Will the first convention be mesmerizing and entertaining?Will it help educate and inform Americans about our Constitution and government?Will it put Ruling Class elites on notice that we the people are seriously pursuing governance we can trust?Yes, yes and yes.
Should we wait until 95 percent of Americans think the nation is on the wrong track?Until just 5 percent approve of Congress?Until we belatedly find ourselves boiled?No, no and no.
Support the effort to get the nation’s first Article V convention, especially if you sense our societal waters becoming hotter – sometimes faster, as under Bush.Sign up at www.foavc.org.Don’t let self-delusion and false hope in Republicans or Democrats blind you.Let freedom ring.Make Thomas Jefferson proud.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy www.delusionaldemocracy.com and a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention www.foavc.org.This article responds to the hundreds of comments on his previous article Americans Unready to Revolt, Despite Revolting Conditions that received enormous attention, with over 100,000 readers.]
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.
At the risk of being told 'Yet again!', perhaps it should be pointed out that 'the greedy British' and 'the ruling classes' and 'the neocon oppressors' have nothing to do with the general population of Britain or that of any other country. Their misdeeds are their own agenda, and nothing to do with the common populations who then have to fight the wars and get it in the neck.
These are whatever label they are carrying at the moment, whether it be 'Royals' or 'Illuminati' or 'capitalist swine'. But behind whatever nationality or creed they may wear in front of them, there are always the same shadows lurking behind them, who incite them and fund them and benefit for the activities of these influential puppets.
Even the Bilderbergers are only carrying out the orders of others, and by now you ought to know who those 'others' are.
So, if you do know, let's all boil over properly and cook their goose once and for all.
And if you don't know, then it's high time you found out!
by
amazin (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 377 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 12:18:27 PM
The Philadelphia Convention is an idea that Cindy Sheehan had before she "retired". People such as Webster Tarpley, Janice Matthews and Paul Deslauriers are driving this convention.
Joel, I realize that you want to have a convention and have done a lot of writing about an Article V Convention, but you've admitted that Congress will never help with such a convention.
So why don't you and your supporters join Tarpley, Matthews and Deslauriers for the July 4, 2007 Convention in Philadelphia?
As is pointed out on the Article V web site, we have to go into this with no political ideology driving it. We have to allow the Convention to create the type of governance that the people want.
The people driving the July 4 Convention possess varying political ideologies and some of them are very progressive.
We should not go in a thousand different directions if the main goal is the same. For sure, poltical ideology should not interfere with conducting a convention.
As part of the flyer for the Philadelphia Convention says, "In the living tradition of the Declaration of Independence, we convene to form a strategic alliance with anti-war, pro-impeachment, civil liberties, and other groups to develop a comprehensive strategy and implement actions to deal with this emergency."
Michael Bonanno
by
Michael Bonanno (72 articles, 18 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 123 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 2:07:42 PM
Only a real Article V convention will have the force of law
Clearly, Congress on its own will not obey the Constitution and give us the first Article V convention. My sincere hope is that we can build public pressure sufficient to compel both Congress and state legislatures to give we the people what we have a right to and what we want - and what the country needs. All other "conventions" are forms of public protest that are likely to have limited impact because you just cannot get enough people and enough "big names" to become a major news story. Worst of all, we have not been able to even one member of Congress to support the Article V convention -- not even that "champion of the Constitution" Ron Paul, nor any of the most progressive Dems... Very disheartening, but we will not give up.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (118 articles, 22 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 472 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 6:18:50 PM
This is what happens when Congress -- elected to enact the will of the people, to change the course of the Iraq War and put an end to an imperial presidency fails to do so by capitulating to a petulant, bellicose, wayward fool:
"Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress. This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994." (1)
Worse than Bush. Worse than Tom Delay and even worse than the "Newt Gingrich years". The worse congressional rating in history. The Democrats have proven to be two things: A shill for Bush/Cheney and merely a different shade of the same neoconservative color.
As an American living the ghoulish nightmare of the Bush years; amidst all of the cover-ups, the scandals, the betrayal of trust, the criminal activity, the subversion of the laws of our land, endless and needless war, et al., yet you stand mute and subservient to "Emperor Bush", I can only conclude one irrefutable notion: The Democrats are either afraid or complicit; an accomplice to an intentional erosion of American democracy. Either way it makes you a traitor or a coward.
Good comments, but I think this really proves that financial interests control most, but not all, of both Democrats and Republicans. Bending to these interests, who are willing to lie to, steal from and murder those who oppose them, is extremely difficult to resist. I honestly don't know how Ron Paul survives to this day. Wellstone and Carnahan didn't.
by
Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 7:16:22 PM
Could you explain how such a convention is called? Like so many other things that go against the grain or attempt to halt inertia, this sounds great; but who has the authority to actually see it through and carry it out?
Radical reform is rarely accomplished peacefully, and within the parameters of accepted procedure. Things usually get so bad that they end up exploding in war and revolution.
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 271 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 2:54:16 PM
Following what Article V says it works like this: Congress and only Congress must call the convention because it decides that the one and only requirement specified in Article V has been satisfied (that's the 2/3 of state legislatures asking for a convention); from that point the states must select delegates; it is up to them how they do this; then all the delegates get together for the convention, make their own rules for operating the convention, set its own agenda, conduct its own discussions and debates, and ultimately vote out its proposed amendments that go to Congress; Congress then moves forward with the ratification phase
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (118 articles, 22 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 472 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 6:26:19 PM
It turns the tables on the religious right (including Bush). It exposes the folly of partisan politics and religious bigotry, and explains exactly how the "meek," who are the humble, gentle, peaceful, and truly faithful majority of people in this world, shall inherit the earth.
It is a MUST READ.
by
Guy Dwyer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 30 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 3:09:35 PM
Joel S. Hirschhorn, as a conservative I agree that President Bush and his party are Fascists and must be stopped.
What is a Facist? The easiest answer is when the free market system does not exist. For example, in a free market system government contracts are awarded to the low bidder. In fact military contracts in Iraq are not going to the low bidder, some of them are not bidded on at all instead are going to contractors who benefit Bush's cabinet members.
The next example of Fascism is the absence of a free market system in most of the world. Many people live in slave labor conditions and are not given the opportunity of education. In a true free market system every member - in this the worker - would be given an opportunity to learn to become educated and eventually a capitalist instead of a worker.
The final, and defintive example happened right in my county when some affluent neighbors were upset that ordinary people were building right on the other side of their lake. They believed they had the sole right to be wealthy and no one else could have what they have.
As a conservative I condemn these people to Hell. I believe in the free market system - where everybody is truly free. Corporations make money - Leftists agree to that, so if everybody were there own corporation everybody would be making money.
Abolish slavery and workers - make everyone a corporation.
The United States controls most of the world through multi-national corporations and the military. Every constitution in the world is based on the United States. Therefore every citizen of the world should be free to exercise their right to vote and run for office in America. Allow Cubans and North Koreans the right to run for president. See how quickly dictatorships would disappear.
by
Barker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 111 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 6:15:38 PM
Because the USA has such incredible impacts on all other nations and people worldwide, I welcome people outside the USA to become members at www.foavc.org and help us fix the USA and, therefore, do something very positive for world.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (118 articles, 22 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 472 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 6:30:13 PM
Bush is nothing but a zionist shill. Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars. Iraq is the beginning. As we commit war-crimes in Baghdad, the US gov't commits treason at home by opening mail, eliminating habeas corpus, using the judiciary to steal private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, conducting warrantless wiretaps and engaging in illegal wars on behalf of AIPAC's 'money-men'. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran.. Then we'll invade Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon (again) then .... Final link (before Stark County District Library bends to gov't demands and censors the title): http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
by
Lorring II (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 6:54:20 PM
An article V convention is for the purpose of amending the Constitution -- and that won't help. Certainly there are changes which could be made which would improve it, but the problem is not what is written in the Constitution, but that it is disregarded.
Separation of powers, habeas corpus, freedom from unreasonable search, adherance to ratifoed treaties (such as the UN Charter), freedom of speech, non-establishment of religion -- how a long a list do you want??
But that's all disregarded. The rule of law is disregarded, and the court system, including SCOTUS, does not follow the Constitution (Bush was appointed as president in 2000 contrary to law).
The problem is not the Constitution, but power -- raw power -- in the forms of financial, military, information and media, intimidation of citizens, political power.
You write: "Will it put Ruling Class elites on notice that we the people are seriously pursuing governance we can trust?Yes, yes and yes." But they are already on notice -- a sikple reading of the polls show most Americans are very unhappy. What sort of notice more can be given? The questions are 'What are people going to do about it? What CAN they do? What are they willing to do?
There is an idea that if people agitate enough then the politicians will change what they do so they won't be kicked out of office, but that's not a great consideration because they will 'kicked' into cushy jobs, only to re-emerge elsewhere in politics later, through the revolving door. The people with the real power who control the politics and most of the politicians don't care which rival gang is in the elected spotlight at them moment: their agenda continues to be followed. We've already seen how that works.
So where are the 'points of power' which people can attack? First, we need to wake up more people -- as many as possible -- so they understand what the situation is. Then there ae several approaches. We can have general strikes which will disrupt the corporate flow of loot, or we can target specific corporations or industries. Media is a good place to start -- if some of media, like NBC, NY Times, Fox (of course), GE/Disney, or others, ( check here ) are boycotted, or just cable TV, it will have a huge effect. Imagine if half the people watching TV now just disconnected? Those corporations would be having so many cows you have the biggest dairy farm in the world.
There are a number of ways to proceed, but basically, pick a target and destroy it. No violence needed -- just mass financial withdrawal.
There are other possibilities, but we should know what the EFFECT of an action should be, and then change tactics to keep up the struggle, depending on how well an action has suceeded, and if it advances the overall goals. This has to more than just "sending a message" -- messages and 'notices' will be ignored. The election sent about as strong a message which the people could send, short of direct action. It was ignored. The investigations you see are not for the people but rtaher the Democrats are trying to make gains over the rival gang, the Republicans. It's partisan, not democratic. And they won't do anything to seriously interfere with the corporate fascists who are supporting both parties.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 6:59:41 PM
Well, I think the internet will do our work for us in regards to the media.
But I don't think the problem is corporations. Powerful individuals, lobbies, unions and businesses will always be with us, and the problem is equally shared between the public and private sector. Yes some congressmen have sold out to corporate money, but just as many sell out simply for the sake of power.
Politicians promise government loot (in the form of entitlements, or tax cuts, or whatever) to get elected even without the involvement of special interests. The result of this is mounting debt, which we have something like $60 trillion of at the moment. I really don't think its any different in the USA than it was in Rome. Politicians literally loot the future generations, by increasing debts, in order to get elected now. FDR's social security is worse than private retirement investment, but it was popular... Why? Because it rewarded retirees immediately, without them having to work their whole life to build up the trust fund. It should have been a temporary program but it wasn't, and now its $10-$15 trillion in the whole.
by
gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 11:40:33 PM
If you really slowed down for a moment and think things through, you'll discover that the "corporation" started in 1600, and the King James Bible published in 1611. Control is achieved by pushing the latter first, then following up with the corporation. You could say "Spread Gospel, Collect Gold."
By the time the Revolution was going in the latter-1700s, it was actually a financial war. The battle was won, but the war was lost. Has been that way ever since. "Corporations" have financed both sides of every war since; how else would they have been financed? In the past, we just didn't feel their tenacles as much, so we got along fine. Now they've got EVERYBODY by the throat, and some are now starting to acknowledge that as fact. Corporations and religions are not evil in themselves, but are simply used for evil. Once you recognize this, you'll be able to associate and correspond with non-psychopaths to start fighting back.
The only thing that bothers me with Americans boiling is that financial interests could easily manipulate us out of the frying pan and into the fire. They did it to the Russians shortly after our Federal Reserve was created. Then they collapsed their credit in the 1990s. Looks like they're doing the same thing to us now. Just tread carefully, that's all I ask.
by
Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 7:08:45 PM
I don't think anyone is really getting to the point of revolution. Most people are still doing pretty well, and the economy is growing. Once the $60 trillion in entitlement debt kicks in, then maybe we'll see some people get pissed...
I believe the amendment to fix many of our problems would be rather simple, and I think it would go something like this:
The Constitution of the United States of America shall be interpreted as it was was understood by those who ratified it, and its amendments. Therefore, the powers of the federal government of the United States of America shall be restricted to those specifically enumered in the Constitution.
Then maybe toss in a few more needed powers, such as enforcement of polution which crosses state boundaries, and enforcement of global polution problems. Something like this would remove entitlement spending from the federal level and push it onto the states, hopefully keeping any debts like the ones we currently have localized to a few spendthrift states.
But I can't really see anything like this happening. The problem is, the public no longer wants a limited federal government. Despite repeated failures and incredible entitlement debts, everyone seems to be asking for more federal government solutions. The public no longer even cares about the constitution. Most people don't understand why the rule of law is important, or why republics not strictly limited in their powers always fail. People in school are taught that democracy = freedom, when of course the people who founded this country were as scared of democracy as they were of aristocracy. The bill of rights is worshiped more than the Constitution itself, and people don't even remember that it was more of an afterthought, since the people who founded this country knew government had to be strictly limited or it would grow out of control.
Without a clear and consistent interpretation of our constitution, I believe our government is eventually doomed to spend itself to death. Powerful interests (whether private or public) will always seek out more power, and only the rule of law stands in their way.
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. – James Madison
by
gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 11:29:59 PM
We can ask Jefferson, Madison and Franklin? Nope -- but that's what the extreme right like Scalia want -- strict constructionist (according to THEIR interpretation!).
No good...
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 11:36:19 PM
We more or less can ask them - the Federalist Papers were very extensive. There are a few cases where history doesn't help us, but those are very few, and far preferable to the "I'll interpret it any way I damn well please" philosophy we currently have going on.
An originalist interpretation would probably work fine, since any unclaimed power by the Feds goes to the states anyways. But if you had a convention, you could add enumerated powers to the list to make it more suitable for modern times.
I just don't see any other way to keep the government from overstepping their bounds. Politicians will interpret the law in the way that best suits them, and if we keep letting them do that we'll end up back where we are today.
by
gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 11:45:34 PM
ignore habeas corpus -- as well as posse comitatus and a host of other laws. They interpret the constitution out of existence: they have trashed the Bill of Rights. Another amendment would be meaningless to people who can't hande what's already there.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Friday, June 22, 2007 at 12:58:43 AM
the Supreme Court! That's their job -- to decide what is constitutional and lawful -- but they are now overweighted with right wing corporate crazies. If we ever get half-way out of this mess we had better start looking at how to impeach the black-robed judicial taliban there, and if we really want life-time appointmentss or some mechanism for the people to change jurists, or perhaps put them in through elections.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Friday, June 22, 2007 at 1:47:54 AM
The Supreme Court can only strike down things which are brought before it. If Congress passes some BS law, it cannot actively nullify it, it must wait for someone to apeal a decision based on the law, which is probably going to be really expensive.
And without a consistant methodology for interpretation of the constitution, the judicial branch can become part of the problem, as we've seen with decisions like Kelo v. New London. I'm definitely not a pro-lifer at all, but the Roe v. Wade decision was horrible from a legal standpoint.
Originalism is the only doctrine which is consistent with the idea of government as being empowered by a contract between the governed and the government. Unfortunately we've been off the wagon for so long, going directly back to an originalist interpretation would be very disruptive. We've been usurping powers from the states and re-interpreting the constitution for so long, too many legal and legislative decisions are based off of flawed interpretations.
by
gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Friday, June 22, 2007 at 1:58:38 AM
