|
|
,
Add to My Group(s)
Add to My Group(s)
By john de herrera (about the author)
Become a Fan -- Page 6 of 7 page(s)
OBTUSE
Like what? I still haven't--
PERPLEXED
Like standardizing the vote and making it uniform, abolishing
corporate personhood, campaign finance issues, term limits-
this isn't rocket science, and Congress isn't going kick the
latter out from underneath itself.
(Beat.)
PERPLEXED (CONT'D)
But let's say that some of the candidates are dominionists,
and they campaign on that. OK, well all these people now get
together at the convention. What's to hijack? It's just a
bunch of discussion that results in amendment proposals. The
dominionists aren't going to silence the delegates who want
to discuss electoral reform, every idea gets a place on the
table--and the kicker--the convention cannot ratify anything.
After all the ideas are on the table--the good, the bad, and
the ugly--next comes the ratification process. You think a
country as polarized as ours is, that 38 states are going to
ratify radical amendments? No. No way. It'll never happen.
The only things with a snowball in hell chance of garnering
the approval of 38 states will be non-partisan issues. Not
fringe/religious nut issues.
HAPPY
Actually that doesn't sound so bad. I'd kind of like to see
the convention just for the entertainment value.
PERPLEXED
The reason the Founders made ratification a three-quarter
requisite is because whatever the idea--liberal or
conservative--it'll need all of one side signed on, plus at
least half of the other--75% of the whole. The Founders
didn't place a self-destruct button smack in the middle of
the Constitution. The convention is hot air, but that hot
air is open discussion, and open discussion is what we need
to stop a government that's failing to act on important
issues, due to the influence of special/corporate interests.
Please tell me this makes sense to you.
OBTUSE
It's not just a bunch of proposals. It's a full fledged
Constitutional Convention! You think what the
Confederationists thought, and you're just as wrong as they
were! They thought they were going to discuss the Articles,
and we wound up with a total rewrite!
PERPLEXED
Look, you're failing to recognize a couple things: the
Convention did not adopt the Constitution--the several states
did by way of ratification. And that took some persuading
too. That's what the Federalist Papers were--the sales pitch
to the states on why they should ratify. Another thing you
are failing to recognize--and this is backed by history too:
the idea which was ratified--our Constitution--was not one
based on crazy religious ideas, or bondage, but freedom and
liberty. And that history will hold true today: anything
with any hope of being ratified as the 28th Amendment--in
this day and age--at this point in history--will have to be
simple, and with broad consent from across the political
spectrum. What you fear happening--what these two were just
complaining about--is already taking place: a government
totally unaccountable to the will and desires of the people.
The Constitution will reset that course, and it will do it as
soon as enough of us start calling for a convention.
OBTUSE
Even if you are right that there are checks and balances in
the process, all you're guaranteeing is that nothing will get
done. How is that any more effective? You've obviously not
participated in enough to understand that open forums without
an agenda are mindless endless time-wasters. You're a naive
idealist, which is why I'm willing to cut you some slack, but
you're ineffective in persuading people.
How about supporting a smaller cause you agree with instead
of trying to change the world with the stroke of a wand?
PERPLEXED
Why is opening up discussion a waste of time? And especially
when such a discussion can run concurrent with that of the
politicians in Congress? Holding a convention doesn't mean
the government goes on a holiday. We're about to hold our
political party conventions, is Congress going to shutter the
windows? No.
OBTUSE
Forums without an agenda are mindless, endless wastes of
time. This conversation is an example. It's not that I
don't like you, but you're unwilling to take my advice and
gain some experience achieving smaller, more realistic goals.
PERPLEXED
You started by saying a convention would be hijacked by
religious nuts. Then you implied the Articles of
Confederation were rewritten and adopted by the Convention of
1787. Now you're arguing that open discussion is a waste of
time. I guess it all comes down to this: why is the
convention clause part of our Constitution? Why is it there?
And if not now, when?
OBTUSE
(getting up to leave)
Look, I told you what I think. Take it or leave it. Have a
good day.
(Double beat. Forlorn, Happy, and
Perplexed look at one another.)
HAPPY
I'm for a convention, but to be honest, I think it's to
complex of a thing to get others to understand it.
PERPLEXED
And that's why I vowed to stop talking politics. The
solution is too far over everyone's head--unless you had
someone with credibility explain it. If we could get
Charleton Heston to explain it to the Right, and Jimmy Carter
to explain it to the Left--
Become a Fan -- Page 6 of 7 page(s)
Like what? I still haven't--
PERPLEXED
Like standardizing the vote and making it uniform, abolishing
corporate personhood, campaign finance issues, term limits-
this isn't rocket science, and Congress isn't going kick the
latter out from underneath itself.
(Beat.)
PERPLEXED (CONT'D)
But let's say that some of the candidates are dominionists,
and they campaign on that. OK, well all these people now get
together at the convention. What's to hijack? It's just a
bunch of discussion that results in amendment proposals. The
dominionists aren't going to silence the delegates who want
to discuss electoral reform, every idea gets a place on the
table--and the kicker--the convention cannot ratify anything.
After all the ideas are on the table--the good, the bad, and
the ugly--next comes the ratification process. You think a
country as polarized as ours is, that 38 states are going to
ratify radical amendments? No. No way. It'll never happen.
The only things with a snowball in hell chance of garnering
the approval of 38 states will be non-partisan issues. Not
fringe/religious nut issues.
HAPPY
Actually that doesn't sound so bad. I'd kind of like to see
the convention just for the entertainment value.
PERPLEXED
The reason the Founders made ratification a three-quarter
requisite is because whatever the idea--liberal or
conservative--it'll need all of one side signed on, plus at
least half of the other--75% of the whole. The Founders
didn't place a self-destruct button smack in the middle of
the Constitution. The convention is hot air, but that hot
air is open discussion, and open discussion is what we need
to stop a government that's failing to act on important
issues, due to the influence of special/corporate interests.
Please tell me this makes sense to you.
OBTUSE
It's not just a bunch of proposals. It's a full fledged
Constitutional Convention! You think what the
Confederationists thought, and you're just as wrong as they
were! They thought they were going to discuss the Articles,
and we wound up with a total rewrite!
PERPLEXED
Look, you're failing to recognize a couple things: the
Convention did not adopt the Constitution--the several states
did by way of ratification. And that took some persuading
too. That's what the Federalist Papers were--the sales pitch
to the states on why they should ratify. Another thing you
are failing to recognize--and this is backed by history too:
the idea which was ratified--our Constitution--was not one
based on crazy religious ideas, or bondage, but freedom and
liberty. And that history will hold true today: anything
with any hope of being ratified as the 28th Amendment--in
this day and age--at this point in history--will have to be
simple, and with broad consent from across the political
spectrum. What you fear happening--what these two were just
complaining about--is already taking place: a government
totally unaccountable to the will and desires of the people.
The Constitution will reset that course, and it will do it as
soon as enough of us start calling for a convention.
OBTUSE
Even if you are right that there are checks and balances in
the process, all you're guaranteeing is that nothing will get
done. How is that any more effective? You've obviously not
participated in enough to understand that open forums without
an agenda are mindless endless time-wasters. You're a naive
idealist, which is why I'm willing to cut you some slack, but
you're ineffective in persuading people.
How about supporting a smaller cause you agree with instead
of trying to change the world with the stroke of a wand?
PERPLEXED
Why is opening up discussion a waste of time? And especially
when such a discussion can run concurrent with that of the
politicians in Congress? Holding a convention doesn't mean
the government goes on a holiday. We're about to hold our
political party conventions, is Congress going to shutter the
windows? No.
OBTUSE
Forums without an agenda are mindless, endless wastes of
time. This conversation is an example. It's not that I
don't like you, but you're unwilling to take my advice and
gain some experience achieving smaller, more realistic goals.
PERPLEXED
You started by saying a convention would be hijacked by
religious nuts. Then you implied the Articles of
Confederation were rewritten and adopted by the Convention of
1787. Now you're arguing that open discussion is a waste of
time. I guess it all comes down to this: why is the
convention clause part of our Constitution? Why is it there?
And if not now, when?
OBTUSE
(getting up to leave)
Look, I told you what I think. Take it or leave it. Have a
good day.
(Double beat. Forlorn, Happy, and
Perplexed look at one another.)
HAPPY
I'm for a convention, but to be honest, I think it's to
complex of a thing to get others to understand it.
PERPLEXED
And that's why I vowed to stop talking politics. The
solution is too far over everyone's head--unless you had
someone with credibility explain it. If we could get
Charleton Heston to explain it to the Right, and Jimmy Carter
to explain it to the Left--
I'm a writer/artist/activist from California, with a degree in Creative Studies from the University of California at Santa Barbara. I've been an advocating for the convention clause of Article V since 2001.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
Comments
The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.
This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.
| No comments |