Peace Corps continues its programs of service around the world

[caption id="attachment_20773" align="alignleft" width="300"] San Dancers of Botswana at 50th year celebration of Peace Corps[/caption]

Carol Forsloff----As the 50^th year memorial of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy approaches, some of the programs identified with his tenure remain as the symbol of that era where social service in the US or abroad was lauded. One of those programs is the Peace Corps. But what is its status today?

The Peace Corps was established during Kennedy's administration, however the idea of American adults serving people in underdeveloped areas or countries was that of Hubert Humphrey, Vice President under President Lyndon Johnson and a well-respected educator from Minnesota who later became its Senator.

Humphrey had introduced the idea in Congress, and although the Senate favored and folks considered it a popular idea, the State Department was against it. However, during Kennedy's administration the idea was adopted and made a signature program of the New Frontier. Thousands of young people in the 1960's signed up to dedicate two years of their lives to serving abroad.

Today the Peace Corps remains a viable agency, however there are increased risks in some countries that include sexual assault and other forms of violence. The organization, however, continues to be vigilant about those risks in order to continue to entice service-minded folks to help individuals and whole villages with everything from planting food to basic education and medical care.

The Peace Corps also serves as a way of helping people understand each the culture of one another. For example, this year in Macedonia a young volunteer, Sara Scholin of Pine City, Minnesota, put together a three-day Halloween celebration along with two other teachers at the school where she has been teaching so that students in grades five through eight could participate in traditional Halloween activities.

 

 

Leading economists against balanced budget amendment

[caption id="attachment_7550" align="alignleft" width="183" caption="Money"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - Republicans cite the need for a balanced budget and ask for its inclusion in the Constitution, but the leading economists that include five Nobel laureate professionals oppose it.

When individuals think about balancing their personal budgets, they likely remember that adage to pay off  debt as an important criterion for becoming financially stable.   On the other hand, individuals experience crises that are completely unexpected, so experts advise to have a “rainy day fund” especially for those events.  This advice is to ensure that folks don’t have to tap into money set aside to meet ongoing needs.

Yet those emergencies may come abruptly when  cash funds are depleted, and when that happens folks have to make difficult choices.  Consider what might happen if there was no way out of that financial predicament except to use funds set aside for necessities.  This can impair the potential of saving for an emergency when basic needs are not met.    For those who have a series of emergencies, such as a devastating illness or the consequences of an environmental disaster or losing a job, the multiple impacts on the budget may cause further deterioration of the individual financial condition so that establishing good financial balance can become more and more difficult.

Personal financial planning is akin to the national budget in some of these simple ways, but is very complex in others.  Imagine a personal budget where regardless of emergencies or the needs of dependent family members, one cannot access any funds except those especially designated for use in certain expenditure categories.   That is in some small way how a balanced budget amendment works as funds would be allowed for only those mandated.  So what do financial experts think about a balanced budget for the country?

A group of leading economists, including five Nobel Laureates in economics, publicly released a letter to President Obama and Congress opposing a constitutional balanced budget amendment. The letter outlines the reasons why writing a balanced budget requirement into the Constitution would be "very unsound policy" that would adversely affect the economy. Adding arbitrary caps on federal expenditures would make the balanced budget amendment even more problematic, the letter says. The Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities organized the letter.

These economists contend that by cutting such important funds as unemployment benefits to keep the budget balanced would aggravate recessions.  It would prevent borrowing to finance special needs for infrastructure and other necessities for the well being of everyone.   A balanced budget amendment would mean Congress could enact mandates that aren’t funded and require state and local governments to take care of these mandates without the money to do so.  It would invite the intervention of the courts to decide on disputes to resolve issues on the meaning of budget balance  and when there is a requirement to balance it and not enough votes to inflict the difficult measures.  Furthermore, as the economists point out, the budget was balanced in the 1990’s without a  Constitutional amendment and to balance the budget too quickly could be dangerous in the present economy.

Economist Robert Shiller wrote an article for the New York Times on the balanced budget concept.   He referred to “the balanced-budget multiplier and of raising taxes and government expenditure by the same amount, dollar for dollar..., such a policy would be one-for-one expansionary...”In other words, the more we spend, the more we need to infuse the economy with more income.  Income for the government comes through taxes.  Otherwise Draconian measures are needed now and even in the future, from which the recession might not recover.

An article online at the Economist spells out what many economists are saying about having a balanced budget amendment:  “But the idea of enshrining this Congress' pathologies into the constitution is terrifying. Let's see Congress design some quality fiscal rules using the normal legislative process first, and then we can talk about adding those to the constitution.”

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.]

Congress violates Constitution by not having Article V convention

Gordie Hayuk - "Why do people hate Congress?" by Victor Davis Hanson doesn't even come

close to the reason.   Let's take a look at one of those reasons, because every single member has violated Article V of the Constitution.

The small petty crimes of a few members of
Congress doesn't add up to the searing hate Hanson and others have described in various treatises upon the unpopularity of Congress right now.

Arrogance on high, is what I call it.  Every member of Congress
is in violation of their oath of office, a criminal act according to the
U.S. Solicitor General.  If that were not enough, every member of
Congress is in violation of the U.S. Constitution by not calling a
convention according to Article V of the U.S. Constitution.  Article V, a
gift to 'We the people' by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution,
mandates the peremptory call for a convention.  Peremptory, for those
who are unsure of it's meaning in relation to Article V, means "...not
open to appeal or challenge; final."  So one must ask why Congress has
failed to call a convention as specified in Article V of the U.S.
Constitution.

 Article
V is absolute in its wording, it requires that only 34 states apply for
an Article V Amendments Convention.  However, to date, over 700
applications are on record without Congress calling a convention as
mandated by the highest law of the land.  Congress has been sweeping
them under the under the rug, so the saying goes, to avoid at all cost
giving 'We the people' the green light to propose, draft and finalize
our own Constitutional Amendments and submit them for ratification to
all 50 states.  Only upon ratification by 38 states does any
Constitutional Amendment become law.

 One
could theorize why Congress refuses to follow the U.S. Constitution,
and come up with more than one reason, but Constitutional scholars agree
that Congress fears any amendments that could be crafted as carefully
as Article V itself.   Why do they have that fear.

Well here are some of the reasons on the short list: 1) Supreme Court Reform, 2)
States Rights Amendment, 3) Legislative Process Reform, 4) Repeal the
17th Amendment, 5) Campaign Financing Reform, 6) Balanced Budget
Amendment, 7) Term Limits Amendment, 8) Right To Life Amendment, 9)
Create Regional Government, 10) Vote on Taxes, 11) Immigration Reform,
and 12) Fair tax Amendment.  So the only question now is: Do you think
the United States would have fewer ongoing problems if Congress were
pressured by millions of citizens to call an Article V Amendment
Convention?

 The dedicated delegates of ConventionUSA will soon begin a Virtual Online Amendments Convention to
demonstrate there is nothing to fear from an Article V Amendments
Convention.  It will not be "run-away" as some claim, and it will not
change the entire U.S. Constitution, as some claim.  'We the people'
need to bring the Amendments up to date and stop the rush toward
tyranny.

"The government can't fool all of the people all the time, but in a democracy that's not necessary. 

In a democracy all the government has to do is fool most of the people most of the time, 

and if the controlled media and the government are working together that's easy.

Gordie Hayduk

Florida Delegate - www.ConventionUSA.org

USN Veteran, Active Voter & Mayflower Descendent

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.