I have regularly encountered the fear that liberals would control the convention and produce awful results. Let me carefully make the case why this fear is completely unjustified and why patriotic Americans that are not constitutional hypocrites should support the nonpartisan effort of Friends of the Article V Convention. by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(libertarian)
Friday, November 20, 2009
In my many efforts to educate Americans about their constitutional right to have an Article V convention I have regularly encountered the fear that liberals would control the convention and produce awful results. Let me carefully make the case why this fear is completely unjustified and why patriotic Americans that are not constitutional hypocrites should support the nonpartisan effort of Friends of the Article V Convention.
An Article V convention is too important to oppose. If you love and respect the Constitution, then the honorable thing to do is support our efforts to make Congress obey the Constitution and give us the first convention. After all, the Founders and Framers knew that inevitably Americans would lose trust in their creation of a strong central, federal government. So they gave us the convention option and, with one exception, gave the power to run the convention to the states. That one exception was that they required Congress call or convene the convention once the one and only specified requirement in Article V was satisfied. With some 750 applications from all 50 states, that two-thirds of states requirement has long been met. Members of Congress have disobeyed the Constitution and their oath of office to uphold it.
Face facts; face the truth, face history: Partisan political interests on the left and right have consistently opposed a convention for the simple reason that they fear a convention of state delegates with the power to propose constitutional amendments (that must still be ratified) that might reduce the power wielded by partisan politicians.
Nowadays, I often hear the fear that Speaker Pelosi would use her power to do awful things if a convention was convened. Nonsense, absolute nonsense with no merit whatsoever. I challenge anyone to find any evidence that Pelosi favors having the first Article V convention. Second, everyone must constantly be reminded that state legislatures would decide how to select their delegates to a convention. To think that Democrats and liberals would be able to manipulate delegate selection in a majority of states is also sheer nonsense. Today, if you look at state legislators you see that the few who talk about the need for reformist constitutional amendments are almost always Republicans and conservatives.
Finally, the logic of this historic situation is simple: Rather than fear using our constitutional option of an Article V convention what intelligent and concerned Americans should fear is the two-party plutocracy status quo that has ignored and manipulated our Constitution to wreck havoc and pain on our Republic. Every conceivable organized interest that is able to manipulate the political system to get what they want, especially corporate interests, fear a convention. What they fear is what we the people urgently need: true political reforms that will never come from a permanently corrupt Congress, neither through ordinary laws or proposed constitutional amendments.
If you are not a constitutional hypocrite, then go to the website foavc.org of Friends of the Article V Convention, which is the only place where citizens can actually find and read the hundreds of state applications for a convention (Congress was too fearful to ever make them readily available), and then become a member of our group. With more members our efforts will be taken more seriously.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Joel S. Hirschhorn only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Joel S. Hirschhorn 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: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-11-20 09:08:03
For me, it's not a fear of liberals. It's a fear of big government politicians. They would clearly dominate such a convention, because they have all the money and power to insure that they would dominate it. Remember, the convention gets called by the states. That means the state politicians in control of the governments of the 50 states will decide who to send as delegates.
It's not just liberals who support big government. Moderates and conservatives do too (despite conservative rhetoric to the contrary). Make no mistake: "we the people" would not be in control of such a convention. It's the elected politicians who would control it.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2009-11-20 13:34:18
As to Walt Thiessen's stubborn opposition to an Article V convention, I can only logically conclude that people with his position are:
a) constitutional hypocrites (assuming that they profess a positive view of the US Constitution) because they think that they and Congress and pick and choose which parts of the Constitution must be obeyed
b) favor keeping the current two-party plutocracy status quo with the worst (most successful politicians) in power
c) are so jaded and cynical that they do not believe that there are many millions of smart, patriotic Americans who really want true political reforms that they know will not come from the corrupt Congress and who would work to ensure that state legislatures did not corrupt the convention process
d) may be living with the delusional fantasy that some third party will magically obtain power, win elections and reform the federal government, perhaps even the Libertarian Party that has clearly shown no ability to be successful
e) have given up on demanding that states exert their constitutional powers
Joel, as you know, I am no fan of yours, and certainly not Walt's. But as you are at least offering a solution with a fresh perspective instead of the tired poofertarian rhetoric Walt dribbles, I must give you props.
I wrote about calling a constitutional convention over a year ago in one of my first columns- this, after bailout angst and a run-up to one of the most disappointing election seasons in recent memory.
Walt dismisses all political reform discussed here with bitter contempt while not once offering suggestions of his own. He is more content for the Nolan Chart to be a forum for people all over the political spectrum (read: anarcho-capitalists, or at the very least: extreme, poofertarian radicals) to pat each other on the back and insert subtle jibes at those who actually seek to change the system, not merely talk. And his vision has worked very well, here.
I do find it very ironic however, that the Nolan Chart, and the object of its namesake, that he worships, placed you in the libertarian quadrant as you are almost certainly nothing of the sort.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2009-11-20 17:03:51
Dear Spence:
I advise getting a good supply of anti-ego pills. I don't recall you or anything you have written. And apparently you think of yourself as the supreme judge of who is and is not libertarian; my view is most such labels have little accuracy, meaning or importance. Though I have always had a liberatarian streak, I think it is more important that I see myself as fiercely independent and a foe of the evil two-party plutocracy. But if you see some merit in using an Article V convention as the means to achieve much needed reforms in our corrupt government, then I welcome your support and hope you become a member of our group at foavc,org, As to Walt, I think he finds joy in creating disgust, anger and other strong emotions that keep things active on his website, which is fine as long as he does not censor and keep out viewpoints that he does not appreciate.
"I advise getting a good supply of anti-ego pills. I don't recall you or anything you have written. And apparently you think of yourself as the supreme judge of who is and is not libertarian"
Joel, this is what makes your views widely despised here. You pin your own arrogance on other people. "Anti-ego pills"? Is that your best potshot? Laughable. You had one idea that someone, probably much more rational than yourself, suggested to you (a constitutional convention). Congratulations - don't blow it immediately after the fact by making yourself to be the truly arrogant one.
My remarks were that I had merely wrote an article on a similar subject. If you think that is so ostentacious, then you should probably spit your idiotic venom on everyone else's articles that repeatedly bash in the same stupid talking points over and over again. We have 10 threads on this healthcare debacle. I see you wrote one yourself. Does mentioning that make any of you, the authors, arrogant? No - idiotic maybe, but that's a different story. Do try to be less of a judgmental hypocrite.
"And apparently you think of yourself as the supreme judge of who is and is not libertarian"
This assertion is laughable. What I said was: "I do find it very ironic however, that the Nolan Chart...placed you in the libertarian quadrant" and that "you are almost certainly nothing of the sort."
I stand by that remark. There is a criteria for libertarianism, and I didn't invent it, so much as you would like to accuse me of developing my own standards. Who you should be offended by is that David Nolan and Walt Thiessen see it fit to include you in such a way, and miscategorize your statist views as being "progressive" or "libertarian". That's the true injustice here.
Where you get the gall to project your own egotistical views onto me, I don't know. Would you tell a grammar instructor they were arrogant for failing you? There are criteria libertarians need to meet. If you want to say you are independent that's fine, but I suggest if you wish to receive less scorn, you should retake your test to score the more obvious fascistic dreams you have. Good day.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2009-11-21 00:39:03
walt, you really ought to think things through step by step. if the article v convention call is coerced out of the congress, america will overnight become a different america. it would be the same dynamic as if a corrupt book-keeper was suddenly told an outside audit was on the way. anyone corrupt would think twice about attempting to subvert such a monumental moment in history. the gaze of the nation would be on them.
beside that, many of the good and great americans out there across the land this very moment, upon hearing that america was going to hold a federal convention, would make their way there. and once there all they would do is build consensus. that's all the convention clause is, a consensus mechanism. you yourself could be a delegate. and all the delegates together are not going to want to go home losers, they're going to want to put something on the table with a chance of being ratified.
but simply convoking a civic ceremony on the authority of the constitution would be more important than any amendment proposals coming out if it. such an event today would galvanize the country and wake up the sovereign power asleep across the land, and that power awoken would do exactly what the framers knew it would: purge institutionalized corruption.
consider the alternative: last september one voting machine corporation bought another. we're next to losing the ability to vote change into existence. if we lose that, we lose freedom. at the least your attitude about the convention clause--whether you can envision what it actually would mean or not-- should be--"we have nothing left to lose...." because we really don't. your guns won't mean a thing in the face of media and voting controlled by the same unseen hand.
the convoking and convening of a federal convention today would wake everyone up and turn on the lights. once that happens it will be a whole other universe to share and help direct, instead of fiddling around on the internet while our freedoms go up in smoke.
there is an inevitable conclusion to what is happening to us as a people. it's happened before, except this time we can hold up the convention clause and stop it dead in its tracks.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-11-21 07:06:11
Why is it that any time someone like me points out reality, we are automatically labeled as anti-Constitution? And notice that none of the other commenters here, including the article writer, contradict the truth what I'm saying. They know what I'm saying is true. They just don't like the truth of it, which makes them the naysayers.
they call it politics, because it is controlled by politicians. if anyone thinks that we are going to have a convention without the "politicians" both left and right, pinch yourself, because you are sleeping.
who do you think wrote the constitution? politicians. what did they say in it? just what politicians say now, what people want to hear, irregardless of what they intend to actually do.
I have to make a small observation here to correct Walt on one small, technical point. He is incorrect that big government politicians would rule a convention for the following reasons.
1. The Constitution forbids anyone from holding two civil federal offices. Thus, if someone wished to rule a convention they would have to give up whatever government positition they had meaning they would not longer be a big government politician.
2. Article V does not authorize Congress to finance, control, regulate or otherwise have anything to do with a convention. The courts have already stated this in several decisions meaning the convention would have to be independent of congress. And please Walt, let's not start down the garden path of supposition. What your side has never explained to me is:
3. Congress has no need to regulate such a convention has it has the same power of proposition as a convention. Thus, with much less effort, total control already established and having the fix already in, if Congress wishes to control this nation through amendments, it can do it anytime it wishes. Yet, Walt and others such as him, sees no danger nor ever comments on this most obvious of facts: IF CONGRESS WANTED TO DO IT THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE SO.
4. As convention delegates and members of Congress constitute an obvious legal class it is obvious all laws which apply to members of Congress also apply to delegates (principle of 14th Amendment equal protection clause). What Walt suggests is illegal under federal criminal law and thus would be illegal if attempting to do to a convention. The courts have already ruled conventions must be elected and it's a federal as well as state crime to subvert an election.
5. Walt fails to realize that unlike the customary political election that he used to where lies about the political candidates are norm that an Article V Convention will be entirely different. The reason is because the voter will not be voting for the delegate; he will be voting for the issues, that is how the delegates will vote on specific amendment issues. The only business of the convention will amendment proposal and thus the character, background, etc. of the delegate is actually secondary to the issue discussed. Thus telling lies about the character of the delegate really doesn't matter because only the issue matters. Will it be proposed or not?
In sum, the main reason Walt doesn't believe in a convention is because he's probably never actually watched one in progress. I suggest for reference he look at the recent conventions held around the world and see how they went to get a better idea. True, none were perfect but you'll find any comments about them centers on issues resolved or not resolved and not on the delegates meaning conventions are about issues, not candidates.
I think the whole problem with an Article 5 Convention is the lack of detail about how such a process should take place. The founders floundered on this issue and as a result they left it an open process. For example, on your site foavc, you quote 750 times the state legislatures have petitioned for a ConCon from all 50 states and that we are being denied our constitutional rights. Of course, thats been 750 total times over US History at different points in time on different subject matters and over a dozen or so times the state legislatures, have rescinded their petitions. I also don't think Hawaii has petitioned at all for a ConCon, correct me if I am wrong.
It is also not apparent if they should reach the threshold when they receive petitions from 34 states requesting an Article V convention in general or if the petition must be to address a certain subject matter. Obviously, if they receive 34 petitions from individual states over different subject matters, the point is moot. Also, the point of the ConCon as explained by Hamilton and others is to correct a recalcitrant Congress. A General ConCon doesn't clarify any grievance of the people or why it is needed or why it can't be done by an elected US Congress. It opens the door for a circus on issues that may not even be of national concern. If they receive 34 petitions for an Amendment on Congressional Term Limits for instance, then obviously that is entirely different and should be upheld. Most of the times in our history its been used as a flexing of muscle by the states when a ConCon has been threatened, thats when the US Congress usually ends up passing the Amendment at question in order to avoid a ConCon.
