OpEdNews Op Eds

Legal Fiction Auto Pilot

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (2 fans)

Check out what was said at the Carolina Ratifying Convention of 1787, where some people were arguing that we should ratify the Constitution:

"Happy this, the country we live in! The Constitution before us, if it is adopted, can be altered with as much regularity, and as little confusion, as any act of [Congress]". [I]t is a most happy circumstance, that there is a remedy in the system itself for its own fallibility, so that alterations can without difficulty be made, agreeable to the general sense of the people."

The general sense of the people today is that our government is on what we might call Legal Fiction Auto-pilot. Corporate interests have undue influence as to what does and does not go to the floor for a vote. People are skeptical and/or afraid at the thought of convoking our first Article V Convention. The Framers (and when we say Framers, we mean a bunch of farmers), some of which thought human slavery an abomination, understandably, did not leave a self-destruct button in their hard work, nor did they forget to leave a clause as part of the entire document and contract, that should the federal government begin to falter, there was a way to discuss it. Article V does not/cannot rewrite the Constitution; it is a non-binding discussion. Besides, it's currently ignored by Congress and corporate power, so why not dust it off and take it for a spin? The process of convoking/convening a federal convention will only wake everyone up as to who exactly has sovereign power: not the left, not the right, but exclusively, the people as a whole. The people as a whole will deliver us from the fatal trends of Legal Fiction Auto-pilot. If you can't believe that then why are you reading this?

Delegates to the Article V Convention are not there to reinvent the wheel, but to propose amendments we all know the 113th Congress will not. If we all know private money can corrupt a human, do you think there should be an amendment about money in politics? If you think it's dangerous to spend our children's livelihood with our debt, do you think the Congress should be limited in what it spends? Many leading thinkers in American society today, left to right, have embraced the idea it's time to go through the process, which is all the Article V Convention is, a civic process. It's the process that will save us. It will create a dynamic the same as telling a corrupted accountant an outside audit is to begin, which is really all a convention is, a second opinion. What, you don't like second opinions all the sudden? There are thousands of smart and serious individuals across the nation who would make their way to our first federal convention, build consensus and make quick work of the mess; it is not rocket-science or brain surgery: you remove private funds from public government and elected officials will become public servants. By trusting in the main principle of the Constitution--that the people get to decide how politicians act--and the certitude a super-majority of seventy-five percent of the people reveals, we would and we should deliver ourselves from Legal Fiction Auto-Pilot.

If you're not sure, listen to the debate next Monday. From ArticleV.org:

"Walker-England Article V Convention Debate Set for July 21



"A debate on questions about an Article V Convention will be held at 6 p.m. (PDT) July 21, 2014 on Internet radio. The debaters are Trent England, Director of Save Our States Project (SaveOurState.com) and Bill Walker, Co-Founder of Friends of the Article V Convention (FOAVC).

"Hosted by well-known conservative talk show personality Dave Campbell, the one-hour debate will be broadcast on Mr. Campbell's weekly program Clarity From Chaos (http://clarity-from-chaos.com/). The debate will discuss five reasons made by Mr. England in a recent interview on the Daily Caller to oppose an Article V Convention. These reasons were: (1) Constitutional amendments are not the solution; (2) a convention plays into the current liberal dialogue; (3) proposed amendments are easy to stop; (4) no knows how an actual convention will function; (5) the solution is a renewed respect for the Constitution.

"The debate is formal. Rules include time limits for opening statements, cross examinations, rebuttals and closing arguments. The rules specify all points must have a basis in fact, with references. No anecdotal comments are permitted. The rules permit the questioner to stop the speaker during his reply during cross-examination.

"Bill Walker has been a leader in the Article V Convention movement for over twenty years. His achievements include filing the first two federal lawsuits in United States history directly dealing with the refusal of Congress to call an Article V Convention and gathering for the first time in United States history a collection of the actual applications by the states for a convention call. The 746 applications from 49 are viewable at www.foavc.org. Mr. Walker has written nearly 60 articles on various aspects of an Article V Convention. He has spoken at both Harvard University and Thomas M. Cooley Law Schools.

"Trent England is currently the Director of Save Our States Project which is part of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs and Liberty Foundation for America in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. England was formerly Executive Vice President at the Freedom Foundation in Olympia, Washington and a Legal Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation. He is an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Washington."

Clarity from Chaos airs every Monday night from 6 -- 7 pm on www.doublewidenetwork.com.
http://clarity-from-chaos.com/

 

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.


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

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.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Hamlet 3:2

Hamlet 5:2

Patricia Arquette & Chuck Norris Engaged

Note to Naomi Wolf

Short Playscript On Torture

Hamlet Adaptation (Act 1, Scene 3)

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.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

If you're sincere about the need to act with the i... by John De Herrera on Saturday, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:46:47 AM