You may not want to know this. Americans have been successfully brainwashed to fear exactly what their revered Constitution gives them the right to have. Those smart Framers of the Constitution decided that we needed exactly what the establishment, pro-status quo elitists who run our plutocracy do NOT want us to have. There is even a well funded semi-secret group organized to prevent what we the people have a right to.
Has the brainwashing worked? You bet it has. In the absence of public furor, for over 200 years Congress has not done what Article V of the Constitution says it "shall" do. Congress has never issued a call for an Article V convention of state delegates to consider constitutional amendments, in response to two-thirds of state legislatures asking for one. That numeric requirement – the only specified requirement in Article V – has been satisfied, with 50 states submitting over 500 requests. Such a convention operating under authority of the Constitution would be a fourth, impermanent branch of the federal system, not beholding to the three permanent branches. Such independence has been cartooned into a frightening monster.
There is no uncertainty about what the Framers thought the nation needed. They wrote in crystal clear language a two-step process for amending the Constitution. First, craft proposals for possible amendments. Either Congress can do it or an Article V convention of state delegates can. Second, ratify proposed amendments by three-quarters of the states, either through their legislatures or state conventions, as Congress chooses. The Framers believed that Americans, acting through large numbers of state legislators, deserved a way to circumvent the excessive power of Congress or its refusal or inability to satisfy sovereign citizens – their bosses. No role was given to the federal judiciary and executive branch in amending the Constitution.
An Article V convention is a clear threat to the political, social and economic establishment exerting self-serving influence on Congress. It can put into public debate ideas for amending the Constitution that threaten established political forces, both liberal and conservative. Acting independently, it can courageously propose amendments without interference from status quo defenders.
So, not surprisingly, many persons and groups holding power oppose an Article V convention. How have they brainwashed Americans to fear such a convention? They fostered the image of a "runaway convention" – something to fear on a par with fears of a physical attack on the nation by foreign enemies or terrorists. How could something placed into our Constitution to thwart an ineffective federal government be turned on its head to become such a feared threat?
Clever people grasped onto a historical fact and extrapolated it into a phantasy nightmare. In fact, the nation's first and only constitutional convention was a runaway. Rather than do what had been planned for it – namely to modify the Articles of Confederation that first tied the states together – the state delegates constructed what we have for over two hundred years worshipped: the U.S. Constitution. Those rascal Framers created a strong federal government that not everyone at the time wanted. The anti-status quo guys won.
Backstage power brokers have never wanted another convention that might change the political system they expertly corrupt and control. They made people believe that a convention could destroy their cherished, constitutionally protected rights and freedoms. Or, equally bad, strange amendments would overturn the structure of our federal government and throw the nation into chaos and destroy our lauded political and governmental stability.
Is there any supporting evidence for fearing an Article V convention? No. To the contrary, there are solid reasons for demanding it.
First, there have been many state constitutional conventions and a huge number of amendments to state constitutions. Look around. Our states and their governments have not been ruined. Conventions were not hijacked and turned into weapons. And the first national constitution convention was hugely successful, even if it was a runaway, telling us that the good is the enemy of the better.
Second, the requirement that three-quarters of the states must ratify any specific amendments produced by an Article V convention provides a safety net. This is such a high hurdle that it is crazy to believe that truly awful amendments could ever become permanent changes to our Constitution. Anyway, when an amendment not worthy of retaining has happened, it was fixed through another amendment.
Third, the nation's first Article V convention would be so unique and of such historical significance that in our modern age of media and Internet communication there would be a solar-bright light on all its activities, from the election of state delegates to their debates and final amendment proposals. In fact, this temporary fourth branch of our federal system would be under more public scrutiny and less susceptible to corruption than our present, permanent branches of government.
Fourth, we should reject the indirect way of changing our constitution, namely through interpretations and judgments by those few non-elected, political appointees that serve on the Supreme Court. Plus, as President George W. Bush has demonstrated, a runaway CEO of our nation along with an ineffective Congress can take big bites out of our constitutional rights and protections and suffer no consequences.
Fifth, while it is true that we have had considerable political and governmental stability, we have paid a heavy price for it: namely a permanent culture of corruption, lying and deception that have danced around our constitutional protections and riddled American democracy with hypocrisy. Too much stability has turned our democracy into a plutocracy and a convention could consider remedies.
Sixth, the majority of Americans are independents, not loyal Democrats or Republicans, and only an Article V convention offers a truly independent route to addressing intransigent root problems that the political system under two-party control has allowed to fester.
Seventh, the congressional experience with proposing amendments has shown that though many may be considered, few survive. Over 11,000 have been considered by Congress, but only 33 reached the ratification phase, and only 27 were ratified – very few in the last 100 years. [The last amendment was finally ratified in 1992 – 203 years after it was first proposed by Congress!] Why should we think that a convention would agree on a huge number of amendments? With all America watching, delegates that know their states would focus on a few critical amendments likely to be ratified.
Lastly, what about that semi-secret group that was created to block attempts to amend our Constitution? Few know about The Constitution Project (www.constitutionproject.org), "that urges restraint in the constitutional amendment process." It was formed in 1997 to "oppose the facile rewriting of the U.S. Constitution." They fear "unthinking tinkering with fundamental rights and liberties" – actually, amendments on social and fiscal issues from conservatives. It has been funded by The Century Fund, a liberal group. The nearly 70 members in the constitutional amendments initiative are true status quo elites. Many were members of Congress or presidential appointees. They produced guidelines for evaluating possible amendments that, as discussed in "The Second Constitutional Convention" by Richard Labunski, were formulated to defeat attempts to amend the Constitution.
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.
I was totally ignorant if Article V, of having another constitutional convention. Is this the time? Yes, undoubtably. I wonder how this could be presented and written so that everyone could understand it. Right now we have a democracy in name only. We fight around the world suppossedly to bring people democracy, something that we as American citizen's don't even have.Does it have a chance of catching on? Who knows, but its worth a try.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 4:47:16 PM
The author offers a viable alternative to the status quo. Voting in this country is an hallucination which keeps the sheep content with the assurance that they are in control. Electing another elitist (Hillary Clinton), or a pre-packaged mouthpiece (Obama), will change nothing. Our government is presently under the direct control of a dictator (Bush) and corporations which own the CONgress and profit mightily from the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the jewish lobby which has a huge, if unreported, interest in the number of American boots on the ground in the Middle East. Note the recent urgings of troop escalations in Afghanistan. Partisan bickering is merely a distraction from the issues at hand. If we the people do not wrest control of our government from these factions I fear that the U.S. may ultimately descend into its own civil war. There is a large percentage of the population that is becoming incresingly pissed with the fascist behavior of our elected servants. The MSM does not interview them and their voices go mostly unheard by the masses. But they are there speaking, mostly anonymously, for fear of reprisal from a government who has contracted the construction of numerous "detention camps" within our own borders. I sincerely hope that our great society does not deteriorate into civil conflict but what must be done, must be done. I will not live as a slave to any man or institution.
by
Steve (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 6:45:53 PM
If you read article V, what you suggest is as hard as...
...getting an amendment passed. Here is the full text:
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
-----------------------
The parts applicable to a Constitutional Convention are as follows:
or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof,
---------------------
The bigger part that I dont get is this. You rail against the status quo and those in power, yet you are attempting to start a movement which to be successful will require supermajorities of those in power in congress or state legislatures (i.e. the "status quo") to vote in your favor to accomplish what you want. That does not make sense at all.
You would have a much easier time convincing people in one of the major parties to adopt your platform.
by
Steven Leser (213 articles, 45 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1400 comments)
on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 9:44:33 PM
Status quo forces can be overcome - witness our first constitutional convention -- yes a runaway, and also won by anti-status quo forces!!! Of course, it is very difficult to beat established status quo powers, but unless you advocate bloody, violent revolution, then we must seek smart strategies that rally a large fraction of the public to put pressure on those status quo forces. I came to understand that a constitutional convention has the potential to be that historically unique event with the power to greatly improve America. What disappoints me about so many activist dissidents is how they pursue truly delusional, impractical solutions or, worse yet, minor incremental changes that will not change the system. Can we overcome all the corrupt, incompetent and evil forces in congress and state legislatures??? That depends on YOU!! We need people to join our effort to mount a national campaign.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (127 articles, 31 quicklinks, 58 diaries, 509 comments)
on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 8:33:05 AM
I read the constitution back when I thought Bush went over the edge for like the fourth or fifth time, its wording at times would just about put me to sleep. When it came to articles about the framers having a V convention, I thought it would be just another kangaroo political fiasco to try to get a V convention.
But viewing it the way you have expressed it has put a light bulb over my head that's ON.
This article also helped me eliminate the fuzzy lines that were hard to understand.
When I find the time I'll read it again, it becomes more fluent and I pick up bits and pieces with each reading.
My American government teacher was Iranian, very nice woman and extremely intelligent. I contacted her and thought I'd run some ideas by her. But she was so pro Bush, it made my stomach turn. In her classes I'd noticed she leaned mainly towards the republican party. Which has left me to interpret the constitution on my own from college level books.
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments)
on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 10:06:30 PM
Perhaps we should rename our capital "Brainwashington"
One can only imagine the resistance to this idea when so much of the nation's money and influence is already invested into the old system. This only underscores the problem.
If you preface this concept with a question, it may make people see this differently. For example, ask ordinary citizens first whether they feel the current state of government properly works to represent it's citizens, truly a government run by and for the people as designed.
When (not if) they say no, ask them why.
They'll probably speak of rampant corruption, big business infiltration and the emergence of an elite ruling class. Even conservatives would complain there is too much influence-peddling, media bias, subversion and fiscal irresponsibility.
We can all agree there is a major problem with today's government, so entrenched in it's quest to attain and maintain power and entirely removed from the average American. Ask them what they would do if they could change it, if they could be part of a new constitutional convention to reform government.
Only then tell them there is such a provision in existing law, and that it was placed there by our founding fathers should our system ever get so waylaid.
The kneejerk resistance we see even in these posts is a product of the fear of power and the daddy-state brainwashing we've all been subject to our entire lives. The wealthy and powerful spend a lot to keep the middle and lower classes complacent, pacified or paralyzed. It's not easy to convince the majority that the minority should steer the ship, hence the advanced manipulation tactics we see today. Now they do steer the ship, using time-tested tactics that our entire generation has been programmed to accept.
For example and most recently, the use of 9-11 to instill fear into us from our government "protectors" has been rampant. But it's worked like a charm as people still believe the War on Terror should be the #1 national priority. We should take terrorism seriously, but not so much that we hand everything over to the crooked opportunist politicians we complained about and mistrusted so heavily on 9-10.
For one, I'm "Wore on Terror" already and can't believe how much of our resources and national debate have been devoted to avenge 9-11. Our over-reaction in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patroit Act and everything else was the exact wish and intention of the perpetrators, attempting to lure us physically into the MidEast conflict so as to polarize the Muslim world and make al Qaeda more widespread and well funded then it was before. Bingo...they won. As did war profiteers.
Why? Because we gave the government license to do anything out of our own fear, more of it manufactured by our government then acts of actual terrorism. We've lived with terrorism for decades (some of it even homegrown), as have many other nations. How did we so suddenly get transformed into cowering, shivering children in need of a savior? By a coordinated government effort of psychological gerrymandering.
I encourage anybody interested in returning to a small, efficient representative government to learn about and spread the word about systematic manipulation of the American people. Though perpetrated by government and corporations alike, the methods are the same and can be exposed.
Please join me in a call for an end to manipulation of our people. We need our children to learn about this from a young age to prevent the next generation from being a society of bankrupt, polluting, lackey consumers, subservient to a separate tier of rulers.
I speak about 100 years of manipulation in America in this article, feel free to read and comment: click here
by
Gustav Wynn (62 articles, 38 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 286 comments)
on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 10:57:02 PM
I'm asking everyone in the movement to refer to the gop as "the george bush party"--for example, if you refer to Liddy Dole [R-NC], please call her Liddy Dole, George Bush Party-North Carolina.
Even republicans have come to say that the bushistas have turned their party away from its historic goals. Using this expression will help to divide these "real" republicans from the rambling wreck george bush has wrought.
Please pass this along to everyone you know in the movement.
by
gabby hayes (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments)
on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 9:31:02 AM
9 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 (
