Tattle On Corruption!
Kids & Beginners
IF YOU DON'T know the Bill of Rights from an amendment to the Constitution, this is a place to begin learning. As a freedom-loving American you owe it to yourself and your countrymen. More...
Imperts & Experts
IF YOU'RE ASKING "Where's the Meat." don't ask any more it's right here!. Turn off the TV where the soundbytes from hell originate, and begin studying. You'll soon know why we can't let Congress get away with a 9% approval rating!
Congress... I've Been Meaning to Have a Talk With You Lately. You're Fired! More...
Help Us Fund Our Non-Profit Educational Foundation ... Click Here!
SO WE CAN CONTINUE BADGERING CONGRESS TO CALL AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION!
This article discusses "When" sufficient political pressure
be brought upon Congress to compel it to do its required duty
and call an Article V Convention,
and reminds us that
'We The People' are sovereign, not the goverment!
PLEASE JOIN OTHERS AND SEND A PETITION DEMAND TO CONGRESS -->
Topic: Article V Convention
An Important Message Regarding
An Article V Convention
By Bill Walker
Monday, April 11, 2011
FOR MANY YEARS there has been a debate regarding Congress calling an Article V Convention. Article V of the United States Constitution mandates Congress must call a convention for the explicit and express purpose of that convention proposing amendments to the Constitution. The convention must be called, according to the terms of Article V, when two thirds of the state legislatures formally apply (or request) that Congress call a convention. The Constitution establishes no other term or condition for a convention call other than two thirds of the state legislatures must apply for a convention call by Congress. Thus, other than requesting the convention call, the content of a state application, has no bearing on whether Congress must call a convention. The Constitution is explicit: when two thirds of the states apply for a convention call, Congress must call. According to nearly all historical and academic studies, the call is peremptory. Peremptory is a legal term meaning Congress is given no option as to refusing to call a convention. Under the expressed terms of Article V, a convention is not a constitutional convention, that is, it cannot propose or write a new Constitution.
Despite the fact 49 states have submitted over 700 applications (an average of one application every four months by at least one state since our nation's founding) Congress has refused to call the convention as required by the Constitution. Indeed, Congress has been so remiss in its required constitutional duty that it has never even gathered the state applications into a single public record thus allowing public inspection and, of course, forcing Congress to know when the states have applied in sufficient number to cause a convention call. Friends of the Article V Convention (FOAVC) has remedied the congressional omission by compiling the applications through use of photographic copies of official government records and listing them in a single public source. This public record irrefutably proves Congress is currently obligated to call a convention and violates the Constitution for refusing to do so.
Many individuals, state legislatures and public interest groups have, within the last few years, expressed interest in causing Congress to call an Article V Convention. They have suggested a variety of amendment proposals for a convention to consider. Many of these proposals are duplicates of applications already on file with Congress such as balanced budget amendment, state nullification of federal laws, repeal of federal income tax, limitation on national debt and so forth.
To further illustrate how effective Congress is at avoiding its constitutional responsibility, consider that this public record proves at least three amendments subjects, apportionment, repeal of federal income tax and a balanced budget amendment each have received enough applications from the states to cause a convention call on each of those issues. The omission by Congress has thus far been so effective that political leaders of today continue to call for new applications (i.e. balanced budget amendment) despite the fact there is already a sufficient number of applications to cause the convention call for the amendment issue they say they want to achieve!
Groups such as the John Birch Society and Eagle Forum have always opposed an Article V Convention by use of misstatements and other misleading information. Primarily through the work of FOAVC, by use of documented public records and other verifiable information, these misstatements have been corrected. FOAVC has always strived to correct the record regarding any misstatements about a convention regardless of whether the statements are from proponents or opponents to a convention.
It is quite clear that as the truth about an Article V Convention has emerged and the deliberate misstatements have been corrected, the first stage of an Article V Convention, has been reached. This can be classified as the "why" stage of a convention call. The "why" stage deals with the question as "why" should a convention be called by Congress. During this period, the states decide for various political reasons that amendments should be proposed to the Constitution and thus submit the requisite applications to Congress for a convention call. As the states have submitted well in excess of the requisite 34 applications, it is clear the "why" stage of a convention call has been satisfied. However, as already noted, a convention call is based, not on the subject matter of any particular amendment contained within a state application, but on the actual application itself by the state. Thus, a convention call is based on a simple numeric count of applying states (34) with no terms or conditions. This basis of convention call is supported by irrefutable historic record and government statements made in Supreme Court rulings.
The next stage in a convention call is the "how" stage which deals with the operational aspects of the convention itself. In truth, most constitutional scholars have not researched this aspect of a convention that well. Instead of conducting actual research to determine whether sufficient law exists to regulate a convention, most scholars and convention opponents prefer to state a convention should not be held as its operational aspects are unknown and thus, according to them, potentially "dangerous." Nothing is further from the truth. In fact, the historic record, Supreme Court rulings and other such public documentation provide more than enough law, and thus answers, to satisfy all questions regarding the operational aspects of an Article V Convention. In sum, there is more than sufficient well settled law to regulate a convention making its operational aspects no more mysterious or dangerous than any other action of any public governmental body. The same laws that regulate these bodies also apply to a convention.
However, a few scholars have researched the operational aspects of a convention. One such report of the operational aspects of an Article V Convention was released by the Goldwater Institute in September, 2010. The report, entitled, "Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Founders' Plan" was written by Professor Robert G. Natelson. This report proposes a method whereby the states can control the agenda of a convention. The report suggests the states, by use of fiduciary law principles, can control all aspects of an Article V Convention. Under this plan, the convention becomes no more than a politically pre-determined event with little input or control from the people. The report can be read at Goldwater Institute.
Because of concerns regarding what type of convention this plan will create and to correct factual errors within it, I am releasing a rebuttal to the report. The Rebuttal to the Report corrects assumptions in Professor Natelson's report that assert fiduciary law principles can be used to control an Article V Convention. My six months of research leads me to believe fiduciary law principles, unless they are specifically expressed in the Constitution, have no place in constitutional law, let alone serving as the basis of regulation of an Article V Convention. The rebuttal uses historic records of the 1787 Federal Convention, (something not found in Professor Natelson's report) Supreme Court rulings and other relevant public records to demonstrate the Founders had at least two opportunities during their debates over the amendment process in the 1787 convention to introduce such fiduciary controls by the states into Article V. The Founders rejected these opportunities on all occasions and instead relied on other means to allow control of a convention.
The rebuttal agrees with Professor Natelson on one central point. The rebuttal concludes the state legislatures may, if they wish, politically control convention proposal agenda in real time, that is, during the actual convention or, if the states wish, even before a convention occurs. Yet the rebuttal proposal simultaneously allows for a convention to freely discuss and propose whatever amendments it wishes if it is so politically inclined. The convention thus ceases being a figurehead convention as proposed by Professor Natelson and is free to be the constitutional think tank intended by the Founders with full, open, public participation of the people rather than being prone to a pre-determined political outcome controlled by special interests. Unlike Professor Natelson's report, the rebuttal proposal employs Supreme Court rulings as its basis of support. In sum, while the rebuttal proves the method of convention control proposed by Professor Natelson is constitutionally, legally and politically unfeasible, it offers an alterative which satisfies all of these criteria.
I believe this proposal completely eliminates the last argument of those opponents who support Congress' ability to veto the Constitution and not call the convention when it is required to do so. The proposal advances a political solution, long argued as impossible by convention opponents. The proposal is based on solid constitutional grounds. Combined with other answers that FOAVC and others have advanced in the past few years, the questions to the "how" phase of an Article V Convention have been answered. Thus, there is no basis on which to object to a convention as the overreaching argument that operational questions have no answer is incorrect.
Thus, with the release of this rebuttal, the issue shifts to the third phase of an Article V Convention call--the "when" stage. "When" will political pressure be brought upon Congress to compel it to do its required duty and call an Article V Convention.
If you will consider reading this report and passing its contents to as many people as you know that are interested in Article V Convention or have questions regarding it, it would be appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Order Today: Go Green Recycle Congress
Monday, October 12, 2009
Ending America's Acceptance of Permanent War
and Building An America We Can Live With
By Gordon Duff, Staff Writer/Senior Editor
Whatever happened to America? Millions of Republicans voted for Barak Obama, hoping he would just simply do something, maybe anything, not just health insurance reform and political grandstanding for the party faithful. Things had gone that far. Bush left us up to our necks in quicksand of Afghanistan and the Democrats seem to think it's their job to put us the rest of the way under. It doesn't take a genius to figure out we don't really have any government at all, just an overpriced lawyers club trolling the world for a handout.
||Gordon 'Duffster' Duff
The shock America has awakened to is that there is no clear will to change, no will to stop doing everything wrong, no matter how much it hurts, no matter how hopeless and senseless it seems.. We can no longer police the world and keep an economy going back home capable of building jobs. We really seem unable to do anything at all other than bicker among ourselves. We are pros at that.
The idea wasn't that we simply quit trying to run the world, no, we had decided to become reasonable, less belligerent, less braggardly and much more likeable.
This was the whole idea, those who see us as enemies were supposed to take a fresh look at a changed America and our allies who had learned to distrust us were supposed to respond to our call for an equal partnership based on respect.
Are allies friends or the countries we can buy off, bully or coerce? Is an ally a country that shares our delusion or can an ally be one who profits from our insanity and failure?
Afghanistan, Islam And Pakistan
It is impossible to approach a solution in Afghanistan without taking into account the religious implications tied to the war. The United States may have gone to war against terrorists but has ended up in a religious war encompassing, not only Afghanistan but large areas of Pakistan as well.
There has never been any discussion, no real war aim, despite the continual "crusader" references by President Bush, of fighting a war against religious conservatives, Islamic ones at least. They exist in Afghanistan as a seemingly almost cosmic force, the Taliban, with an unrelenting desire to reestablish an Islamic state based on the most restrictive and coercive interpretation of a quasi-religious doctrine.
Their goal is to establish a bronze age pre-agrarian society armed to the teeth with modern weapons purchased for them by friendly Islamic nations whose roads are filled with hi tech German cars.
Separating those participating in the current war into various categories, those fighting for religious reasons, those simply fighting America as a "foreign" power and those with a strong dislike for the unpopular US backed government in Kabul is critical.
We have no clear idea whether those we are fighting desire a return of Taliban rule or simply fair elections and a US withdrawal of forces. There is little hope of a settlement in Afghanistan if we are saddled with supporting the political ambitions of an unpopular government or end up pushing forward a fractionalization based on a simple desire to "cut and run."
Seizing The Reins of Government From Special Interest
Notwithstanding the questions many Americans have about 9/11 or the war in Iraq, questions long suppressed as "unpatriotic," any realistic analysis of why we seem hopelessly stuck in a war supported openly by no faction, no party, no group of any kind in America, is a conundrum.
There is no outcry by political, military or religious leaders in the US to continue the war. There are no vital national interests being spoken of, actually quite the contrary. The war is being spoken of as a threat to our security, world standing and financial well being.
There is even talk of the human loss and suffering it causes, but no concrete action to address this, not in Afghanistan, not with our armed forces nor with our veterans, not more than just enough to fool the public into thinking someone cares when we all know it's a lie.
Any American who simply looks around them, looks into the faces they see every day will see, not just apathy but something akin to the mindless stare of the living dead. Institutionalized war breeds institutionalized indifference.
Veteran's claims are being processed to denial quicker than before. Wounded and sick soldiers are being institutionalized, brutalized and minimized into invisibility. Afghanistan is being developed into a nation capable of exporting record tonnage of opium and importing record tonnage of guns and bombs.
What invisible force is driving us to continue a seemingly endless war? What force pushes us forward, what we believe is forward, when in fact we believe nothing at all, when in fact we know forward doesn't exist? Is it oil and gas pipelines the Taliban refused to be "flexible" about?
Is it our need to keep our troops out of the country, a country where troops come home to live under bridges, fill our jails or die by their own hands?
Are our policies made by the corporations joined at the hip with the Pentagon? For every phony "cost plus" contract, we make an office clerk into a General who retires to join a corporation and turn back into an office clerk, a clerk who helps make another clerk into a General. They call it the "revolving door" but doors don't grind human beings into dust.
How do we talk to them? How do we tell them we have had enough? Just because we don't have Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld doing their childish and idiotic photo opportunities with our troops as though they were children having their pictures taken riding a pony, just because Bush is gone and working so hard to be forgotten, it doesn't make the insanity they began any less poisonous.
How do we tell them. Voting doesn't work, there doesn't really seem to be anyone to vote for. If that was supposed to be a big secret, someone should tell them, "The word is out."
Veterans Today Senior Editor, Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and regular contributor on political and social issues.
Order Today: In 2010 Replace All Incumbents
Plan & Plant A Victory Garden!
Sign-Up for eMail Alerts
CLICK HERE OR COME AGAIN
SIGN THE PETITION
Tell Your Grandchildren You
Helped Save the Republic!
T-Shirts & Tops
Bumper Stickers & Prints
Wear Attire to Political Events
Support Our Efforts
I've Been Meaning to Talk to You. It's About Improving Your Shameful 9% Acceptance Rating.
Buy a Mouse Pad
Click Image Above
Back*: Complete text of Article V in readable lettering Just so others know you support the ONLY way we can get control of our out-of-control government. Demand that Congress call a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution by "We The People...".
* Where Appropriate.