I’m a fellow American citizen who has not yet given up hope about re-directing the ship of state. Won’t you please take a moment to read this Op-Ed? It contains a solution.
Before I make a point, let’s agree on some things, OK? We’re American. Being American has subjective meanings and objective meanings, but let’s stick to the latter, because that’s based on fact and what we clearly know to be true:
1. The contract between citizens and elected officials is the Supreme Law, i.e. our constitution. There is no law higher than the seven articles and twenty-seven amendments which make up the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Constitution provides for three branches of government: the Congress, the Executive, and the Judicial. Of the individuals who people these three branches, some are elected, some are appointed, but all must swear an oath to obey the law before government issues checks for their efforts.
3. You and I are upset with governance (if you’re not upset with governance today, you can stop reading now). We’re upset with governance because of things like a judicial branch preventing a state from determining who won electoral votes in a hotly contested presidential election, an executive branch holding closed-door meetings with private-sector energy corporations, and a legislative branch failing to standardize the electoral process, securing it once and for all from corporate interests.
These key points and many others are why we’re upset with governance.Possibly the most egregious thing about governance is that it’s failed to secure The Vote from corporate interests. We’re currently burdened with what one blogger has termed Faith-Based Voting. We shouldn’t have faith-based elections. The tallying of votes should be based on more than faith. When you check what voting systems each state currently has, you would be surprised how many are like Pennsylvania. In other words, if you have doubts, too bad. Votes are unrecountable, unverifiable, and unauditable. Where there are paper trails, there are too many cases where proper procedure is not followed, and chain of custody is ignored. It’s easy to say it’s tin foil hat stuff to claim irregularities, but it’s just as crazy to suggest we’re getting true results. How do we get proof when votes are unrecountable, unverifiable, and unauditable? It’s like one presidential candidate says when they talk about unitary executive powers and warrantless wiretaps: you don't have to prove the power is being abused to object. It doesn't matter if you absolutely trust private corporations to tally votes, we spend more time telling people they sound paranoid than we do objecting to a system that demands scrutiny. Whether or not elections are accurate we cannot know. This has been going on for at least 6 years. Faith-Based Voting should be a thing of the past, instead it is still with us, and the silence surrounding it is deafening to those of us paying attention.
Why hasn’t the Congress drawn up blueprints for an official U.S. Voting Unit and mandated voting machine vendors to build them to spec? This is the obvious, common sense solution which would immediately extinguish many points of failure. So why hasn’t any legislation of the like made its way to the floor of the House or the Senate? It’s because corporate interests have gridlocked the legislative branch, and prevented it from acting in the public interest. Corporate interests, in the form of lobbyists, lawyers, and professional politicians, have become an aristocratic title system which operates at will.
The Constitution prohibits the establishment of aristocratic title systems or anti-republican governing bodies, though with corporate laws and charters, both are now the norm. How can anyone believe that individuals, functioning as aristocrats, in the same manner as aristocrats, with a title system and organizational scheme that’s aristocratic, somehow conclude they’re Not aristocrats? Simply because they and their system is dressed in corporate clothing? The corporatists match aristocrats in both function and arrogance, pretending to have powers they do not, and pretending the average citizen is ignorant of the pretense. Through legal hair-splitting and inaction, corporatists have technically overthrown what was once a republican government. This must be addressed with specific prohibitions, and it must be written into the Constitution. For decades we’ve seen how corporatists frustrate efforts to restrain them by statutory, legal and regulatory means. Short of armed revolution, constitutional amendment is the last recourse.
As you may or may not know, the Constitution contains the convention clause. It’s found in Article V and it states that once the requisite applications for a convention hit the doorstep of Congress, that branch “shall call a convention....” The congressional record shows all fifty states have at one time or another applied for such a convention, yet one Congress after another simply ignores them. The legal term is Laches, or ignoring something on purpose. In other words, the individuals who perpetuate our aristocratic title system of corporate governance have prevented and continue to prevent a national convention of state delegates, held on authority of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
Traditional arguments against convoking such a convention are that it might tamper with the Constitution itself, or that such a convention might be taken over by corporate interests and subverted to such ends. These arguments are bogus, not only irrational but illogical, because a convention is simply the process of opening discussion and building consensus. Nothing discussed at a national convention can somehow accidentally become new law. For an idea to become a law it must of course first be ratified, and to ratify an amendment proposal requires 38 states agree to it. With the country as polarized as it is today, it’s likely the only idea with any chance of being ratified would be one concerned with electoral reform, one that would secure The Vote from private interests once and for all.
Of the Bell Curve of political consciousness, there will always be citizens like you and I who are paying attention, and who can see past the smoke and mirrors of our homemade aristocratic establishment. Perhaps the governing class has served us well enough over the years, but ever since it stopped a state from counting votes in a critical presidential election, and foisted upon the nation an executive administration which has repeatedly disobeyed the Constitution and the rule of law, it’s become clear the time has come to create a 28th Amendment.
Recent legal history, the denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court in October of 2006, has allowed a lower court ruling to stand, and that ruling has deemed the convention call is now discretionary, that it’s up to our aristocrats whether the nation will ever convoke an Article V Convention. In terms of political science, this means we no longer need to seek further applications from the state legislatures, we simply need to galvanize a tipping-point majority of Americans around the idea the time has come to convene. This website, http://www.articlev.org suggests how such an effort might be carried out. This website, http://www.foavc.org has further information about the subject.
Whatever you’re upset about in terms of governance, it is our position that nothing short of a national convention of state delegates is going to do anything to redirect the ship of state. Not a new executive administration, and certainly not legislation from a branch where corruption has become institutionalized. An Article V Convention is anathema to the corporatists. What corporate power is dead-set against, authentic Americans should be all for.
Perhaps we’ll have to wait for our less astute, fellow citizens to come round to the truth that the next president will not and cannot bring about the end to corporate rule. This would likely be ten to twelve months from now. Hopefully everyone concerned will be here, ready to dust off our Constitution and put it to work for us.
Why is it "bogus & irrational" to fear that a convention
would be subverted by corporate interests? They've successfully subverted everything else; why wouldn't they subvert this too? Certainly it would be obvious to them that failing to control the outcome of such a convention might well interfere with their established dominance over society's levers of power. Therefore, they would make a point of ensuring either that no Article V Convention is held; or that any changes made at such a convention would not damage their interests (or would perhaps even benefit them).
Fearing this is not bogus or irrational. On the contrary, it's entirely realistic.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1120 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 10:44:59 AM
First, we must start from the current condition of our government: it is awful; it is corrupted by moneyed interests; therefore, we are not starting from a positive position, but from a very negative one. That means we should view the FIRST Article V convention as a reasonable action and risk, to get something really fixed.
Second, you must use your imagination; recognize that the very first Article V convention - or the second national constitutional convention - would be of incredible historic significance and would, therefore, capture the public's and media attention and a huge global audience. Under such scrutiny the odds are pretty good that ordinary corporatist means of corrupting the process would be very difficult.
Third, we must constantly remember that the great men - the Founders and Framers - put the Article V convention option in the Constitution for a very good reason. They anticipated the day when Americans would lose trust and confidence in the federal government. With 81 percent of Americans seeing the country on the wrong track, that day has surely arrived.
Fourth, please remember the safety net in the Article V. The convention delegates have no power to change anything, only to propose amendments, then the same ratification process as applies to proposals from Congress must be used. The requirement for ratification by 3/4 of the states is a tough hurdle, so really extreme, nutty amendments stand little chance of being approved. Plus, the ratification process provides yet another opportunity for major citizen involvement and massive public scrutiny of the process.
Fifth, everyone should remember that there have been hundreds of state constitutional conventions with no major destruction of state governments.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (118 articles, 22 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 472 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 11:59:30 AM
You say that the "scrutiny" attending such a historic event
would render difficult the "ordinary corporatist means of corrupting the process."
I disagree. I think the ordinary means of corrupting the process would work very well -- just as they usually do. There was plenty of "scrutiny" attending the Florida Recount in 2000, and Bush v Gore. But that didn't stop the media from helping the rightwing to steal an election in broad daylight. (One could adduce many similar examples that make the same point -- it's not necessary to go through the whole list.)
Suppose the demand for an Article V Convention really gathered steam. The mainstream media might (or might not) cover it, depending upon their own calculation of which option was most to corporatists' advantage. The media would rightly perceive the Convention as a potential threat to corporatist domination; therefore, they'd probably ridicule the idea, giving it more or less the same treatment they give antiwar protests. So, they might ignore it; or treat it very negatively. They'd imply that calls for a Convention were "stabbing our troops in the back," or "undermining our government in a time of war," & so on. They'd make it seem that pro-Convention people were disloyal & unpatriotic, like Code Pink protestors.
And again -- even if you somehow succeeded in calling a convention, what would prevent the best-financed & best-organized participants from having the most influence? It's not hard to guess who that would be. They'd see to it that the whole thing served their purposes. They might even see ways of expediting via the convention things they haven't yet quite succeeded in pulling off via the usual corrupted routes.
I'm not "against" the convention idea; I merely don't see any reason to believe it would succeed. I don't see why it wouldn't fall victim to the usual corrupting influences of money, power, & media.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1120 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 1:32:02 PM
While I share so much of your criticism of today's USA
You seem to have dived into the deepest end of the nihilistic negativity pool and are unwilling to have any hope whatsoever that a large fraction of Americans can stand up to the corrupt forces and take back their nation by using what is expressly provided in the Constitution.
I strongly urge you to read and absorb this wisdom:
"The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing - for the sheer fun and joy of it - to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose. You mustn't feel like a martyr. You've got to enjoy it." - I.F. Stone
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (118 articles, 22 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 472 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 1:58:26 PM
as bringing in an outside auditor. the dynamic it creates is that those who hold office become obsequious to the auditors in a sense. as far as your fear of corporate interests doing worse--they have information and The Vote in their back pocket. how could things be worse than a "legal fiction" being in control of what you know, and how your elections pan out?
the convention clause is part of the constitution for a reason. and if you aren't talking convention, you're talking status quo.
the delgates who show up will be people who are not concerned with winning an election, or polls, or any of the things politicians are. they simply show up, place ideas on the table and go home. everyone who is there has their say no matter what money is in their pocket.
when people get together, consensus happens. that's one of the positive aspects of the human condition. consensus will happen, and the people there who are not on the up and up will be exposed for what they are.
again, the convention clause is part of our Supreme Law for a reason.
by
john de herrera (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 128 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 7:25:20 PM
take a step back and consider what would take place should congress be coerced to issue the call:
1) the states would hold special elections for delegates. these delegates would not be running for office, but to show up and build consensus about what could possibly be ratified in the current political climate.
2) the delegates nor the convention itself can ratify anything. they simply place ideas on the table for the country to examine.
3) just the event of holding a civicceremony on the authority of the constitution would cast politicians and media pundits in a different light.
4) to fear a convention is to fear open discussion.
the fox is in the henhouse, and hens are dying. people who fear a convention are fearing the fox getting into the henhouse. the fox is already there. the vote is about to be lost to private voting machine vendors. if delegates were allowed to come together at convention you bet they'd have a proposal to secure the electoral process from private interests. we currently have no action from the congress, the only other group of americans besides congress that can propose change is a convention o delegates.
those are our choices--congress or convention. when one is broke (and/or working against the public's interest), you use the other. that is why the clause is there in the first place. repeat, the convention clause is part of our constitution for a reason. if not now, when? The Vote is about to be lost when it could be standardized.
by
john de herrera (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 128 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 12:04:52 PM
I'll vote for that and the first thing on my agenda would be to outlaw the electoral college.
I don't know what's with the Keystoners, maybe stoner is the operative word, but on the crazy left coast in Kal-e-forn-ya, Diebold was outlawed almost the instant there was trouble.
We've gone back to various types of paper ballots. In Los Angeles County the electronic machines are gone -- not that were ever more than a few -- and most of the county is using Ink-A-Vote, which works like punch cards, but instead of poking llittle chaddy holes, it leaves an ink blot.
Rorschach would be proud.
by
Sandy Sand (133 articles, 0 quicklinks, 169 diaries, 1272 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 1:50:33 PM
a vote of confidence towards the convention clause. and i do think that the electoral college would be history should we coerce the call out of the congress.
as far as the voting, we must be protected from states who are failing to secure the voting process. stardizing the vote protects an entire election from being compromised to various degress, state to state.
by
john de herrera (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 128 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 7:12:45 PM
Some of you out there think we are a bunch of airheads but just remember this state was founded by people who walked across a continent and looked death in the face every day. Don't underestimate the Bear Republic.
by
macdon1 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments)
on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 9:22:42 PM
but I would say elections have been rigged for a long time, with dead people voting, and the buying of votes being well documented. Why is there an Electoral College?
A 51% does not mean a majority. Representation should be where the votes are, like in a parliament with so many % represented by the way the vote was chosen by the people.
Elected officials can only be in a specific office for 2 terms, with overlap of elections so junior statesmen can ramp-up on the learning curve by the senior member.
The time line for campaigning should be less than 6 months before the vote and limit spending so under-financed candidates are given a chance to be heard.
No lobbying, special interest, or perks are allowed. A documented income and open financial disclosure of all officials is known, and no business /government relationship before-during-and after holding public office is acceptable.
The military is for defense purpose only of the "Homeland", and will not participate in foreign incursions or have money earmarked for espionage by rouge departments like the CIA since they don't exist.
There is a lot more that still needs to be tweaked, but the Constitution and Bill of Rights have laid a good foundation of governance. Which is why Bu$h & Co. need to be impeached so these documents remain relevent.
by
Stanimal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 437 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 2:16:42 PM
as far as The Vote having always been compromised in one way or another, the distinction to be made is that now it's done with a few keystrokes/source code.
obviously it should be standardized. thanks for your comment, appreciated.
by
john de herrera (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 128 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 7:17:17 PM
that once the requisite applications are on record, we do not need permission or approval; but in practical terms, we do need the congress to issue the call. this will reinforce the validity of our constitutional form of governance. in terms of political science, we simply need to popularize the issue to the point congress will act and issue the call.
Do we really need another Constitutional Amendment?
A bipartisan Congress and the Bush Administration - despite their oath to uphold the Constitution - have no respect for the Rule of Law, having voted to pass several laws that violate the US Constitution.
So what if we do get another amendment passed? If Congress and/or the Prez don't agree, they'll simply ignore it.
This suggestion - to hold an Article V Convention - ignores the reality that those in DC don't care one whit about the Rule of Law or the US Constitution.
No, I think another strategy is in order.
by
Rady Ananda (97 articles, 246 quicklinks, 19 diaries, 694 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 10:19:23 PM
thanks for your comment, but let's take a closer look: governance is dynamic, which means that if a tipping-point majority of americans move in one direction, government will react. since violence is not an option (if not philisophically, then even as a practical consideration) our task is to galvanize a tipping-point majority. a convention will do that, and that is why the clause is part of the Supreme Law--to create a balance of power when it has become imbalanced.
the Congress and the Administration are peopled with corporatist aristocrats and it's a perpetual battle to get each generation to obey the US Constitution. consider a convention as hitting the RESET button. simply as a civic ceremony where the country came come together. wouldn't that alter the political discourse with which we're beset?
another amendment--and one concerned specifically with securing The Vote from private interests--will put our society on a much more solid footing that which it currently rests.
those in DC don't care one whit about the Rule of Law or the US Constitution--this is true, but it's only so long as the electorate allows them to ignore such. a convention casts corporatists in a new light, and they will act differently in that new light.
any other strategy other than utilizing the law found in the constitution is doomed to fail. the problem has beeen identified, and those perpetuating the problem do not what to hear citizens talking about a national convention of state delegates.
the idea of citizens taking to the streets with pitchforks delights them.
by
john de herrera (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 128 comments)
on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 3:24:07 PM
This is a trojan horse issue. A constitutional convention would have the absolute power to wipe out out constitution and establish a dictatorship in one fell swoop. It is because of this danger that such conventions have been turned down in the past, and this is the worst of times for such a procedure.
by
hoscot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 11:19:23 PM
once the convention convenes, the delegates build consensus about what the 28th Amendment ought to look like, they place it on the table and go home. that's it. then the country examines what's on the table, and the ratification process begins. please correct how you view the convention clause of article v of the u.s. constitution.
by
john de herrera (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 128 comments)
on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 2:55:21 PM
With all respect to john & Joel, you guys are not allaying
the concerns I raised about a Convention. I'm saying it would be easy for Establishment forces to either make sure there would be no convention; or to make sure any such convention would not result in any loss of corporate power.
It would be no easier to organize a Convention than to organize any other large scale action. If the thing was big & serious enough to be in any way a challenge to those who now hold power, the latter would make it their business to either control the Convention; or to neuter it; or to simply ignore it (depending on their own cost/benefit calculations). They're not going to just sit there and allow a process to go forward that might very substantially clip their wings.
Joel writes to me above that "...You seem to have dived into the deepest end of the nihilistic negativity pool and are unwilling to have any hope whatsoever that a large fraction of Americans can stand up to the corrupt forces and take back their nation by using what is expressly provided in the Constitution..."
I'd say that being skeptical about "a large fraction of Americans" being able to stand up to the corrupt forces that rule over us is pretty justified at this point, wouldn't you? If I.F. Stone himself were with us today, he wouldn't recognize this country. Torture? Endless war & daily government lying as official policy?
No, nothing can be achieved by simply calling for a big meeting. It must be faced that this is exactly the kind of historical situation that serious resistance movements -- and eventually revolutions -- are required to deal with. You can't use pretty language or legal strategies to beg criminal tyrannies to be more reasonable. You have to formulate demands, organize & mobilize in such numbers that you grow strong enough to take power away from them. If you're not strong enough to do that, they'll never listen to anything you say -- any more than they listened to the millions who marched in Feb. 2003.
Look, today's rulers openly laugh at the Constitution. They violate it every day with complete impunity. If you called a Convention, maybe got 5000 delegates to attend, and you passed some resolutions, they'd just laugh in your face and say, "So what?" Bush (if he even deigned to recognize your convention's existence) would call it a "tiny focus group." Cheney would sneer & say, "We're not changing course due to the silly ranting of a few misguided extremists."
As I said, I'm not "against" a Convention; I just don't believe that by itself, convening such a gathering would accomplish anything. If a movement was built that successfully seized power, we could certainly rewrite some of the Constitution, to permanently ban both the Republican & Democratic Parties, & to ensure that corporatist/militarist tyrannies never rule over us again. But that would be the finishing touches on the whole thing, just as the Constitution of 1787 came years after the American Revolution. It should come after the war crimes tribunals, among other things.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1120 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 11:25:09 PM
you said some americans openly laugh at the constitution. that's false. you will never find an american, whether they're corrupt or not, openly laugh at the constitution. they may in private, but never openly. that's what a convention is all about.
by
john de herrera (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 128 comments)
on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 7:32:47 PM
