As self-professed champion of the Constitution presidential candidate Ron Paul has missed a monumental opportunity to educate Americans about the criminal behavior of Congress in violating their oath of office. Even more important, he has not taken advantage of his 15 minutes of fame to promote the nation's first-time use of what the Founders gave us in the Constitution in case the public lost confidence in the federal government.
Paul clearly recognizes the many failures of the federal government. Maybe as a member of Congress he just does not have the courage to confess that he too has been part of a long-standing refusal by Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution. Why don't passionate Paul supporters see his lack of integrity, guts and consistency?
Support for using the Article V convention option should be a litmus test for any presidential candidate, which is reasonable considering that Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt supported it.
First, let's be clear that Paul has no problem in seeing the need for constitutional amendments. For example, he has been a proponent of an amendment that would not allow children born in the USA from illegal parents to become citizens. Second, he has maintained throughout his career his love and respect for our Constitution. Third, he has carefully refused to publicly state his views on the provision in Article V of the Constitution for the use of a convention of state delegates to make proposed amendments as the alternative to Congress proposing amendments (the only procedure used for 220 years). Fourth, he has made no attempt to pass any law that would modify, clarify or expand the single requirement now in Article V for a convention. How can a champion of the Constitution remain so silent on Congress' refusal to honor over 500 applications from all 50 states for a convention that more than satisfies the one and only requirement in Article V?
Anyone who studies the history of attempts to get the first Article V convention will learn that it has consistently been opposed by people and groups on the political left and right that are part of the nation's elitist political status quo establishment. So here is Ron Paul, supposedly an honest non-elitist political maverick that does not fit into the political establishment, yet too cowardly to stand up to the political establishment by backing the use of the Article V convention option. Paul has had virtually no real impact on what Congress has done, yet he does not support the convention option that would circumvent the power of Congress. What does he have to lose?
Of course, if all the passionate supporters of Paul would spend more time investigating all his congressional activities, they would find a lot more to seriously question. A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior? His earmarks increase federal activities and spending. Many have been for projects by the Army Corps of Engineers, many to funnel money to the Texas Department of Transportation (including one for repairs to the Galveston Trolley system), and one for Texas A&M University/Galveston Campus to convert the Texas Clipper for educational purposes; maybe this was the $30 million for the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship. And then there was the $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. This seems like pretty conventional Republican politics. This year Paul has requested about $400 million worth of federal spending for his district – not exactly consistent with Paul's rhetoric on reducing federal spending and taxing. His duty is to inform his constituents about the wrongness of earmarks, not capitulate to their requests.
There is still time for Paul to search his soul and find the courage to either to support use of the Article V convention as the route to achieving deep political reforms that Congress itself will never have the integrity to propose through constitutional amendments, or to step up and make the case for an amendment that would remove the never-used Article V convention option.
Here is some irony: With our thoroughly corrupt and rigged political system Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee, regardless of his high level of grassroots support. Odd then that Paul has not supported the one and only route to profoundly changing this awful political system. It is the method our Founders gave us with the Article V convention option. Indeed, his lack of support for using the Article V convention option seems to makes him a part of the political establishment, which is consistent with his recent announcement that if he does not get the Republican nomination he will not run as a third party candidate.
www.delusionaldemocracy.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.
The problem isn't a lack of amendments. It is too many. The last thing we need is the present group of Congresscriminals redacting the Constitution. Some people even advocate a Con-con. Bad idea. Not only that, what sense and purpose would there be in fighting to change the wording of a document which the Congresscriminals don't even follow anyways?
by
Mark Anderson (8 articles, 2 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 46 comments)
on Friday, October 26, 2007 at 8:31:35 PM
We must imagine that we can create amendments that would reduce the corruption and dishonesty among elected officials; for example, removing all private funding of campaigns
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (127 articles, 31 quicklinks, 58 diaries, 509 comments)
on Saturday, October 27, 2007 at 10:43:20 AM
The constitution clearly has its imperfections, but it has proven to be a remarkably well conceived document. Its imperfections stem largely from the fact that it was written in a horse and buggy day and the world has changed. For example, the electoral college made much more sense when communication across the country took weeks rather than seconds and it would be extremely difficult for any candidate to even gain widespread name recognition. Constitutional ammendments could take care of this kind of thing, though it is quite difficult in practice.
It is not clear to me that a constitutional convention to write a new constitution would produce a better document, however. The constitution we have today was written largely by one man, Thomas Jefferson. I shudder to think of what kind of document a committee might produce (I am reminded of the addage that a camel is a horse designed by a committee).
I also think that our problems today are not that the constitution needs to be changed so much as that the constitution needs to be obeyed.
by
PrMaine (10 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 338 comments)
on Saturday, October 27, 2007 at 10:38:14 AM
The Constitution for the United States is a contract between the sovereign federal municipality and the states as represented therefor; citizens of the US are not a party to the contract; therefore, the citizen has no individual right under the Constitution.
Individual rights are secured by the state of residence as party to the contract by and between the states and the federal municipal USA government corporation.
The US Constitution is one of the most mis-represented propagandized contracts in existence and has been used to create the illusion of freedom under the flag of democracy.
In reality, as a citizen we "pledge allegiance" to the "republic for which it stands" government, which is to volunteer to be subject to the sovereignty of the state.
This voluntary act of submission establishes the right to claim the privileges and benefits entitled to any citizen (and which are subject to revision or elimination at any time by Congress - no guarantees, no promises, just IOU's).
As a citizen who voluntarily applies for registration with the government, by signing agrees to accept statutory benefits and privileges, in addition to the obligations and responsibilities of a citizen, which (simplified) compel or deter behavior by statute.
The obligations and responsibilities are especially interesting when we consider what is called "hypothecation"of debt, which means that each US citizen is liable to repay the national debt individually.
In other words, it means the gov't expects the people to be forever enslaved by the debt that was incurred over many lifetimes and is impossible to repay - ever.
Next time you are in a bookstore ask for Black's Law Dictionary, Deluxe 8th edition, and look up the words:
Article V states; "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"
What ammendment exactly does 50 states of the union want? There is NO provision for rewriting the Constitution what-so-ever so it can't be that.
The author acused Ron Paul of "Pork". Ron Paul represents his district. He is up front about every spending proposal he submits. Only a cursory scan of his RECORD would tell the author that. He is so bent on opposing Ron Paul that fact don't get in his way. Every Representitive has an obligation to present to Congress the needs and desires of his district. Ron Paul is simply doing his job and evidently doing it very well since he keeps getting elected over and over again.
by
Col (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 5 comments)
on Saturday, October 27, 2007 at 12:27:50 PM
1. The Senate voted against War in Europe until the merchants of death were assured of payment.
2. The Senate voted against War in Europe until 1917 when a majority of the Senators were selected by Special Interests instead of the State Legislatures.
"With our thoroughly corrupt and rigged political system Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee, regardless of his high level of grassroots support."
Paul has zero chance because he is so far out of mainstream of Republican thought that he attracts only members of the loony left who masquerading as Republicans. The Republican Party is no more corrupt than the Democratic Party who is on its way to nominating a criminal. She will not win because she is going to be Swiftboated. She has a well-documented criminal past and the Swiftboating has begun and nothing can save her. htttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305485,00.html
Paul is a Libertarian who is cynically using the political processes of the Republican Party to get pubilicity from the media he normally wouldn't get. It is the Ross Perot model.
It is sad that so many of the left have to support a loser like Paul because no one in their own party will stand up and support their crazy viewpoints. They are becoming frustrated because they have been abandoned by their members of Congress who are more interested in building million memorials to Woodstock.
by
Mad Jayhawk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 313 comments)
on Saturday, October 27, 2007 at 12:36:09 PM
Is this a freekin mainstream media convention here or what? It is written; "let not him that putteth on his armour boast as him that putteth it off"
Its not about right or left or repug or demo, its about honesty and integrity.
400 million in a city like Houston is like the pennies on my nightstand. Hirschhom is looking hard to find a flaw in Ron Paul but dont worry the press will begin to fabricate lies when he wins the nomination. And what states legislature will make positive changes to the constitution? Rick Perry and the globalist ilk in Austin have held secret DOT meetings and sold off our infrastructure. We are up to our eyebrows in crooks from the city level up.
And why wouldnt we need a leader like Perot or Paul that at least have had sucessful business ventures? Dubya was a loser in all 5 of his attempts. The mere fact that the globalists threatened Perot and are sidelining Paul means positively they are not sold out to the beast.
I am donating to Ron Pauls campaign, the first campaign donation in my life.If we do not all become directly involved in our nations governance we will all surely become slaves of the new world order.
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 427 comments)
on Saturday, October 27, 2007 at 4:00:52 PM
"when he wins the nomination" Anyone who believes this is so completely out of touch with the current corrupt, dishonest and rigged political system. I am not anti-Paul. I am sickened by all the delusional thinking of his supporters -- the worst I have seen in 50 years. That his supporters are deluding themselves about THE SYSTEM is far worse than their delusions about HIM. When will Americans learn that our nation will not be "saved" by a person, only by fixing the system. Sure our initial Constitution worked wonders for a long time - but some very good amendments made the nation better -- and over time truly terrible, corrupt plutocrats found many ways to ignore or subvert the Constitution. Now we must fix the Constitution in order to fix THE SYSTEM.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (127 articles, 31 quicklinks, 58 diaries, 509 comments)
on Saturday, October 27, 2007 at 4:59:16 PM
The SYSTEM is broken BECAUSE the CONSTITUTION is being ignored. If the rule of law is followed--that is, the Constitution--then the System will work.
Ron Paul isn't known as "Dr. No" in Washington for nothing. It is because he consistently votes against all of those items which Congress tries to pass, that deliberately ignore or subvert the Constitution. And he has tried to introduce legislation that would repeal such presidential edicts that have done the same: He is currently trying to restore Habeus Corpus, as well as make intelligence garnered under torture inadmissable in court.
As president, he would take the same hardline veto stance against ANY introduced bills that do not follow the Constitution.
by
Melissa E (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 4:04:42 PM
And we are to trust our state 'Representatives" to make said changes? The changes needed are prohibitions on unregistered illegal foreign lobby groups or lobby "go betweens" that have subverted our system. And guess what, their influence controls everything. Dont You think an honest man as president would make any positive changes more likely? Like maybe new federal judges? Prosecuters and cabinet members whose combined names read more like the guest list for a bar-mitzpha would be my first choice to replace. If You dont dis-like Ron Paul then why dont You campaign for him instead of sowing doubt in the minds of voters?
There is no other candidate for president as honest or as charismatic as Paul. We must restore our constitution and take our nation back from the clinton-bush crime syndicate and to do this we need an honest and patriotic leader. And all patriotic citizens MUST become active in all levels of our system or its the gulag brother.
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 427 comments)
on Saturday, October 27, 2007 at 10:19:50 PM
12 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 (
