuals who generally are described "conservative" or "right-wing." Other gun carrying extremists groups who are "liberal" or "left-wing" in their political views are probably described in other confidential reports of the MIAC that were not surreptitiously released to the public by an unnamed source.
Indeed the very nature of the report suggests a series of reports, each focused on a particular political element of the political spectrum. No doubt if all MIAC reports intended to identify possible threats to public safety were made public, instead of just this one, Mr. Chuck Baldwin's complaint would be meaningless. And, given that political splinter and faction groups exist on both sides of the political aisle, it's equally likely these Islamic extremists, environmental extremists, et al., would be as irritated as Mr. Chuck Baldwin is, that based on historic incidents, such as shootings, bombings and so forth, the police dared to write a report describing the history of these events and judging those people who have killed and maimed on repeated occasions in order to further their extreme political agendas as possible threats to public safety.
The report suggests that many militia types may be lurking among the followers of the supporters of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former congressman from Georgia Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin him. In his column Mr. Chuck Baldwin raises a valid point. Just because someone of particular political philosophy supports a particular candidate is no reason to suggest they may be a terrorist or threat, unless there is evidence to prove the people named in the report have committed an act, terrorist or otherwise, which the police might see as a threat to public safety. In sum, if evidence exists which links Mr. Paul, Mr. Bob Barr and Mr. Chuck Baldwin to a criminal act, then the report is justified in its conclusions.
On March 20, 2009, Congressman Paul, Mr. Bob Barr and Mr. Chuck Baldwin sent a letter (http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com/MIAC-Letter.pdf) to the honorable Missouri Governor Jeremiah Nixon requesting "the document be removed, and its distribution and any actual or implied adoption of it by the state of Missouri, stop." The letter stated, "If it is the intent of the state of Missouri to link three legitimate, former candidates for the office of President of the United States (who also happen to be a sitting Member of the U.S. House, a former member of the U.S. House, and a Baptist Minister) to persons who Missouri believes pose a danger to law enforcement, then this document clearly does so..." So, according to Mr. Chuck Baldwin's column, even Mr. Ron Paul, Mr. Bob Barr and Mr. Chuck Baldwin admit that if their past actions can be demonstrated to be a "threat" then the report is proper.
According to Chuck Baldwin's March 27, 2009 column, the state of Missouri has caved. Mr. Chuck Baldwin states in his column, "On March 23, DPS Director John Britt sent and apology letter to Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and me stating, I have ordered that the offending report be edited so as to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin and to any third-party political organizations."
Mr. Chuck Baldwin then stated that on March 25, "the head of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Col. James F. Keathley, ordered the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) to permanently cease distribution' of the report. Keathley, according to Mr. Chuck Baldwin, said that neither he nor Britt had read the report before it was distributed and that the report was filled with numerous spelling and grammatical errors and did not cite any sources for its broad statements about "right-wing" militias.
Clearly, if there was no evidence to support the concerns expressed by the MIAC, then Mr. Chuck Baldwin, Mr. Ron Paul and Mr. Bob Barr have every right to have been offended and to request the report be withdrawn. However, the question is as follows. Does public record support the position of Mr. Bob Barr, Mr. Ron Paul and Mr. Chuck Baldwin. Obviously, something in the public record caused someone in MIAC to write the report and come to the conclusions the report reached. Is there anything in the public record that shows that Mr. Bob Barr, Mr. Ron Paul and Mr. Chuck Baldwin have committed any act that would justify the MIAC issuing a report warning police that these three men and their followers might pose a threat to public safety?
The answer is yes.
The report listed several issues which it stated that "right-wing militias" were opposed to. This laundry list of political issues includes opposition to the United Nations, gun control, the Federal Reserve, federal income tax, abortion and illegal immigration. The report concluded that groups holding these views of opposition might pose a threat to public safety. As noted by Mr. Chuck Baldwin in his column, the report provided no citations or proof showing that political opposition to these issues was somehow a threat. In this, Mr. Chuck Baldwin is correct. Simple political opposition to a political issue is not justification to label someone a "threat." But there was one issue in the report where Mr. Chuck Baldwin is incorrect. On this issue there is public record proving Mr. Ron Paul and Mr. Bob Barr have violated federal criminal law regarding their opposition to it. This same public record shows Mr. Chuck Baldwin to be dangerously close to violating the law. Therefore, so far as this issue is concerned, the MIAC report is justified in expressing its concern for public safety.
The issue is the failure of Congress to call an Article V Convention.
ARTICLE V of the United States Constitution states: The Congress, whenevertwo thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight [1808] shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
What Mr. Bob Barr, Mr. Ron Paul and Mr. Chuck Baldwin fail to realize, along with many of their followers, many of whom have been vocal in their opposition to the calling of an Article V Convention, is that a convention call is a constitutional mandate, not a political issue. It is one thing to oppose a political issue, but it is an entirely different matter to oppose, or more importantly, support those opposed to obeying the Constitution when their oaths office require they do so. There is no question the states have satisfied the requirements of Article V. Not only have two-thirds (i.e. 34) of the state legislatures filed Article V applications to for an Article V Convention, but all 50 states have filed over 700 Article V applications to amend the Constitution. Photo-copies of these Article V applications from the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA) can be viewed at the FOAVC web site (http://FOAVC.ORG/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm). Further, as everyone knows, the Constitution is "supreme law" of this nation.
As described in the FAQ section (http://FOAVC.ORG/file.php/1/Articles/FAQ.htm) on the FOAVC web site, the Solicitor General of the United States acting in his official capacity as attorney of record for the members of Congress, acknowledged that members of Congress had violated their oath of office in refusing to call an Article V Convention when the Constitution demanded they do so. Violation of oath of office by any federal official, including members of Congress, is a federal offense. In the lawsuits, individual members of Congress were named as defendants. Congressman Ron Paul was one of the named defendants in that lawsuit.
As to former congressman Mr. Bob Barr who had left office before the lawsuit was filed, the same federal criminal laws apply to him. Public record clearly shows that for the entire time Mr. Bob Barr was in office, he failed to obey the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as required by the Constitution and his oath of office. Thus, Mr. Bob Barr violated his oath of office to "support" the Constitution and therefore committed the same criminal act as Mr. Ron Paul.
What of Mr. Chuck Baldwin? Mr. Chuck Baldwin's opposition to an Article V Convention is well known. He has spoken many times on his opposition to obeying the Constitution and compelling Congress to call a convention as it is required to do. Thus, Mr. Chuck Baldwin has expressed public support for Mr. Ron Paul and Mr. Bob Barr criminally disobeying their oaths of office. There is such a thing a criminal conspiracy laws and while Mr. Chuck Baldwin may not have crossed the line, his actions to oppose obeying the Constitution certainly have brought him close. Close enough certainly to justify the writing of a report by a police agency charged with monitoring such actions.
Public record shows that all three men have either actually violated federal criminal law in their public opposition to obeying Article V of the Constitution of the United States or have expressed public support for doing so. Thus they have advocated the overthrow of the Constitution by simply vetoing it. The overthrow of the Constitution whether by force or any other means, clearly poses a threat to the safety of this nation. Only by obedience to the Constitution can we be assured that the rights and privileges guaranteed in the Constitution remains for us to enjoy. It is the task of organizations such as MIAC to be on the lookout for such potential threats that may endanger our rights or the safety of this nation; to identify them and to warn others in law enforcement of these potential threats.
The MIAC report did just that. Given the public record on at least in one issue raised in the report, the failure of Congress to call an Article V Convention and the opposition of Mr. Chuck Baldwin, Mr. Ron Paul and Mr. Bob Barr to it, the report was entirely justified in its conclusions. Given this fact, it appears the actions of the Missouri officials to withdraw their report may have been ill-advised. It is true the report gave no citations supporting its conclusions, but even Missouri police can read the Constitution.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Bill Walker only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Bill Walker 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: 2009-03-30 14:39:03
walt, in answer to your question, because every law of this nation is tied directly to the seven articles, the answer is No--there is nothing unrelated to the article v conveniton.
if you are an american, certainly this is true, but because america is in the position it is globally, you might even say for people of other nationalities--for all humanity--it's convention or bust.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-03-30 15:42:23
Hi Bill, So, our current constitution is the document that brought us to the point where Congress will not follow it regarding the Article V Convention and this is the plan for changing that:
Article V. Bill: Congress, you must call for a convention, the Constitution says so.
Congress: No.
Article V. Bill: You are not following the Constitution.
Congress: So.
Article V. Bill: You must allow us to re-write the Constitution then you must follow it.
Congress: No.
Article V. Bill: When we re-write the Constitution we'll write it so Congress must follow it.
Congress: Ho, ho, ho. That's a good one Bill. Go away.
Objective By-stander: I don't think the problem is the Constitution here; it's the Congress.
Article V. Bill: If we could just re-write the Constitution everyone would do what it says.
Objective By-stander: So I've heard...well, I'm off to ensure my school board isn't spending $10,000 on Starbucks and that my county commissioners aren't spending my money to lobby the State Legislature in favor of bills I oppose. Good luck with that magic Constitution thing.
Altering the Constitution in an attempt to force the federal government to comply with its restraints is akin to changing the tire in order to fix the water pump.
I fail to see how you can say I have put up a strawman attack given that public record backs my statements. Essentially, all I've done is report public record here. At best you can accuse me of reporting facts you might not be aware of. The facts are plain: Mr. Paul and Mr. Barr have violated federal criminal law. Mr. Paul's attorney of record admitted this in public court. That is hardly a strawman attack.
To Walt:
This site primarily is a political site. Most of the discussion centers on issues which either directly relate to the Constitution or concern laws based on, supported by or otherwise connected to the Constitution. In addition this site discusses actions of the federal government which, of course, relates in some fashion to the Constitution. Within this context, I would say that most of what is discussed on this site somehow relates to the Constitution and Article V is part of that Constitution.
Remember, I didn't write the report, MIAC decided for whatever reasons to include the issue of Article V in its report. All I'm doing is reporting the facts related to that matter.
To John:
We're working on it.
To Jahfre Fire Eater:
I disagree with your little story. The fact is that whenever Congress is faced with this matter, they run. Now I've accused Mr. Paul and Mr. Barr of committing a federal crime. The normal expected reaction would be of course a firm denial on the part of these two men. Note carefully how they reacted to the report when even the suggestion was made they might be involved in a criminal activity. Watch carefully and learn Fire Eater. There will be absolute silence from them, no response, no denial, nothing. That is because they know I'm right and correct and they hope by simply running away, the matter will go away. In short, their silence will prove I am telling the truth.
I feel sorry for you Fire eater that you have so little faith in our form of government or the people it represents.
And, oh yes, to both Dan Druck and yourself: I'm still waiting for either or you to produce the step by step solution to the problem you say exists. You state amendments won't solve the problem. Fine. Now produce your plan; what do you propose to solve the problem? I'm willing to bet there will be silence from you on this.
It's real easy to write little cute stories criticizing someone. It's real hard to offer your own solution. Let's see what you think will work and let others judge the plan. I assume since you are so quick to condemn the Constitution's plan for solving problems, you have one of your own. Or maybe, you just like to mouth off and offer nothing but empty air. We'll see with your next response.
An article V convention would only be 'Constitutionally mandated' if the requirements were all fulfilled. Arguing why they should NOT be fulfilled is political speech, just as much as your (erroneous in my view) opinion they should be fulfilled. Neither is 'domestic terrorism' nor sign of militia activity.
On my own part, I simply don't want anyone nominated by those who brought us the Patriot Act, FISA and numerous undeclared wars to be anywhere they can change our Constitution.
Until the requirements are actually fulfilled, there is no mandate, and at least one state has withdrawn its request.
Posted By: Roger Hermann
Date: 2009-03-31 06:44:32
Mr. Walker,
You condem Barr and Paul for violating the law. Has every other representive voted as you claim is required under the law? I find it hard to believe that Paul and Barr disabled the call for a convention all by themselves. If that is correct then why don't I see any other names mentioned? Perhaps this is just a hit piece by you.
For my part I trust my fellow citizens. However, our renegade government which does not obey the constitution in it's present state is hardly a healthy environment to have a convention. This would simply result in the end to our constitutional republic. Which it seems, is your goal.
Under the terms of Article V and acknowledged in the lawsuit I spoke of as correct as to fact and law, a convention call is "constitutionally mandated" under exactly one requirement with no other terms or conditions: a simple numeric count of applying states.
That one condition, two-thirds applications by the state legislatures for a convention call, the public record shows, and was admitted as correct as to fact and law, by the government in the lawsuit has been fullfilled.
Therefore arguing against this is a violation of federal law as the constitutional mandate has been fulfilled. Even the government admits this. For the public record, all 50 states have submitted over 700 applications for an Article V Convention. The Constitution mandates a call if 34 states apply with 34 applications. I think I'm safe to state the preponderence of evidence favors a convention call.For your information you can read the apps at www.foavc.org.
As to your one state withdrawal as noted, no terms or conditions. A rescission is a condition or term and the government has admitted that as a matter of fact and law, these withdrawals are ineffective and unconstitutional.
As to those you refer to nominating delegates. Read your Constitution. They will have no part in the delegate nominating process. You can't hold more than one office at a time under the Constitution.
So, in sum, the requirements of Article V have been fulfilled and thus there is a mandate under the Constitution. Hence, speech regarding it is entirely different than the normal political speech. However, if you are discussing an amendment proposal that is entirely free speech time but not opposing a convention call.
I do not condemn Mr. Barr and Mr. Paul. I report public record. And the public record shows and records that all members of Congress joined in this lawsuit to establish a right to veto clauses of the Constitution under the political question doctrine.
If you go to the FAQ mentioned you can read the lawsuit. All members of Congress are listed in the complaint including Ron Paul. As I stated Mr. Barr had left office but that didn't excuse him because the public record shows he was obligated to call during his term of office.
As to why these gentlemen asserted their "right" to veto the Constitution, I suggest you contact them and ask them. (By the way I can tell you from past attempts by myself and others, your inquires will be ignored.)
Like I said Mr. Hermann, it is a matter of public record. If you think this is a "hit" piece then maybe before going any further you take the week or so it will require and read through all information in the FAQ about the lawsuit. I think you will see this is not a "hit" piece but simply informing people about public record.
As to the healthy environment, now is the time to hold a convention in ordrer to correct the environment.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-03-31 08:16:30
Hi Bill, Thanks for your fake sympathy, but, real or fake it is unnecessary. It is my deliberate position to not put faith in any form of government or any other religions constructed by Man. (even if they claim divine guidance in their creations.)
Another foundational aspect of my position is that I do not put faith in plans that amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, such as the Article V convention.
I know you cannot grasp my point, no one who is a blindly-faithful proponent of the Article V convention has been able to do so yet.
Yes, I do have a better plan but it involves individuals acting as responsible, empowered activists in their local communities. No ego or outrage necessary, so it doesn't appeal to the herd-of-victims-mentality most Americans embrace to rationalize their futile and ridiculous behavior.
Thinking you can "fix" our form of government by re-writing the constitution is nonsense. I'm not arguing for or against the Article V Convention, if it happens, it happens. What I'm saying is that the outcome is questionable and not likely to improve anything at all. The reason I say this is because our Constitution is not the problem. The sheep-like mentality of the American people is the problem and re-writing the Constitution will not fix that.
The only way to fix that problem is to lead by example, in your neighborhood, in your local community. Any other political activity is just an ego-driven waste of time that cannot have any long-term or widespread positive impact on the eternal struggle for the defense of liberty. Focus on these types of herd-goals is a cop-out, a convenient excuse to rationalize deliberate avoidance of the work necessary to create a community that reflects ones values.
I really don't care if you expend your energy and finances tilting at windmills. I only comment in case there are others reading this who may be lured into joining you in your folly. That aspect of your personal crusade causes more people to choose futility and victimhood over empowered individual actions. I have a problem with that.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-03-31 10:06:21
jahfre, the sheep-like mentality is that which believes the Article V Convention "re-writes" the Constitution. it does not.
it is ironic that one who professes a desire to obey the constitution and lead by example cannot work out in their mind, step by step, what would have to take place once the call for the convention is issued, and how this turn of events would be tantamount to throwing our politicians in a lake.
if and when we as a people achieve the goal of convening, i have no doubt a 28th amendment which creates an effective national standard for voting and voting registration will be placed on the table. as you may or may not know, private companies more often than not, now tell us who won an election or if an inititive passed. since transparent elections and a free society are one in the same, an amendment concerning electoral reform is more that re-arranging deck chairs.
i only comment, hoping others will read and snap out of their amnesia about why the convention clause is part of our high law.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-03-31 17:06:44
another interesting point to the matter is that if governmental agencies and media corporations are under the impression we are 32 applications towards a national convention, which 32 applications of the 700+ on record are being cited?
"I do have a better plan but it involves individuals acting as responsible empowered activities in their local communities. ... The only way to fix that problem [sheep-like mentality of the American people] is to lead by example, in your neighborhood, in your local community. Any other political activity is just an ego-driven waste of time that cannot have any long-term or widespread positive impact on the eternal struggle for the defense of liberty. Focus on thse types of herd-goals is a cop-out, a convenient excuses to rationalize deliberate avoidance of the work necessary to creat a community that reflcts ones values."
Okay.
What is your plan? Step by step, please. You say getting an Article V Convention won't solve the problem. I read a lot of lofty words from you but nothing I can sink my teeth into.
"ones values." Does that mean you propose anarchy that all communities live individually each by his own value or do you have a specific value in mind, one that reflects your personal opinion of world view that we are to follow and if so, what is that view?
"eternal struggle for the defense of liberty." How can you struggle to defend something? I will grant you can struggle to defend and maybe lose in some issues, but you imply by the word "for" that somehow there is a struggle as to who will act in defense of liberty? What struggle do you refer to and exactly, step by step, do you propose for your plan that is better than a convention?
"lead by example." What example? Exactly, step by step, should we do in our communities and neighborhood? Suppose we encounter opposition by those whose values are not ours? How do we overcome it? How to we ensure that "ones values" will be imposed and remain on the neighborhood or communities? What of the larger political units? For example, counties or even the states? Your efforts are obviously aimed at the local setting. Do we just simply let the corruption you say exist simply go on without challenge?
What if those in greater powers i.e, the counties, the states, the nation impose their will and overcome or resist our "community that reflects ones values?" What do we do?
So I put it to you:
1. Give me your step by step plan you have.
2. Show me and prove to me it will work. Show examples where it has worked in the past.
3. Define your terms. What is "ones values".
In short, you say our way leads to "futility and victimhood over empowered individual actions." Prove to me your way will work. I've read a lot of empty, meaningless phrases that can't be used to do anything. Let's hear the details and prove to me your plan will work.
It's now been four days and not a peep from you regarding your "plan". It's beginning to look like you really don't have one. If I was, and I have been, challenged to present the plan of Article V, that is how it would work and the details of it, I can cite it immediately using public record and so forth. That's because there actually is a plan, in this case, laid out in the Constitution. I don't need four days to create it.
Now, you've had four days to lay out your plan, one that I assume you've spent months if not years formulating as the solution to our problems other than using Article V. You certainly are quick to condemn that plan yet apparently offer or are unwilling to offer your plan as an alternative. Could it be you really don't have a plan? It' beginning to look like it.
In short, Fire Eater, either show us the details of your plan and by doing so show us it is a better plan or do us all a favor for those of us who are really trying to solve the problems of this nation and retire from the field. Time to either cut bait or fish Fire Eater. You say you have a plan. Let's hear it.
I've deliberately waited several days to post what I am about to write. I wanted to give all who might read this post of mine plenty of time to respond, which, as I expected, they have not.
Three prominent men have been publicly accused of committing federal criminal acts or coming close to doing so. Not one person has stepped forward to deny they have actually done so, including themselves. Obviously they are very sensitive to public statements about themselves given the reaction they had to a simple report which, at best, can only be said to have in a very oblique manner associated them with certain political elements. To this they reacted and demanded retraction.
But to the direct statement that they have committed criminal acts or have come so close as to warrent police attention, there is absolute silence both from the men themselves as well as their supporters. Not one denial stating these men have not committed a crime or crimes either by themselves or their supporters. No request the column be pulled because it is inaccurate. No accusation that I got the facts wrong regarding their actions or that what is stated in the lawsuits is somehow incorrect. Nothing.
This silence speaks volumes and has nothing to do with an Article V Convention. True, the actual criminal violation has to do with that legal and constitutional subject. But, as even the opponents to a convention have themselves stated, there are now so many criminal violations of the oath of office by government officials it is hard to keep track of them.
Just remember this, you who have opposed obeying the Constitution and calling a convention. Your opposition means you support others disobeying the Constitution when they are obligated to do so and not one person has ever stated that their opposition, or in this case, support of vetoing the Constitution can, or should, be limited just to a convention. Those who you support that are in office and have taken full advantage of your opposition /support of vetoing the Constitution have done so to further their own political ends and you are to blame for creating a political climate where vetoing the Constitution is in full force.
I listen daily to opponents of a convention urging "we support the Tenth Amendment" or "reassert the Tenth Amendment" acting as if each part of the Constitution was somehow a separate part, that one part of it may be vetoed but once established, this veto cannot or will not be applied by those in power to other parts of the same document, that somehow in this twisted logic, selective enforcement is okay for themselves but condemned by them when the government does the very same thing they themselves advocate.
It is a delusional logic which those in power such as Paul, Barr and others have taken full political advantage of. Many have accused me of being "delusional" that a convention will help to solve the problems of this nation by using a simple method which allows for proposing changes outside the usual political methods. They believe the world as we know it if citizens are elected by themselves and have the power to propose changes that our currently elected leaders, many of whom have committed criminal acts, refuse to do. In short, a convention is what Fire Eater is discussing, the assemblage of local communities to vote to send representatives to resolve problems. In fact, a convention is about as local as it can get because those delegates will be elected from local communities.
Yet what of the delusion by these opponets, the belief that a portion of the Constitution which doesn't even have, or never was intended to have, any enforcement powers whatsoever, which is entirely dependent on federal enforcement either through federal legislation or federal court interpretation (which by the way has always favored the federal government) will have success. All the time by way many of these states are holding conventions or considering the same in order to bring about real change in their forms of government because they realize and understand this is the only way such change can actually happen. In sum, using the very system of change many say they oppose to solve problems they say require solving. And where, just for the record, are the delegates coming from that are making up these conventions---local community elections.
I asked one of the opponets to a convention his plan for something other than a convention to solve the problems to which he could only give a vauge, undefined response full of platitudes and meaningless phrases none of which can be used to accomplish a thing. Yet he remains resolute in his resolve not to solve the problem by the only means which history has shown will work, not only in this nation but around the world.
You see, there is a fact that everyone has overlooked about conventions in all of this. Not only is there no record that any has ever been a threat as opponents decribe, but more importantly there is no record that these conventions have never failed to solve the problems presented them. In short, conventions work.
Not to use a solution when it is proved to be a solution is the true delusion here. I suspect someday those who are opposed to obeying the Constitution,by supporting its veto will admit I and othes who support obeying the Constitution were right.
Yes they do work, and the last one held gave us the Constitution in lieu of the Articles of Confederation, for which the convention was called to amend.
It appears that you are operating under the ridiculously false assumption that YOU get a say if a Con Con, which is convened and controlled by Congress with delegates selected by the State's legislators, were to take place. Well, let me make this perfectly clear to you; unless you are a member of a state’s legislative branch and are selected by your pears to represent the state at a Constitutional Convention, You Will Not Get A Say.
You state "Yes they do work, and the last one held gave us the Constitution in lieu of the Articles of Confederation, for which the convention was called to amend.
It appears that you are operating under the ridiculously false assumption that YOU get a say if a Con Con, which is convened and controlled by Congress with delegates selected by the State's legislators, were to take place. Well, let me make this perfectly clear to you; unless you are a member of a state’s legislative branch and are selected by your pears to represent the state at a Constitutional Convention, You Will Not Get A Say."
First point. If you actually read the text of the 1787 Congressional call which can be read in Federalist 40, you see that the call specified that the "federal Constitution" be made to deal with the extengencies of the government. In short your first statement is simply incorrect and public record proves it. Secondly, the Articles of Confederation allowed for "alterations" not amendments so you are factually incorrect. You should actually read the Articles of Confederation before citing them especially if you intent to refer to them in any manner.
Second point. I note as with most people who oppose a convention you provide no proof whatsoever of your statement. As always, long on accusation, short on fact. Frankly, without citation, official record or reference, your statement is no more than your personal opinion and nothing more than that. Moreover, you are factually incorrect. The Supreme Court has specified that delegates to a convention must be elected by the people.
See Hawke v Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920). "Both methods of ratification, by legislatures or conventions, call for action by deliberative assemblages represenative of the people, which it was assumed would voice the will of the people." Therefore conventions must be elected. Also, please don't waste my time or yours having me explain the principle of equal protection under the law beyond the following. In sum, the principle recognizes that everyone within a legal group must be protected equally under that law. Thus all voters are treated equally and so forth. In the matter of convention delegates, as all members of Congress are elected and they and the delegates are the only ones who can propose amendments thus forming a clearly defined legal group the principle dictates all must protected equally. Thus, delegates must also be elected. This also means that it requires two-thirds vote of a convention to pass out an amendment.
Further as referenced by the lawsuit I referred to, the government officially admitted a call is based on a simple numeric count of applying states with no other terms or conditions.
The issue you describe would be "other terms or conditions" of the call and as admitted by the government officially Congress cannot regulate the convention. You are therefore in error in your second statement.
Now, unless you have references such as official court rulings or other similar official documents that disprove my above statements, I assume we will not hear any more of your own unproven, undocumented personal opinions. As you didn't produce them in this go around I think I'm pretty safe in stating you don't have any to produce.
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.
