The times I've seen you speak over the years, I always liked you, I always felt, now there's a guy who might really make a difference.
I read an article sometime back about the convention clause of the U.S. Constitution. Since then it has always struck me as just the medicine for what ails our country.
As you know the convention clause of Article V has been sold to Americans as a dangerous thing which, should it happen, might destroy the law which spells out our protections against a tyrannical government--that if we held a national convention we might end up destroying the Constitution itself.
Well, as you and I know a convention is no more dangerous to America than discussion Sunday morning on the corporate news shows. A national convention is not dangerous to Americans, or the country, or the Constitution--but it is dangerous to those who contribute to and benefit from the status quo.
The argument underlying the status quo is the Samuel Huntington concept of a Clash of Civilizations. That strife amongst the world's cultures is inevitable and if we're on top of the hill now we might as well take the reigns and make the world safe for democracy and western, secular, values. And if that was true, if it was a valid argument, I would go right along with it--if things are going to go one way or the other--nothing wrong taking a stand and declaring a course. Heck, if it's going to be any flag leading the way, might as well be the good ol' red, white, and blue.
But the facts don't add up and the charade is as thick as it's ever been, and frankly, lately, it's just a goddam embarrassment what corporate interests have done and are doing, and what I really wanted to impress upon you is how a convention would look, and how your actions within the next few months could equal or amount to more than any American's since this great nation began.
I know members of Congress are privy to information the average citizen is not--and I've often wondered if Senator Wellstone's accident was the writing on the wall for all of you. If that is the case, I submit to you that advocacy of an Article V Convention is a form of protection for the one(s) courageous enough to take that stand.
They've always told us it's all about power, right? Well, sometimes those in power need to be brought back down and I imagine that you have many fond relationships with individuals who would be deeply hurt should you declare yourself conventionist openly and begin to help shape events towards our first national convention. But life has always been a moral drama and what the neo-cons and globalists have planned is morally wrong; so please don't assume that those who may be hurt and confused should you discuss a convention, that they will always feel the same. My instincts are that if we get a convention a day will come where we'll all find the struggle was worth it.
This coming March there will be a paper submitted to the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, it is written by former state supreme court justice Tom Brennan of Michigan. It lays out all the pros and cons of the convention clause of Article V and why we as a country have nothing to fear, nor do the executive, judicial, or legislative branches and the individuals who people them.
It's the right thing to do Senator. I hope to recharge for now, I had been talking politics for months on end and I began to get myopic about it. So I'm working to keep other aspects of life on track for now. But I had seen your diary last night, and something prompted me to write you.
I'll be coming back here and there with other diaries and open letters, in the meantime, should you be so moved to investigate, check this site: http://www.article5.org. The judge and some others are going to put together a group. Details are being hashed out now. Will it work? Who knows, but something has got to be done, if only on principle alone.
John De Herrera