A constitutional convention has been called by the people, and this article details how an Article V Constitutional Convention can stem the tide of the ever-decaying civil rights and citizen's eroding freedoms, as well as other governmental and corporate and financial interests' abuse.

::::::::

In the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness," after decades of congressional refusal to comply with the Constitutional provisions of Article V, whereas in excess of the required number of petitions for an Article V Convention have been filed with the Federal government, an On-line Article V Constitutional Convention has been called by Judge Thomas Brennan.

Article V provides, among other methods, "...on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments"" That is the law. Congress has received in excess of the two thirds required applications, and has never complied.

If one would even have to wonder why two thirds of the states have filed such petitions, he could review the applications, in excess of 700, which can be examined in the Congressional records; which are duplicated here: http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm.

From a layman's point of view, most people have a sense of the spirit of the Constitution, and the Spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and are often assailed by incongruities in government's behavior; and ever-growing inequalities, and common perception of a behavior which appears inconsistent with the founding documents. Let us examine some issues:

Article 1, Section 8, the coinage of money, and the regulation thereof. Why has banking the right to create money? Large factions of citizenry believe that banking and financial community has usurped that power which belongs to government.

Amendment 1. Freedom of Religion and the Press. The separation of Church and State has been one early concept at the time of the writing of the Constitution. The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it. Yet, some interpret that the Supreme Court has declared the US as a Christian Nation. Many public documents and buildings, and rituals contain religious symbology, and verbiage which imposes religious concepts upon the citizenry: "In God we Trust," ".. one nation" under God." "So help me God!" and on and on.

The elections of officials, in the opinion of many citizens, does not result in a government "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Large groups of people feel disenfranchised, and feel they can't even be heard by government. Money is equated to speech, and the "one citizen one vote" concept is all but dead.

The government has engaged in undeclared wars, although it is the explicit duty of Congress, which can't be divested or transferred to a President, without destroying the intent of the Constitution.

The executive has been granted absolute power, which is tantamount to making it a dictatorship, which becomes a tyranny. (The latest one a bill to grant the President a "kill switch" to the internet, where the President only needs to order, and down comes the Internet.)

The government passes laws that are directly against the will of the people; uses secrecy and claims of National Security" to hide crimes; Suspends habeas corpus, through the use or legal manipulations and technicalities; are beholden to lobbies which finance their campaigns, to support the interests of said lobbies, at the expense and harm of national needs, and public needs, desire, or interest. (One glaring example of the latter is AIPAC pushing Israel's interests forcing them to become US Foreign Policy, which has consistently been detrimental to the US, and in a large way, the cause of terrorism upon the land of the USA. The financial power of AIPAC's and Israel Lobby influence upon our government is only fathomable to the extent that it is rare that a public official will be elected or re-elected if they should utter a word against the policies pushed by Israel and AIPAC.)

People are being deprived of life and property through continuous assault by government economic decrees, and government's court action. Things took a turn for the worse, when the Reagan administration decrees that all citizens who had private retirement accounts, had to turn them over to "qualified Financial Institutions" who would be authorized to invest them" at their discretion. Hundreds of thousands of people saw their life saving reduced by 2/3, and those who are now senior citizens which have been pauperized. These actions, where the financial community can easily insert itself in positions of power in the government, and the government itself invites the very people who have been destroying the nation by ever increasing degrees can't be said to be "a government held hostage" by moneyed interest; but it's clearly a marriage where there's no distinction between Government and Goldman Sachs, and the other big financial firms. There is no recourse for people who have lost their lifesavings to the intentional theft perpetrated by the financial community. All these things, and surely you will think many more, are powerful reasons to convene a Constitutional Convention.

The Supreme Court's adjudication that a corporation is equivalent to a natural person is clearly unconstitutional as it creates an entity which absolutely none of the characteristics of a human person. It can't die; it can't feel, it can't be put in jail, or be physically addressed; the liabilities of corporate officers are limited, and there isn't a single component of a corporation that can respond and be subject to the law in the same way a citizen can be held. By that decision alone, untouchable giants have been created to live amongst us, who can't be reasoned with as one would with another human, and their characteristics are those of enslaving as many of us as possible for profit.

Any citizen would be justified in saying that government as it stands has ceased to function with the purposes charged upon it by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Therefore, in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, "... it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness," this convention takes onto itself the task refused by the duly obligated legislative bodies of our government.

As we review the political, social, and economic panorama, we see hundreds and hundreds of active organizations trying to stay on top of our legislative process to protect the basic rights of people in their socio-economic existence, with limited success, and often disappointing results. It is clearly a process of two steps forward, and one step back, with frequent occurrences of three steps back. An Article V Convention could easily adjust constitutional concepts that would make it difficult to interpret the constitution in ways that is detrimental to the general public, and thereafter make it nearly impossible to subvert the meaning and intent of the constitution for the personal gain of legislators, judges, or special corporate or private interests of super-wealthy elite.

The outcome of such convention is predictable towards either of two possible end results: a) Congress will retrieve onto itself what is legally its duty and function, and call such a convention, or b) the convention will continue in perpetuity with unpredictable and unfathomable results.

The first result can be understood in these terms: If this "on-line' convention can amass enough political clout to impress (force) Congress into calling such a convention, it may eventually do so. Judge Brennan put it this way in one instance: "The 1787 convention came about because the states agreed to send delegates to Philadelphia. The Congress, realizing that they were going to meet anyway, tried to save face by 'calling' the convention at the time and place already agreed upon by the states."

The second result is the potential natural outcome as stated in the Convention's purpose, to continue until Congress is compelled to call one. However, if history is to be an indication of the potential outcome, we can justifiably assume that Congress will not act. Therefore the results become less predictable. If the convention goes unabated, it must depend on the number of participants and others supporters, until such a point when that number is large enough to justify any of various courses of action:

1. There maybe enough states which allow plebiscites or citizens' propositions to be inserted into their regular elections. If the numbers are large enough, many states will see propositions for the creation of Conventional delegations.

2. If these are not sufficient, the states which do not present delegates will find enough challenges to the State's refusal to cooperate, by the testing of legal concepts in the courts. There are explicit legal ways through which a convention can be called. There are other legally implied, and significantly plausible, amongst which is the "Popular Convention." I quote from a constitutional Amendments site:

Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography.

The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them." http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#people

Other legal approaches are available, and would surely be taken up if it becomes rational to do so.

The On-line Convention, because it is rooted in the proverbial placement of your money where your heart is, has the power of conviction and dedication required to make fundamental changes, to re-establish the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It has the power to lay the foundation to resolve myriad of problems currently pursued with limited success by hundreds of thousands of activist citizens.

The convention will make clear that, while those who would destroy our principles keep us divided by labeling our positions, the astronomical majority of citizens stand behind the principles which brought about the birth of our nation in the first place, to find at the opposite side, only those whose intentions towards the survival of our nation are questionable. There are underlying principles that are held in common by Americans, whether liberal, conservative, republican, right, left, center, progressive, socialist, independents, or whatever ideology one may see oneself associated with.

All citizens are invited to become delegates, have their voice heard in the remaking of our nation. http://www.convusa.com/ . You're welcome to sign up today.

Nick Polimeni
Delegate, Nevada

Thomas E. Brennan: Former trial and appellate judge. Youngest Chief Justice in Michigan history. Founder, now retired Dean and President of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, the largest accredited college of law in the United States.

Authors Bio:
a voice in the crowd.