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   In other words, the US Constitution is old and out of date.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.

Two Paths to Reform: Violence or Convention

[caption id="attachment_9115" align="alignleft" width="168" caption="Liberty Bell"][/caption]

Joel S. Hirschhorn  --By every one of countless measures the US is in a death spiral.  Its political system, government and economy are hopelessly broken.  No wonder that the vast majority of Americans express severe dissatisfaction with Congress, both major parties, and increasingly with President Obama.  And only the wealthy elites have any reason to be positive about corporate powers, Wall Street and the whole banking and finance sector.  They not only own the nation, they run it.

Only the truly delusional still speak about the US being the leading and best nation.  About a third of the population is suffering from one or more of these epidemics: unemployment, underemployment, hunger, homelessness, home foreclosure, no useful health insurance, income so stagnated that keeping up with rising living costs is next to impossible, and slippage from the middle class into the working poor class.  What is to save the nation?

Once you acknowledge the profound and insidious corruption plaguing the political system which is nothing more than a dysfunctional two-party plutocracy or oligarchy serving the rich and corporate interests, then you must also see that elections will not deliver salvation.  Nor can you depend on the media to rise above corporate ownership to help fix the nation.

It matters little whether you vote for and support Republicans or Democrats.  All those politicians are corrupt and unable to exercise bold, creative solutions for the good of the nation, not those special interests that get them elected, on the left and right.

Once mighty nations and superpowers have fallen before.  History speaks truth, unlike just about everything spoken by today’s politicians.

There are two paths that have the power to bring about the major, radical reforms needed.  Everything else you hear is pure garbage designed to maintain the status quo.

First, there is what brought about the birth of the US and so many other democracies: violent revolution.  Not rebellion against some foreign power, but rather against domestic tyrannical forces.  There is a limit to what many millions of Americans will endure, especially as they see the rich Upper Class enjoy every conceivable type of luxury.  True, it is hard to understand how even now we have not seen millions of angry, suffering Americans protesting violently in the streets of all major cities, as we see happen in so many European countries.  Americans seem to have been drugged into a distracted, delusional state of mind, still buying the scam that they can depend on elections.  Eventually, however, as government is financially unable to provide various kinds of assistance because of the broken economy, those most struggling to survive will inevitably resort to violence. History speaks truth.

Second, is the peaceful route to dramatic, necessary reforms that the Founders had the wisdom to put into the US Constitution: an Article V convention of state delegates with the constitutional power to propose constitutional amendments.  At this time there are more diverse groups seriously examining and, increasingly, demanding the first Article V convention.  Why?  Because it has become crystal clear to more and more people that only through constitutional amendments that Congress will never propose is it possible to rid the political system of the corruption and dysfunction permeating it.  Get private money out of politics.  Remove the fiction of corporate personhood.  Compel Congress to balance the budget. Worthy ideas are everywhere.

At other times attempts to get the first Article V convention met stiff opposition from the right and left.  But times have changed.  It is clearer than ever that the political and government system is so broken and corrupt that the basic rules must be amended, just as the Founders believed would become necessary.

A major upcoming conference at Harvard, using the tag line “Democracy inAmerica is Stalled,” will surely help focus both support and opposition to using the convention route.

There are now many websites providing solid information and analysis about the convention option, particularly one by the national, nonpartisanFriends of the Article V convention that does not advocate for specific amendments.

Every time you hear some argument against using the convention option ask yourself whether the risk of sticking with the current system outweighs any conceivable risk of a convention that can only propose amendments, which still must be ratified by three-quarters of the states.  If you are not in the top levels of the economy, but rather are in the majority suffering and losing ground, then the answer rings as clear as the liberty bell.



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

Supreme Court scheduled to issue landmark decision on whether U.S.Constitution valid

ATLANTA,   --PRN - USN - GHN News Editor - Is the United States Supreme Court
prepared to stop the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia from functioning like common criminals?"  This question is being asked by a retired Atlanta grandfather who asks the Supreme Court if the Constitution is valid.

The whole thing may sound unusual, but this is a serious case with three petitions filed by William M. Windsor. A decision is to be given by year's end.  If the  Supreme Court  doesn't acts, federal judges will be free to void the Constitution.


These are the questions being presented to the Supreme Court by Windsor:

1. Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?


2. Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?  


3. Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?

The case has been going through the federal courts through legal action filed by Windsor since 2006.  He is doing this to refute a lawsuit against him in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls swore under oath that Windsor was guilty of theft and bribery, along with other crimes.  Windsor states under oath that Glynn made it all up and lied about everything.  He obtained  deposition testimony
from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in
Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against
Windsor were not true.


Even though he was not found guilty, and there was clear proof of that,  federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit.  He was subsequently forced to pay $400,000
in legal fees.  Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay
rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the
U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of
their consideration (cert denied).


Windsor believes that the federal courts and nine federal judges
violated the Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the First,
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution.


Windsor says: "I have discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia,
the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are
all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches and violating
the Constitutional rights of parties who have the misfortune of
appearing in their courts."


As presented in a press release regarding this case, Windsor has now tossed the hot potato right square in the laps of the justices of the Supreme Court.  By filing mandamus petitions rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court
is forced to deal with Windsor's allegations of corruption in the
federal courts.


Grandfather Windsor hopes for the best but fears for the worst: "I hope
The Supreme Court is decent, honest, and cares about the Constitution
and the citizens of the United States.  However, I am
sorry to say that at this point, I suspect the corruption goes all the
way to the top.  My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI,
and Congress. I have said to The Supreme Court that the issues can
all be boiled down to one question: Is The United States Supreme Court
prepared to stop the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia from functioning like common criminals?"


Windsor says: "If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States
need to know that there is not a shred of decency, honesty, or
Constitutional rights in our federal courts.  Corruption has consumed
the federal court system,
and we now live in a police state.  Judges are free to do absolutely
anything they want.  Our laws are meaningless.  Your life savings can be
stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law
in the books."



The Supreme Court may render its decision before the end of the year.  It's one retired grandpa against the United States government.

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.]