John de Herrera recently summed it up nicely: "Americans have been conditioned like Pavlov's dog to fear a convention because of what might happen--that it would be some kind of Pandora's box. But what the newspapers and politicians failed to mention is the ratification process. They only told us half the truth, and as the late great Ben Franklin mentioned, half the truth is often a great lie."
All kinds of people say totally stupid and wrong things to keep the public afraid of a convention. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, a Democrat, wrote in 1986 that "one of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights." Wait a second! An Article V convention can only make PROPOSALS.
In 1987 arch-conservative Phyllis Schlafly said: "If a constitutional Convention can change our structure of government as defined in Articles I, II, and III, it can also change the Article V requirement that three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify any changes. The Convention of 1787 reduced the number of states required to ratify a change from 100% of the states to 75%, and a Convention in the 1980s could 'follow their example' and reduce it further, to 66%, or 60%, or even 51%." Just that one stubborn problem: An Article V convention can only make PROPOSALS!
On the positive side is how former Attorney General Griffin Bell saw things: "Those who wring their hands over the prospects of a convention run the risk of exposing their elitism, implying that the average citizen cannot be trusted." This resonates with me. As certain as the law of gravity is, is that elitist politicians cannot be trusted.
Another favorable view was that "the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others [Congress] not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse." Abraham Lincoln said that in his first inaugural address.
It comes to this: Be a proud dissident. Find a third party to believe in. Take a good look at some new efforts: the Centrist Party (www.uscentrist.org), the Populist Party of America (www.populistamerica.com), and the Whig Party (www.thephoenixchronicles.org). Join the movement to make Congress obey the Constitution and call an Article V convention that could safely re-energize and engage Americans politically. The only thing to fear is that bipartisan lies about an Article V convention will triumph. The job of making American democracy is not done. Doing what our Founders anticipated we would have to do, through a convention, is not the same as undoing what they did. They had faith in us.
Thomas Jefferson was correct. A free people have the right to alter or amend their government when they see fit. Everyone believes in freedom, yet too many fall victim to phony political faith healers. Dissidents keep the faith and want to practice freedom themselves. Just like the people who created our nation.
[Check out the author's new book: www.delusionaldemocracy.com, and for more information on fighting for an Article V convention contact him at articlev at gmail at the usual dot com.]
Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www.delusionaldemocracy.com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution, beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments. He is Chair of the Independent Party of Maryland.
Third parties are hopeless. I gave 4 years of my political life to the Green Party, and if I learned anything, it is that small alternative parties trying to play the same game the big boys play will be blown out of the water every time. The problem is that 3rd parties have to accept the electoral rules set by the main parties. Even worse, they tend to identify with those rules and end up perpetuating the system. A Green Party which replaced say the Democratic party, would get us nowhere.
Same with a constitutional convention. Why would anyone at this point believe that a constitutional convention wouldn't end up being controlled by right wing nuts, if not by status quo liberals. This discussion is full of vague stragetic analysis about how such a convention could be brought about. What's missing is a compelling list of constitutional changes people might actually get excited about. Hirschhorn needs to stop obsessing about tactics and look at a fundamental agenda addressing what's wrong with the current system. Only when that is established might a movement for a constitutional convention make sense.
by
Kuzminski (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 75 comments)
on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 8:58:45 AM
Okay, you have no faith in third parties and you do not have enough faith in our Constitution to want all of it faithfully implemented. So where do you place your political faith? The Democratic Party? And as to specific constitutional amendments I believe appropriate - read my book Delusional Democracy or the dozens of articles published on this site.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (133 articles, 37 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 533 comments)
on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 9:11:15 AM
Any kind of faith, of course, is a dangerous thing. It is a commitment to something non-evident, something which can be characterized in various and often contradictory ways (e.g., democracy). We don't need faith; we need realism. We have a constitution and political system generally which excessively concentrates political and economic power, and justifies doing so by some kind of faith, secular (neo-liberalism) or sacred (fundamentalism).
That goes for the Democratic party as well, certainly its leadership. What's interesting about the Democratic party is its grassroots resistance to the leadership. That grassroots may not be able to reform the party, but it is a large constituency which might yet somehow be a vehicle for productive political change.
My realist political philosophy is that of Jeffersonian democracy. Jefferson was more prescient about the concentrations of political and economic power that any other significant American figure. He called for the reestablishment of politics on a grassroots basis, on local assemblies or 'ward republics,' in his phrase. These would be the foundation of an accountable, bottom-up system. Similarly in economic life, we need to break the stranglehold of our centralized financial system, which makes the rich vastly richer while leaving most of the population mired in debts. 19th century Jeffersonian populists advocated direct access to capital in various ways, including non-interest loans available locally to citizens.
I haven't read your book, and wouldn't particularly do so on the basis of your piece. Why don't you just post your concrete ideas here?
by
Kuzminski (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 75 comments)
on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 10:18:37 AM
Regardless whether it is done by the Article V route or otherwise, something has to be done quickly before the rich folk steal everything. The statement that we need "Someone that will actually put the interests of working- and middle-class Americans above those of rich and powerful elites" is the crux of the matter. I like campaign finance reform myself but it is highly unlikely that these gofers will do anything against their own self interests.
by
Bacchus (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 10:24:46 PM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
