Constitutional Competition

[caption id="attachment_7978" align="alignleft" width="197" caption="Constitution"][/caption]

Joel S. Hirschhorn--Among Americans there remains strong pride about the US Constitution, even though there is widespread support for creating reform amendments to it.  Globally, however, what should surprise Americans is a significant loss of respect for it.  Other nations, especially those creating new democracies, see better constitutions elsewhere.  This is not opinion.  It is fact.  And it is important to understand this historic shift.



A new university study sends a disturbing message to all Americans that want to hang on the fiction that the US constitution is not only the world’s best one, but does not need to be improved.  Do not mentally block this finding: “The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere,” according to the study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia.



What exists today is far different than what was proudly proclaimed in 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, by Time magazine which calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on theU.S. version.”



Why has the US Constitution lost standing abroad even though Americans cling to their belief that it is sacred and the world’s best constitution?



The new study examined the provisions of 729 constitutions adopted by 188 countries from 1946 to 2006, and they considered 237 variables regarding various rights and ways to enforce them.  This is what they found: “Among the world’s democracies constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall.  Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s.  … the constitutions of the world’s democracies are, on average, less similar to the U.S. Constitution now than they were at the end of World War II.”



Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. “Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1,” he said.   In other words, the US Constitution is old and out of date.



A Supreme Court Justice has also weighed in.  In a television interview during a recent visit to Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”  She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.  Such a view should be respected.



Should Americans disregard these findings and perspectives?  Absolutely not.  Only if more people pay attention to this global trend will they better see the need to seriously consider constitutional amendments to improve American democracy.  The core problem, however, is one shortcoming of the US Constitution: the great difficulty in amending it.  In this regard, noted legal authority Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 in his book “Our Undemocratic Constitution” that “the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today.”



All over the country diverse people and groups on the right and left are advocating for reform amendments, such as getting all private money out of politics, creating term limits for Congress, removing personhood for corporations, and imposing a balanced budget requirement on Congress.



The problem is that Congress is quite unlikely to propose serious reform amendments, which means that the option in the Constitution for an Article V convention of state delegates must be used.  But Congress refuses to obey the Constitution by ignoring the hundreds of state applications for a convention from 49 states, more than the single requirement of two-thirds of states in Article V.  Learn more at the website of Friends of the Article V Convention, the nonpartisan national group advocating for the first convention.



Consider this: Other nations routinely trade in their constitutions wholesale, replacing them on average every 19 years.   But it would be silly to propose a totally new US Constitution; that is too radical an idea.  However, it is amazing that Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, noted that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.”  Too bad the Constitution gives Congress the power to convene an Article V convention.



Americans should wake up, stop their delusional thinking and recognize that the US Constitution needs to be updated through reform amendments.  We the people must pressure Congress to convene the first Article V convention.  Otherwise the Supreme Court will continue to make interpretations that are more political than legal in nature and the federal government will continue to erode personal freedoms and liberties.  And more and more other democracies will operate under better constitutions.

Occupy Movement: Next Step Convergence

Occupy Movement

Joel S. Hirschhorn - There is a growing convergence of thinking about where the US Occupy movement should go as a next step to turning its values, concerns and commitments into changing what most Americans see as broken government under control of corporate interests.  When it comes to political and social movements, history shows us that they usually fail not because they disappear, but rather because they become marginalized, unimportant despite a core group of committed people and groups.


They lose popular appeal and support or never expand beyond a small early group of supporters.  The nation and many supporters move on.  Other movements grab the interest of the most informed, dissident-type people seeking truth, justice or change.  A good example of such a failed contemporary movement is the 911 truth effort.  The groups, websites and true believers keep on pushing their objectives a decade after the historic event.  But the goal of revealing what really happened that the official government story does not divulge is like a moldy piece of forgotten food in the refrigerator.


Movement death by inattention happens despite good resources, charismatic leaders and even great organization and communication skills.  Critical mass of public support simply never materializes, in large measure because diverse segments of the population never buy into the central arguments of the movement. The Internet is littered with websites of activist groups that persist despite clear evidence of decay and wide disinterest.  True believers have a mission in life tied to their egos that prevent them from admitting defeat.  They do not move on.

The biggest mistake that passionate advocates for a cause make is overestimating their ability to reach critical mass and underestimating the competition of other movements with greater appeal which rob them of both attention and supporters.



Make no mistake; I totally and enthusiastically support the Occupy movement because it offers the prospect of producing reforms to fix our broken government and attracting very wide public support for a nonviolent Second American Revolution.  What worries me, however, is that many of its participants seem over confident, as if they cannot fail.  On the other hand, I have become impressed by a convergence of thinking about what the next big step for the Occupy movement can and should be.  I will briefly identify examples of this convergent thinking.


Canadian author Erich Koch has written a compelling article: An Objective for the U.S. Occupy Movement: A Constitutional Convention.  He buys into the view that the Occupy movement could embrace the thinking of Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig who has presented the case for amendments to fix Congress.  Like others Koch is correct in saying that “No one in the movement would disagree with its main point: the fundamental problem is the corruption of Congress.”  Unlike others, Koch recognizes the path for obtaining reform constitutional amendments is using the provision in Article V for a convention of state delegates, having the same power as Congress in proposing amendments that still must be ratified by three-quarters of the states.  It has never been used despite many hundreds of state requests for a convention because, clearly, Congress and most status quo forces fear such a convention.


Koch cited a great article by Alesh Houdek: Has a Harvard Professor Mapped Out the Next Step for Occupy Wall Street?  Most is a review of Lessig’s book.  Correctly noted about using the convention option is “it bypasses the usual means of reform (Congress, presidential elections, etc.) which the lobbyists and other interested parties have learned so well to manipulate. And lastly, such a convention would be free to propose solutions that would otherwise be subject to be stricken as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.”  This is critical to understand.  Houdek concludes: “Properly presented, the strategies and aims of Lessig's book could make it the handbook the protesters have been looking for -- and provide a pathway for them to ride out the winter ahead.”



Dan Froomkin also has presented the same case in: Lawrence Lessig's New Book On Political Corruption Offers Protesters A Possible Manifesto.  He quoted what Lessig himself had said in an article about the Occupy movement and the concern that I share, namely that the Occupy movement “will become too diffuse and not focused" on the root issue of corruption of government.  And that the movement will only grow "if a wide range of people can be part of it."  This requires coalescing around an issue "as fundamental as the corruption of the system."  Only a constitutional amendment can fix the corrupting impact of money in politics.  This is also the focus of Dylan Ratigan’s fine effort, except that the use of the convention path has not been emphasized.



A specific call for an Article V convention was made by the pro-Occupy US Day of Rage group: “We are organizing a coordinated national campaign at local and state levels, including where necessary the occupation of state capitols, in order to demand an article V constitutional convention be called to restore representative democracy to our nation.”  A set of specific reforms to be fix the corruption-money problem are presented.


The 99 Percent Declaration group has also presented an important statementcentered on the call for a National General Assembly, where delegates would formulate a petition of a list of grievances that would be delivered to the main parts of the federal government on behalf of 99 percent of Americans.  A suggested list of grievances includes the need for constitutional amendments to achieve solutions, but only for a few of the issues.  Not explicitly acknowledged, however, is that constitutional amendments, not ordinary laws, would be necessary for other solutions, such as term limits for Congress and abandoning the Electoral College. Moreover, there is no specific recognition that serious amendment reforms will not be proposed by Congress, and that an Article V convention is needed.  Inattention to method was also the shortcoming of a similar list of solutions by Ralph Lopez.



Author Scott Turow has presented: How Occupy Wall Street Can Restore Clout of the 99%.  His recommendation to the Occupy movement is “work across the nation for a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to regulate the expenditure of private money on elections.  … The best antidote to this imbalance of income and influence would be to greatly reduce the role of private funding in our elections.  …As for the Occupy Wall Street movement, it has been criticized by some for not having a realistic agenda, even though polling shows that millions of Americans, including me, are sympathetic to the basic message of the protests.”  His prescription: “rally around a single goal and reinvigorate their movement.”  Fine, but missing from his analysis is the recognition that Congress will never propose reform amendments, only an Article V convention will do the job.


This sampling of recent writings clearly shows convergent thinking that the Occupy movement can and should focus on key reform constitutional amendments and, second, that some better informed critical thinkers recognize, this requires advocacy for using the Article V convention option that Congress has refused to honor.


As to Occupy movement success, I want again to emphasize that there is always competition for the attention and support of concerned Americans who recognize how broken our system is.  In particular, the well financed Americans Elect effort is impressive.  Because it is offering an alternative path to nominating a presidential candidate in 2012, over 2 million Americans have already signed up to be delegates for a web convention, with millions more very likely as the mainstream media keeps giving this effort attention.  The Get Money Out campaign has over 250,000 signatories.


Disgust with the two-party plutocracy is surely shared by Occupy participants and supporters.  But for movement success based on enticing many millions of Americans, the Occupy movement cannot ignore competition such as Americans Elect.  This means that the Occupy movement must explicitly start making the case to the broad public why their effort can achieve more of what is needed.  This is easily done.


Here are some key concepts that the Occupy movement could use.  No matter who is nominated by Americans Elect, the odds are that either the better financed Democrat or Republican candidate will win the presidency.  This may just require spending even more millions of dollars on campaigns.  And whoever is nominated by the group will likely be strongly linked to one of the two major parties, rather than some courageous reformer and enemy of the status quo.  Moreover, this group does not offer a realistic path to getting the key reforms of the system that most of us see critically needed, such as constitutional amendments, already recognized by many Occupy supporters.


A sign of trouble for the Occupy movement is a recent national poll that found: “In the latest survey, 33 percent voiced support for Occupy Wall Street, down from 35 percent in a previous poll, while opposition to the movement climbed from 36 percent to 45 percent. Twenty-two percent were unsure.”  These results are worse thanearlier polls.  From the left, Chris Bowers commented: “the decline in Occupy Wall Street's image is probably more connected to the increasingly negative coverage of the clashes between protesters and police than it is to declining support for movement's message.”  Now is the time to move the message from what is wrong to solutions, using an Occupy Congress approach.  Otherwise, this view from theconservative right might prevail: “OWS will linger … but I’d argue we’ve seen the movement’s high tide. It will now recede into a mere annoying shadow of itself as support is withdrawn by political figures and organizations.”


True, Occupy movement success is not inevitable.  The movement must better define what success means and how it can be achieved if it is to attract and keep the support of many millions of Americans.  It needs specificity for its solutions that ordinary Americans can relate to.  Never underestimate the power and commitment of status quo forces to maintain control over the political, government and economic system that has so harmed most Americans.  The fight against the Occupy movement mostly seen as local police violence against peaceful demonstrators and protesters as well disinformation from some news outlets and pundits are nothing compared to what could be mounted if the movement is viewed as more threatening to the status quo delusional democracy with its delusional prosperity.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Occupy Wall Street Visited

[caption id="attachment_10006" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Occupy Wall Street"][/caption]

Joel S. Hirschhorn--Last Saturday while in New York City I went downtown to visit the Occupy Wall Street group and also ended up walking in their protest march around big bank buildings.  It was a terrific experience with a huge group chanting things like “Banks got bailed out, we got sold out!”

My first impression was absolute amazement at how many police surrounded Zuccotti Park, as massive a police presence as any I had ever seen in countless news accounts of protests in other countries, including those trying to overturn awful regimes.  No wonder that New York City has spent over $3 million so far on policing the Occupy events.

As I slowly walked through all the groups at the park seeing how things were organized, how people were living and having occasional conversations I became increasingly impressed.  The park is really very small.  So there is very little space to walk around and some people are sleeping under various kinds of coverings.  Most exceptional of the high quality of place is that it is like a small village with a medical center, food serving area, library, makeshift clothing store, including someone with a sewing machine tailoring clothes, and even two people offering haircuts.

Overwhelmingly, the whole park area was exceptionally clean, and there was a large set of cleaning utensils and I saw one person going around sweeping a small amount of litter.  None of the flower beds were destroyed.

The choice of foods and their quality were exceptional, especially considering that the city outlaws any open flame cooking or heating equipment.

From my conversations and what I listened to demonstrated that the protesters were highly informed and totally committed to their Occupy goals.  Something that does not get enough attention is that a good fraction of the protesters are not very young people, many are in the sixties or seventies.  A large number of people in the park were busy working on their laptops.  I saw no evidence of alcohol or drug use.  And protesters were well dressed, always courteous and very friendly.

Many of the group’s serious discussions and votes are held in offsite locations.

There were a very large number of media people around and inside the park; they also followed the marchers.

Much of the information about the Occupy movement in downtown Manhattan is seriously misleading.  Most ludicrous are criticisms by many politicians and media pundits that specific policy proposals are missing.  The clear success of the Occupy movement as evidenced by an explosion of similar groups in countless US and foreign cities is a testament to its success, not to mention endless media coverage.

The central and correct focus of the Occupy movement is on the failures of the banking and finance sector that has provided insane money rewards to those that have raped the US and global economy and caused great harm to the 99%.  Economic inequality and injustice that come from both a corrupt political and economic system owned by the rich and powerful corporate elites are what I and many others have been writing about for years.  To get bogged down in very specific policy actions would not serve a useful purpose, especially because the Occupy movement sees nothing positive about the two-party plutocracy running and ruining the US political system.  I sensed no faith whatsoever in Democrats, including President Obama, and Republicans and their Tea Party supporters.

If the Democrats or Obama try to convert the Occupy movement into something that serves their political ambitions it would be a shame, especially if it succeeded to any extent.

Even without conventional “leaders” the Occupy movement is succeeding at being a direct democracy and its organizational capabilities are outstanding.  They have been receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations and also huge quantities of boxes of donated materials stored somewhere, much of which have not even been opened yet.  I think mainly because of too little space in the park.  Clearly, as some polls have shown, there is massive public support for the Occupy movement.  It has what it takes to last for a long time.

The big question is how true and deep reforms in our political and economic system needed to fight economic inequality and injustice harming most Americans will be achieved.  In this regard, one of my hopes is that the Occupy movement in the US will get behind the effort by Dylan Ratigan at getmoneyout.com to get a constitutional amendment that would get money out of politics.  This is the only way to directly fight the corruption of government by rich and powerful interests.  The path to getting such an amendment, however, is through the use of the Article V convention option in the Constitution, not by relying on Congress for proposing something to reform it.  Supporting use of the convention option is something I hope the Occupy movement will also support.  I now have more hope that the much needed Second American Revolution may happen.



[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

The Buffet Manifesto for fixing the economy

[caption id="attachment_9911" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Waren Buffet"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff- A recent email message advised a journalist to “forward the enclosed information to at least 20 people with whom you correspond” but for more than a million online readers of GHN, this means the information making the rounds and what a growing number of people are saying is the best idea of the century for fixing the economy and why the message needs to be communicated everywhere.

If the Congress doesn’t pass a bill on it, active conversation and public pressure might just make it happen are what the Buffet backers believe could fix the budget.  Whether it’s Occupy Portland or Occupy Wall Street, the people are looking for change.  And some say change might come a good bit faster with Buffet’s big idea.
The 26th amendment was passed in three months and eight days because the people demanded that 18-year-olds have the right to vote.  The other 26 amendments took less than a year to pass.  Article V allows for a Constitutional Convention where changes to the Constitution can be proposed.

The Convention and a law that will force Congress to act responsibly needs public action.  As for posting it on the Internet, it is already a blog on its own called “Popular Amendment” with Buffet’s proposition and the wording ot the bill in its entirety.

*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*
1.       No Tenure / No Pension.  A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
2.      Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.  All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3.      Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4.      Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5.      Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6.      Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7.     All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.

While CNBC’s follow up of the interview mentions Buffet may have been half joking when he made the suggestion, an attorney in St. Louis, Missouri by the name of Jarrad Holst told CNBC how a bill can be enacted without the cooperation of Congress.  Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, a "Convention for proposing Amendments" is convened when called for by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.  A proposed amendment would then need to be ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states.   That process would, however, take more than five minutes.

So here’s the rest of the story.    Citizens can demand an Article V convention, as experts say is an effective way to resolve a number of problems, including the deficit.   Anyone can begin the process or join with those already engaged in an organization designed to hold a convention and solve the many problems facing the nation.

Friends of the Article V Convention are engaged in forums and service events in order to convince people of the need for a convention, as the attorney proposed might make a difference in holding Congress accountable.

The constitution provides two methods of proposing amendments... one by the federal government and the other by states via an Article V.  But that takes citizen action, the impetus given for the original email to a journalist and this article as well.

Constitutional traitors: the case for a convention

Joel S. Hirschhorn - “Recent polling suggests that a plurality of Americans support a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution if Congress will not do so.”

 In recent days the idea of using the Article V convention option in the Constitution received support in an article by Texas US Senator John Cornyn published on the Fox News website.  He noted  He made a good case for using the convention option by saying it “would be part of a national conversation that could last well beyond one or two election cycles. The very length of the convention and ratification process would allow the American people ample opportunity to judge proposed reforms, and ensure that they would strengthen the checks and balances that have served our nation well.” 

A few days later, on the pages of the Wall Street Journal a strong case was made for a “repeal amendment” that would give state legislatures the power to veto federal laws, something worth proposing.  Though the oped by a professor and the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegatesdid not say so, obviously Congress would never propose such an amendment.  That means using an Article V convention whereby state delegates could propose new amendments just as Congress has done, which the Speaker has acknowledged elsewhere. 

At the same time a policy report from the Goldwater Institute recommended that “states seriously consider” using the convention option “to restrain the federal government.” 

So the issue of using this convention option that Congress has refused to convene despite hundreds of state applications and that establishment powers on the political left and right have long opposed merits serious examination.  Start with this: Americans overwhelmingly say they love and respect the Constitution and usually specific amendments, though often different ones on the political left and right.  Three frameworks help understanding why most Americans oppose using the Article V convention option.  Two explain why convention proponents have not been able to impact most opponents that fit these two frameworks.  I offer a third framework or plan of attack which I believe will work. 

First, consider the craziness framework.  Many Americans have been taught to fear using the convention option, even though it has never been used.  They are irrational.  This is like being afraid to eat the fruit of the constitutional tree first planted by the Founders even though no one has ever tasted or been harmed by the fruit.  Such people stubbornly think they are acting rationally; I think they are crazy and irrational.  This delusional thinking based on what is imagined to might happen is not easily changed, because such people have been purposefully and successfully brainwashed.  They have an emotional block.  Rather than fear a runaway convention, people should fear our runaway politicians and government. 

Second, consider the analytic framework.  Many Americans use what they think are rational, substantive arguments.  Convention proponents use facts based on the exact language in Article V or other historical facts to objectively contradict wrong-headed thinking.  But correcting the record has not worked sufficiently, largely because opponents invent their own facts, ignore correct ones, and consume disinformation disseminated by convention opponents.  They have an intellectual block.  Cognitive dissonance works to prevent the pain of accepting new information incompatible with their negative views about a convention. 

We should not invite, respect or participate in arguments by opponents that fit these two frameworks.  We should, in particular, recognize and condemn morally offensive fear mongering used intentionally by convention opponents.  Convention opponents seeking protection of their ability to influence the political system and selling fear and disinformation must face their constitutional guilt.  

Converting convention opponents to proponents requires a paradigm change, which is very difficult.  However, the current justified high level of dissatisfaction with government, politicians and both major political parties and the strong desire for reform of government justify use of a new approach.  

The patriotic framework better gets to the root of the problem from a rule of law perspective.  Rather than condemn convention opponents as irrational or ignorant, we condemn unpatriotic constitutional hypocrites.  When they openly oppose the convention option they areconstitutional traitors. 

With the patriotic framework we take advantage of frequent strong public support for constitutional amendments not proposed by Congress, including these: In 1996, 74 percent of Americans favored a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that members of Congress and the US Senate could serve.  In 2005, 76 percent favored an amendment to allow voluntary prayer in public schools, and in 1983 81 percent favored it.  In both 2000 and 2004 61 percent favored amending the Constitution so that the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes would win, replacing the Electoral College.  In 1995, a balanced budget amendment passed the House but failed to meet the two-thirds requirement in the Senate by a single vote; this year there is a strong national movement to get it and a number of other amendments that would surely earn broad public support.  

The basis for the new framework is this: Virtually everyone professes respect and admiration for the US Constitution and knows that it includes a process for amending it.  But if someone opposes using the Article V convention option, then he or she is an unpatriotic constitutional hypocrite.  When they openly oppose a convention they are a constitutional traitor replacing the Founders thinking with theirs, putting themselves above the law. 

Moreover, it is impermissible to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are supported and obeyed.  Similarly, elected public officials who swear obedience to the Constitution cannot pick and choose which parts to obey.  Such behavior makes a mockery of the supreme law of the land, the rule of law, and our constitutional republic.  Silence by public officials on the issue is cowardly opposition to using the convention option. 

No one can accurately forecast exactly what a convention would propose, but we do know that continuation of the status quo will not eliminate the corruption and dysfunction sustained by the two-party plutocracy.  The two major parties are rejected by 58 percent of the publicfor not effectively representing them, but a convention is far more attractive than forming a competitive third party.  Many reforms can only be achieved through constitutional amendments that Congress will never propose; this is inarguable.  Voting in elections to get reforms is passé.  This is a hard truth to take. 

Amending the Constitution in our modern world should compete with ordinary elections.  With Internet news, blogging, email, tweeting, texting and myriad other forms of instant communication, holding a convention is a new way to satisfy public thirst for true reforms, not promises.  Amending the Constitution can be done relatively quickly.  Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven took one year or less to become the law of the land because of public engagement.  The 26th amendment (giving the right to vote to 18 year-olds) took only 3 months and 8 days to be ratified in 1971!  Public pressure works.  It will work for and against specific amendments.  Americans deserve the constitutional opportunity that Congress has deprived them of. 

Americans must be taught this: Just by being in the Constitution the convention option demands public support.  Citizens are obliged to support it.  People cannot be allowed to have it both ways and be two-faced and hypocritical.  Embrace the convention option or be openly and aggressively condemned for unpatriotic hypocrisy and behavior that undermines the sanctity of the Constitution and the rule of law, both crucial for maintaining the integrity of our republic. 

Trust is the crucial issue.  So many Americans have lost trust in their government and politicians but far less so in their Constitution.  Trusting the Constitution means trusting the Founders’ wisdom in providing the Article V convention option.  They anticipated the day when citizens would lose trust in the federal government, which has surely arrived.  The convention option bypasses Congress, the President and the Supreme Court; it gives power to the states and citizens.  Wisely, ratification by the states is required for any proposed amendments from a convention, providing a hedge against dangerous amendments.   When it comes to reform and making government work for we the people, the greatest risk for the nation is not using the convention option. 

What political powers on the left and right fear and oppose we the people must demand.  They are guilty constitutional traitors.  We must be courageous patriots.  There is no room for compromise with convention opponents.  We must shame and embarrass them; they are lousy citizens.  The time to argue about specific amendments is when the convention is in session and delegates must contend with public sentiments and later when proposed amendments are considered for ratification by states. 

We cannot know with certainty whether holding a convention would revitalize the nation.  But refusing to use the convention option as a constitutional path to reform disrespects and undermines our constitutional republic.  The sorry state of the nation demands that we do more than just talk about it.  This year every candidate for the House and Senate should be compelled to publicly support using the convention option.  Lack of support for it should be grounds for defeating them. 

[This article was presented at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School Article V symposium in Lansing, Michigan on September 16, 2010; contact Joel S. Hirschhorn, a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention, through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

You are invited to save the Republic through an Article V Convention

Carol Forsloff - We

are at war, in a war we can't seem to win, regardless of the general we
have at the helm or the facts we might have or equipment.  It's a war
with ourselves, some folks say, who have a real way now to end it.

 

So
what's their solution?  Meet again for an Article V Convention, with
swords we might beat into plowshares, in a way Constitutional experts
recommend we should do.  It is important, experts tell us, to meet for
an Article V Convention and decide once again what is needed to govern
ourselves in a country far different than when it was founded more than
200 years ago.

An
Article V Convention is mandated by the Constitution, so why hasn't it
happened of late?  The framers of that Constitution argued fiercely for
what they accomplished but knew enough about reason and change to know
what they had was foundation. 

The Constitution was not ever meant to be
holy writ to serve as the guidebook forever. For that reason, the
Article V Convention provides for proposing
amendments to change what might be needed to govern in the 21st century
and to meet the needs of that changing world we often hear about.

With
our political differences we face a political Armageddon that is
bearing down upon us with our own four horsemen of the apocalypse
charging along with deadly intentions to take what Americans have once
thought as heaven on earth and destroy it in ways we can do.

But
first, what are those four horsemen?  Indeed these are the phobic folk
who believe gays, immigrants, and Muslims are all taking over the
country, bit by bit through erosion of values set by the Constitution.
The second group of horsemen create fear that rules the pack, the
leaders that show up and rally folks to a mob of fury that could
literally revolt.  The third are the separatists who like nothing about
government, except their version of how it should be and some so extreme
they refuse to pay taxes as well.  The fourth are the skeptics, with
trust so lacking that no idea, no venture, no new direction can be
followed because inertia results from their ways.

The fourth horsemen, those skeptics, are already taking us down.

An
Article V Convention is not just a passing fancy, but a critical need
at this juncture, folks say, to literally save the nation from those
four horsemen that threaten to kill it that are riding right now,
saddled up.

At an Article V  Convention,
tempers might flare, but reason might come since that is what happened
before.  Those who advocate having it say we should try.  They believe
it is the  way to help save this great country and to restore the rights and responsibilities we share to keep it safe and secure.

One of the Article V advocates, Gordie Hayduk, a ConventionUSA delegate from Florida, says this: "As tempers heat up with ''We The
People...'' all across America, so do the efforts to force the U.S.
Congress to call an Article V Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  These are the amendments this body of public servants refuse
to do themselves: Term Limits, Gerrymandering, Standard U.S. Voting
Unit, Fair Taxation, Ending Corporate Welfare, Balanced Budget, Unfunded
States' Mandates, Politician Recall, and many others."

.

Here's your invitation to attend a symposium to plan for an Article V Convention that explains how it can empower the states.  This is not a Tea Party
venture, but will answer their questions and issues.  Everyone is
invited to come; the directions, discussion are here:

Renewing the Compact: How Article V Empowers the People of All the States

Thursday, September 16, 2010, 11AM – 5PM

Cooley’s Temple Building

Lansing, Michigan

You are invited to the 2010 Thomas M. Cooley Law Review Symposium

This
year’s symposium will focus on Article V of the United States
Constitution and its provision that grants states the right to “call a
convention for proposing amendments” to the U.S. Constitution.  

This
constitutional provision has been the subject of increased debate due to
the expanded power of the federal government since the early twentieth
century.  These issues are increasingly polarized within the political
community considering the rising federal debt, recent healthcare and
banking legislation, calls for government transparency, and other issues
leading political headlines.

The symposium will be moderated by Cooley Law School professor Philip Prygoski. Panelists include:

• Thomas E. Brennan

Former Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice and Founder of Cooley Law School

• Paul D. Carrington

Law professor at Duke University School of Law and author of Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices (2006)

• William H. Fruth

Author of Ten Amendments for Freedom (2008) and President of Policom Corp.

• Joel S. Hirschhorn

Author of Delusional Democracy (2006) and Chairperson of the Independent Party in Maryland

• Jim Lemunyon

Delegate for the 67th District of Virginia (Washington D.C. area) and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce (1989-1993)

• James L. Ryan

Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

• Bill Walker

Founder and President of the Friends of the Article V Convention

The
symposium will take place in the Cooley Law School Auditorium, 6th
Floor, 217 S. Capitol Avenue, Lansing, Michigan. a light lunch will be
served.

Please direct any questions about the symposium to Professor Christopher Trudeau,

(517) 371-5140 ext. 2603 or trudeauc@cooley.edu

SHOULD WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND LOOK AT POSSIBLE CHANGE?

C. Forsloff - Shall the law be constantly challenged as the modern world makes changes or should there be a constitutional convention to make changes or should there be a following of Article V provisions so the issues of the government can conform to the mandate of the country's founders?

Now we might want to look at this as something whose time has come, given the mix-ups, misinterpretations and mis-quotes of the Constitution. In fact, that good, old document is often used like the Holy Bible, indestructible, infinite, and without needing either updating or interpretation.  But the Constitution allows change through amendments, something that an Article V convention would allow.Yet both have lent themselves to argument for a very long time. Were everyone in agreement and were everything exactly so, why would the Supreme Court have to weight decisions based upon the Constitution. Like there are myriad Christian views based upon a single spiritual discourse in book form, there are many views of the Constitution as well. One person believes it is unconstitutional to do "Y" while "X" is fine is often an opinion based upon wholescale political differences.

Now some are against a change of the Constitution, some want to see a convention but are against the change and some want none at all.  There is a big difference in the John Birch Society and an Article V Convention, which is what Michigan retired Supreme Court Justice Thomas E. Brennan wants as is the thesis of the letter to the editor, part of this article.  It is constitutionally mandated, which is the reference to Article V.

Given remarks by many that the Tea Party has no coherent agenda and is all over the place when it comes to a direction and purpose, perhaps they could take up the cause. It is just a thought, of course. But let's look at this idea and a serious movement has to say about an Article V Convention, its reason and purpose and what Gordie Hayuk says in his letter to the editor.

------------------------------------------

Here is that letter to the editor:

"Obama is a mere figurehead spewing rhetoric; however, Congress actually disobeys the Constitution on a daily basis by not calling an Article V Convention as mandated in the Constitution. Federal law states it is a criminal act to not obey their oath of office, and that fact is supported by the Solicitor General.Article V of the Constitution give both Congress AND the People an equal right to propose amendments. Congress is road-blocking the call for a convention by the People because they know the People will propose amendments for ratification by the States, creating amendments for term limits, an official U.S. voting unit, an end to party dominated gerrymandering, publicly funded elections, fair taxation, and other issues. Applications from 34 States must be submitted for Congress to call a convention, yet over 700 from all 50 States are on record -- still Congress defies the will of their sovereign employers, the People.

An effort -- www.ConventionUSA.org -- has begun nationwide to pressure Congress into following the Constitution by holding a Virtual Article V Convention. An Advisory Board of distinguished legal and constitutional scholars and experts will assist delegates to Convention USA Judge Thomas Brennan (retired Chief Justice, Michigan Supreme Court) said today. Among the first to be named are Law Professor Paul Carrington of Duke university, Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig, Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas Law faculty and retired United States Court of Appeals Judge James L. Ryan.

All citizens are cordially invited to join ConventionUSA and participate in this unique historical event.

Gordie Hayduk
Florida Delegate
USN Veteran, Active Voter & Mayflower Descendent

 
A man of his time, and a man still loving the principles of a distant past perhaps pointing to a way of resolving the national differences is Thomas E. Brennan, along with others who believe in doing this, and reconciling direction and purpose, as good discussions allow as you can learn more about at www.article-v-convention.com/.   You be the judge in finding out more about this Article V convention marches on, and we bring readers more of its news.