Does An Orderly and Safe Way to Fundamentally Change the U.S. Government Exist?

This article below is a sequel to my essay,Defeating the New World Order and Creating a New Society That Allows Capitalists and Communists to Live Together in Peace After Establishing a New Constitution,” posted previously to disinfo.com.

Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, “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 … to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

If you look at the Constitution of the United States, there is only one paragraph (Article V) that tells how we can change our government. But Article V only discusses how to propose and then ratify amendments.  It does not say anything about the procedures to rewrite the entire Constitution.   At their website, an organization called Friends of the Article V Convention has verified that there have been over 700 petitions for a constitutional convention from state legislatures, but Congress refuses to grant that right, which is an inherent right of “The People.”  [1]

The Friends of the Article V Convention insist that the constitutional convention that is now demanded by the states, based on Article V, can be only for proposing amendments, not about rewriting the US Constitution.  They want a constitutional convention to discuss any amendment issues (like requiring a balanced budget, term limits, and so forth) as they are submitted by the states–amendments which later must be ratified by ¾ of the states.  Read the quote below from their website:

“Constitutional scholars agree that an Article V Convention is limited strictly and exclusively to proposing amendments to the Constitution, which must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states before taking effect.  The Convention itself possesses no legislative or taxing authority: it can only debate, formulate, and propose amendments.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger [2] is a constitutional scholar who does not agree with the constitutional scholars above:

“…The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.  Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey.  After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda.  The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose’.”

Organizations like the John Birch Society [3], the American Policy Center [4], and no doubt millions of other individuals, on the right, left, and in the middle are very fearful of a constitutional convention which has never been tried since the first one in 1787.  Conservatives are sounding the alarm that a constitutional convention would take away the Bill of Rights (especially their gun rights), encourage abortions and euthanasia.  Radicals on the left are also apprehensive about what conservatives might do at a constitutional convention.  And apparently, for different reasons, the US Congress also dreads a constitutional convention, and refuses to turn over any power to the various states to either amend or abolish the constitution.  Here is what the Constitution itself states:

Article 5.

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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

To put those tortuous words in layman’s language, Article V prohibited an amendment banning the slave trade before 1808, which is also discussed in the first and fourth Clauses of Section 9 of Article 1. Small states would be allowed to have two US Senators, or the same number as any other state.  Most important of all, there would be two methods to propose new amendments, and two ways to ratify amendments, according to Article V.

Nothing is mentioned in Article V about completely rewriting the Constitution, and even if it is implied, there is too much fear and paranoia everywhere to allow The People to take matters in their own hands, since the US Congress and other branches of the federal government are not doing their jobs, based on the powers that We the People granted them.

According to Article V, if 2/3 of the state legislatures call for a [national]       Convention just to propose amendments, it is not clearly stated who will decide who attends this Convention to propose amendments.  And then to ratify the proposed amendments, it does state that Congress may propose either that 50 state conventions should ratify or that 50 state legislatures should ratify.

Much of the wording in the Constitution is outdated, complex, and obfuscated.  It may be the supreme law of the land, but it is very boring.  At the very least, we could simplify, clarify, and update the Constitution and make it readable, while removing some of the embarrassing references to slavery, among other things.  If we did just that, average citizens would read it and become empowered by it.

Many conservatives are concerned that a liberal US Congress would unduly influence the Constitutional Convention if Congress selected the delegates that attended the national proposing Convention and the state ratifying conventions.  They also are worried that a runaway Convention would change the ratification requirements.  And they argue that the liberal media would bias people in the wrong way, if there was a constitutional convention.  Some individuals argue that there would be rioting in the streets and possibly another civil war, if we had the second constitutional convention.  Others say they fear a constitutional convention merely because they do not trust the current political climate in Washington DC.  These fears, whether they are justified or unfounded, need to be addressed.

The challenge for many of us, on the right and the left, is that we do want to rewrite the US Constitution so that we can have a better government.  But we do not want to attempt it, unless it is done in a nonviolent, orderly, and constitutional way.

One of the ways we can allay the deep fears that many people have about a constitutional convention is to propose a Twenty-Eighth Amendment which could revise and clarify Article V.  Since more than 2/3 of the states have called for a constitutional convention, it is long overdue.  If we get new, clearly stated, and proper guidelines for having a constitutional convention–citizens will approach this event with enthusiasm and hope.  The process could cause them to exercise their civic rights and responsibilities as never before, as this new monumental endeavor begins.

If the Constitutional Convention delegates created a document that was outlandishly foolish, The People, and the states, would simply scoff at it and reject it outright, and things would then continue as they were before.  As bad as Congress is perceived to be, do you think it would have the temerity to say, “Okay, we will call for a constitutional convention, but we ourselves will select all the state delegates.”  Article V needs to revised, in order to make a Constitutional Convention orderly, safe, and fair.  Here is an example of how the Twenty-Eighth Amendment could read:

Twenty-Eighth Amendment

Throughout our nation’s history over 700 applications have been filed by state legislatures to request a national Constitutional Convention, from all 50 states, though not always for the same reason and not always in the same time period.  Though the US Congress has a duty to call for a Constitutional Convention when 2/3 of the states request it—the US Congress, the President, and the US Supreme Court will not have the right to influence or control this process in any way, when this method of changing the Constitution is chosen.

Each state legislature shall send one delegate to participate in the Constitutional Convention, based on the Instant Runoff Voting of the citizens in the state:  Voters of each state will rank 7 candidates in the order of their preferences. The seven most numerous political parties of each state will offer the voters of each state a proposed constitution and a potential constitutional delegate, who might be the one selected by the state to represent it, at the Constitutional Convention.  For example, here is how one voter from Indiana might rank her votes, based on the seven most numerous political parties in Indiana:

Republican Party, 1st Constitution Party, 2nd Libertarian Party, 3rd

Democratic Party, 4th Green Party, 5th

Socialist Party, 6th Communist Party, 7th

If no candidate in Indiana gets a 51% majority, then before the second round of voting begins, the candidate who had the least amount of votes in Indiana would be dropped from the list of choices (making the total now 6).  If after the second round of voting, still no candidate has a 51% majority, then the candidate who had the least amount of votes would be dropped (making the list of choices now 5).  If after the third round of voting, the Republican Party (which may have just proposed the Constitution we have now) received at least 51% of the votes, then its candidate would be the delegate representing Indiana at the national Constitutional Convention.

The 50 representatives from each state will choose where, when, and how they will have the Constitutional Convention within three months.  After that, the Convention will have one year to work on several revisions, if necessary, of the newly proposed Constitution, in the constant effort to get ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify it.  If a state ratifies a version and a new version is made, that state must vote again on the latest version.  If the new constitution does not get ¾ of the states to ratify it, then the proposed constitution will be null and void, and the current Constitution will continue as before.  All of the debates and dialogue of the delegates will be publicized, and citizens will be allowed to voice their opinions in the process.    Thereafter, whenever 2/3 of the state legislatures again call for another Constitutional Convention for any reason, then this process must be started anew.

There is another way to make amendments to the United States Constitution:  If 2/3 of the members of both Houses of the United States Congress approve of a proposed amendment, then that amendment will not be ratified and added to the Constitution, until ¾ of the state legislatures approve it.  The state legislatures will have one year to decide over the amendment proposed by Congress.   If a state endorses a proposed amendment, it is allowed to rescind its approval later. However, once an amendment is officially passed, a state cannot rescind its previous approval of that ratified amendment.   [End of amendment proposal]

This proposed amendment to revise Article V, does not allow Congress to ever choose state conventions as a way to ratify amendments or a new constitution.  Only state legislatures can ratify amendments or a new constitution.

Our current system is based on “the winner takes all,” which means if a candidate got a plurality with a mere 35% of the popular vote, for example, he or she could get elected.  Our nation still uses the Electoral College system for electing presidents, which is not considered to be very democratic.  Though I admire libertarian Ron Paul, I regret that he still endorses the Electoral College system.

Some people say, “We just need to follow and obey the Constitution we have for a change.”  Those people need to be asked, “Do you mean the Constitution including all the amendments?  Do you believe that certain amendments were big mistakes?   Do you believe some amendments were unconstitutionally ratified?” Upon closer examination, you will find that many of these people are dissatisfied with the Constitution in some  respects.  With a new constitutional convention, they would have an equal opportunity to fine tune the Constitution more to their liking.  We the People are capable of having a constitutional convention.  And we can do it in an orderly, safe, lawful, and fair way.

After the proposed Twenty-Eighth Amendment is ratified, which calls for a Constitutional Convention, political parties and concerned citizens could start publicizing their own proposed constitutions months in advance before the Constitutional Convention began.  Delegates attending the Convention would be held accountable to their political party and the citizens from their home state.  If done in this way, there would be no shocking surprises.

Moreover, if people see workable ways that our “sacred” Constitution and government can be improved, they will be more inclined to consider a constitutional convention.  To show one way our current Constitution and government could be improved, I have written a new constitution, called the Third Constitution of the United States (the first constitution was the Articles of Confederation, the second is the one we now have). [5]

In the Introduction to my Third Constitution, I list 45 reasons why we need a new constitution.  The average US citizen would agree with most of my recommendations once they were fully understood. Considering the corruption in government, the shortcomings of our current Constitution, and the differences in political preferences that have emerged since our Constitution was implemented in 1789–the only solution is to create a new document that creates a live-and-let-live society.

In my Third Constitution I advocate Instant Runoff Voting, which would give third parties equal access to the political process.  I recommend having 435 federal legislators (as we now have in the House of Representatives), based on districts of equal population.  However, the US Senate is totally eliminated, and all bills must be passed with a 2/3 majority, not a mere 51percent.  The new government that would evolve from the Third Constitution would be devised in a way that would make a smooth transition from the old to the new. It would build government from the bottom-up, not from the top-down, which has never been tried before.

The Third Constitution would maximize local community self-reliance, whenever possible.  Each precinct community could choose free market capitalism or socialism, or some mixed economic system.  In dealing with matters such as rivers, power lines, fire and police protection, for example, the preferences of precincts could be overruled by township boards, the preferences of townships could be overruled by county boards, the preferences of counties could be overruled by state government boards.  Each state would be largely autonomous.   The federal government would be greatly downsized and have narrowly defined powers such as national defense, interstate trade, and so forth.

Each neighborhood precinct would choose one representative to serve on the township board.  The township board would have legislative powers and make judicial and executive appointments that pertain to that particular township.  Each township board would vote (among themselves) and send one representative to the county board.  The county board would have legislative powers and make judicial and executive appointments that pertain to that county.  Each county board would vote (among themselves) and send one of its board members to the state government board.  The state government board would have legislative powers and make judicial and executive appointments.

In years past, I typically voted a straight ticket for about 20 different offices about which I knew very little.  The process usually took about four minutes.  I do not think everyday citizens should vote for a county recorder, state auditor, and similar offices.  Experts who work in these fields should appoint persons for these types of positions.

However, in annual elections, members of a precinct could replace their one representative to the township board, for example, based on that person’s voting record and performance.  The township board, in annual elections, could choose to elect a different person to sit on the county board for the same reasons.  The county board also could choose a different person to represent it, at the state level.

In Indiana, for example, (if you can cope momentarily with some of these details) the city of Indianapolis and Marion County pretty much have geographical boundaries that coincide.  There are about 600 precincts in Marion County (each precinct has about 500 adult voters).   There are 9 townships inside the county.  That means each township board would consist of 66-67 precinct representatives (600/9=66.6).  Each of the 9 township boards would elect one representative to serve on the county board, which would thus have 9 members, at least in Marion County.

There are 92 counties in Indiana, so therefore there would be 92 members on the State Government Board, which would replace the current Indiana House and Senate state legislators.   Each state legislator currently represents about 600,000 or more adult voters, a number that is way too large.  A precinct president and delegate to the township board, on the other hand, could easily become acquainted with all of the 500 voters in his or her precinct.

Here is another aspect of this system, which I call the precinct empowerment system: Let us say Wayne Township has Precincts #533-600 in Marion County.  If the Wayne Township Board elects Mrs. Smith (from Precinct  #539 in Wayne Township) to serve on the Marion County Government Board, replacing Mr. Jones (from Precinct  #581, also in Wayne Township), then Precinct  #581 in Wayne Township has no one in government representing it, since Mr. Jones was removed.  So the voters of Precinct  #581 would vote for a person to serve on the Wayne Township Board to fill the vacancy there that occurred when  Mrs. Smith advanced to the Marion County Board, replacing Mr. Jones.

Now, even if Mrs. Smith got promoted to the State Government Board, either the members of the Marion County Board, where she came from, or the people in Precinct  #539, where Mrs. Smith came from originally–could vote her out of government  completely, if they were not happy with her performance at the State Government Board.  If that happened, then the voters in Precinct  #539, where Mrs. Smith came from, would need to vote for someone to serve on the Wayne Township Government Board.

Indiana now has 10 federal legislators who serve in the US House of Representatives and 2 US Senators (like every other state).  Since the US Senate is eliminated under the Third Constitution, Indiana would have 10 federal legislators to serve in the new, unicameral US Congress.  So, an  Indiana citizen would vote for one person, from his or her precinct, to serve in either township, county, or state government, depending on how high  that representative advances.  That Indiana voter would also vote for a president of the United States and one federal legislator to serve in the US Congress.   That would bethree elected officials to keep track of closely, not twenty-three.

Though most of the 600 precincts will not have their representative on one of the 9 township boards become a representative on the 9-member city-county board, it will not matter that much in this highly decentralized society:  A state will not do whatever a self-reliant county can do; a county will not do whatever a self-reliant township can do; and a township will not do whatever a self-reliant precinct can do.  Indiana might choose this system; other states might choose something else or even keep the system they have.

A lot of the details in my essays and the Third Constitution are being revised constantly, as I get feedback from people. Many individuals do not want to read a long essay, especially about getting rid of our “sacred” Constitution.  When I share my political beliefs with family and friends, they say things like “That’s too disturbing to think about.  If it’s true, I don’t even want to hear it.  After all, what can I do about it?  You can’t change the system.  It’s too powerful.”

A new US Constitution could motivate people to make civics vitally part of their everyday reflections.  Many people feel apathetic and powerless about participating in government.   But it does not have to be that way.

If we sit back and do nothing, the powerful corporations and global elitists, bent on establishing a new world order, will remake our society for us, and they will not be hampered by our current Constitution and government.  We can remake our Constitution in a way that truly empowers common people for the first time, and we can drastically reduce corruption in government.  But we better act now before it is too late.

Roger Copple retired this year (May 2010) from teaching third grade in a public school in Indianapolis.  He turned 60 on June 3.  Roger became a libertarian supporting Ron Paul after previously identifying with the Green movement.  Now he is trying to reconcile libertarian, socialist, and anarchist political theories.  He has a Master’s degree in Special Education, and a Bachelor’s in Elementary Education. He can be reached at rcopple@comcast.net.

Endnotes

[1] Here is the link to the Friends of Article V Convention  Frequently Asked Questions:  http://www.foa5c.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=2

[2] Scroll down the page at this link and you can read Chief Justice Burger’s comments in a letter to Phyllis Schlafly :http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/burger.htm

[3] This John Birch Society website article also refers to part 1 of 4 youtube videos entitled “Beware of Article 5 Convention” which explains their viewpoints  on this issue: http://jbs.org/freedom-campaign/4941 . All four of the youtube videos can also be found here: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=beaware+of+article+5+convention&aq=f

[4] Here is a link to the American Policy Center: http://americanpolicy.org/more-issues/powerful-forces-now-calling-for-a-constitutional-convention.html

[5] The “Third Constitution of the United States” and the latest version of my essay “Defeating the New World Order and Creating a New Society That Allows Capitalists and Communists to Live Together in Peace After Establishing a New Constitution” which was posted at www.disinfo.com on July 4, 2010, and some of my other writings, can be found at my website www.NowSaveTheWorld.com .

, , , ,

  • Hadrian999

    no, people will react violently to any massive change in government.
    real or perceived threats to their way of life, social or economic status or
    threats to the “real culture” of the nation will create violent reactionaries no matter which way
    such a governmental shift is heading.

    • RONIN

      Well that settles it. Can't argue with an assertion like that.

      • Hadrian999

        i don't mean to discourage people from trying but we need to understand the risks involved and do it right.
        any great social upheaval will have a cost in blood. I saw firsthand what happened to the common people in Iraq when we changed the government there with no real plan. changing the government without due care and thought is on par with genocide in my opinion because that is where it can lead. anyone who wants to undertake something of this nature had better damn well do it carefully because some will pay the ultimate price for our progress.

        • RONIN

          Given your first comment, it doesn't sound to me like you have much faith in it actually being done carefully.

          By the way, what is “it” anyway, because, the way you're putting it, it's sound like you're expecting something abrupt and hard-hitting, relatively speaking.

          • Hadrian999

            even slowly i would expect whichever group gets the short end of the stick to spawn terrorist groups.
            in today's political climate of “were right everyone who isnt with us is evil” it's very easy to see the cynical
            to use the young angry and disaffected as tools as we see elsewhere in the world. now if it is a fast change
            well that's easy enough to predict. any breakdown in authority leads to some measure of chaos and people testing the limits.

          • http://www.NowSaveTheWorld.com Rcopple

            Dear Hadrian 999 and Ronin,

            Your fears and doubts are shared by many. But if Article V was totally revised in a new Twenty-Eighth Amendment, which would not be an easy task, it would reassure alarmists from the left and right that we could have an orderly and safe constitutional convention. Then we would create a nonviolent revolution that would bring our shattered nation back together again. Sometimes in life we have to take risks in order to save ourselves.

            Roger Copple

          • Hadrian999

            i'm not averse to the risk i just hope we do it right. too often in our vanity we expect things to fall together easily and don't think things through enough. i really hope when people start to make changes they are really prepared for the consequences

          • Gemmarama

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/it_felt_l
            http://www.archive.org/details/AdamCurtis_TheTrap
            http://www.archive.org/details/AdamCurtis_ThePo

            i don't know if you guys will have seen these in america, but they're well worth watching. any meaningful change would have to be seismic and cover more than merely the political sphere. people are so resistant to change for a reason… happy viewing gents.

          • BAITNSWITCH

            Don't touch the Constitution, and we don't touch the throat!!!! That is the hard hitting response you go after the peoples rights they go after you!!!!

          • RONIN

            Well I do like that sentiment, but I think we both know how easy it is to say that online. Is there anything backing up those words other than your faith in the people to do what you perceive to be the right thing?

  • 5by5

    Yes. Run-off voting.

  • Fvckk-that

    fvck that, dont change it, make your dirty rulers obey it and youll be fine. wow, i dunno, if u let someone rewrite (remake) the constitution now,do u have any idea the dirty loopholes that would end up hurting us and benefiting those in power? try reading some bills, and compare the writing in the bill to the way shit actually ends up. yeah bad idea. fail.

    • BAITNSWITCH

      Yea people got to be dumb 2 fall 4 this. A re-wright of the Constitution would only serve to take away rights!!!!

    • http://lovewithoutsound.tumblr.com adam

      It depends on who you let re-write it. If it's the same assholes in right now then yeah totally it will fuck us. If we wise up and put in power those who actually represent us and are not in it for a career to write out a new constitution, that would work.

  • Leif

    Yes, stop giving money to the multinational corporations that put the politicians in office.

  • Belcat

    If you ask me, the right-wing is already well on it's way with this, before Obama.
    They did it by making the left seem ineffective, and by making it seem like they are “bleeding hearts”, stealing your money through taxes, and Fox News re-making news the way it sees fits with it's agenda (omitting, misquoting, etc).
    It's very subtle, and so it works very well, but slowly but surely it's been re-made.

    • RONIN

      I don't watch Fox News so I'm not quite familiar with all of their devious tricks. What are some examples of things they've omitted, misquoted or whatever else in order to serve their agenda?

  • Bill Walker

    The

  • Bill Walker

    Sorry for the lower post mistake. The author gives some misinformation in his column. It is not the opinion of FOAVC that a convention must be called but rather an admission by the federal government such a convention is mandated. This was admission was made by the government in a federal lawsuit before the supreme court. Moreover the reference to the Burger letter doesn't mention the letter is a phoney. We discuss that fact in our website in our FAQ section. You also can read about this at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5838.html and at http://www.nolanchart.com/article6024.html.

    The author proposes an amendment. FOAVC is non-partisan. We take no position on any amendment proposal and therefore will not comment on this one way or another. However, the language of the Constitution is clear: An amendment becomes part of the present Constitution and thus an amendment will not remove the rest of the Constitution. It would still exist and be full effect. Thus the idea of writing it to make less “boring” simply is not possible. That language would remain and cannot be removed even by amendment. This is why amendments are at the end of the Constitution with any language that the amendments effect still printed along with the amendment.

    I suggest all interested go to the FOAVC site, http://www.foavc.org and study the material before reaching any conclusions.

    • Rcopple

      Dear Bill Walker,

      I apologize if I did not share accurate information about the goals of FOAVC. One of the reasons I sent my essay to FOAVC was to get their opinion since I mentioned them. You are saying, if I understand you correctly, that FOAVC is not insisting a ConCon, but that the federal government has admitted that a ConCon should be commanded. My question then would be, why has the Congress refused to call a Convention?

      I never thought that the letter from Chief Justice Burger might be a forgery. I will have to look into that some more. I primarily listed it to show that this is what many people believe, which makes it hard to get public support for a ConCon. I agree that amendments cannot change the body of the Constitution, but I think a new amendment about Article V, could change the methodology of Article V. Are you saying that creating a totally new Constitution is not legal? Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, that The People have a right “to abolish” their government. Are you saying that We the People cannot do that, but only make amendments? I hope that my essay will cause more people to check out your website at http://www.FOAVC.org. Thanks for your feedback.

      Roger Copple

  • John

    The only reason anyone would fear the Article V Convention is because they don't actually know what it is. Standard parliamentary procedure is not some sort of chaos. Someone proposes an idea, it suffers debate, when all the angles have been covered, the question is called, and the idea is voted up or down. If you were a delegate to a convention, the whole world would be watching, do you think you'd start foaming at the mouth, trying to beat another delegate over the head with your shoe? And if anyone wants to re-write the Constitution, they'd have to first propose that doing so is legal, get that ratified by 38 states, and then come back to propose their new constitution. The Framer's did not place a self-destruct button in their masterwork.

    Then let's consider that those campaigning to be delegate are going to have to articulate specific issues they want to propose. Elections for delegates will not be Repub/Dem forked-tongue affairs, and what's more, the delegates will not be looking to be re-elected to anything, so they won't have to worry about what they say.

    Just coercing the call out of the Congress would stop “Poilitics As Usual” dead in its tracks, and it's Politics as Ususal which is currently dismantling the Constitution. The Article V Convention is actually the Declaration of Independence written into the Constitution, the genius of it, that it provides for a peaceable revolution. Do you think politicians and corporate media want to suddenly be talking about the whole country coming together in a deliberative assembly, and all the common-sense ideas about governance it will generate?

    This project here is designed to help put the preassure on Congress to issue the call: http://www.conventionusa.org

    If they could have told us to take the Constitution and shove it they would have. But they can't because that will wake the sovereign giant that sleeps within all of us collectively. So get your heads screwed on, it's convention or bust, and “bust” in this case means corporate slavery.

  • bamboozledagain

    The laws we write are meaningless words on paper. What people need to know to be happy is built in and laws can only be excuses to justify the use of force to herd the unwilling into servitude. I see no easy way for a nation born and bred in war, slavery, genocide, deception, and thievery to change its ways when it's still being led by disinterested treasure hunters and its people are not being encouraged to learn how to tell the difference between shoe polish and dog shit… we don't have any enemies to worry about as dangerous as ourselves… because we really believe what we do is the right thing to do, so right that we believe it will always be right and we should write it down so our children's children's children's… can see how good we were and be like us. Moses thought he had a good idea, too…

    • RONIN

      I concur.

    • John

      It's all about the tipping-point: If we get 15-30 million Americans calling for the Article V Convention we can move back to the rule of law. It is actually how a nation born of certain things can hit the reset button. Think of it, do politicians and media heads want to talk about America's first deliberative assembly on authority of the Constitution? In that sense the law is not meaningless words on paper, but principles we can either rally for, or pay the consequences for not doing so.

      You can be part of the solution, or you can fume about the symptoms. Check this link: http://www.conventionusa.org

      It's an endeavor to help show what the Article V Convention is, and raise awareness about why we should utilize it at this point.

      • bamboozledagain

        Allow me to expand, but first to apologize for any percieved rudeness–I tend to be blunt and distill things down to an essence, it's often offensive. Sorry.

        Having a rule against cheating and having punishments ready to hand out to “correct” rule breaking has not prevented cheating… it's only forced the clever to find ways to avoid disclosure. Punative law is for the benefit of the owners, not for the mules under its yoke.

        The ruling paradigm in democracy is “The most good for the most number”; that's a formula that works well for shipping clerks, route managers, air traffic controllers, etc… it's efficient but it plays hell when you try to make people a part of that equation. It's like this: Say you're on a ship and the engine room catches fire, the whole crew and passengers are in for certain doom if the fire doesn't get put out… everyone's panicing and the Captain is left with the decision to remotely shut the engine room doors and put out the fire by depriving it of oxygen, thus killing for certain the men in the engine room. Should he do it? The guys in the engine room are nameless Indonesian mechanics but the passengers are all well known celebraties (your personal favorite is among them) and families w/ kids on vacation.

        Now before we check and see what the contract they signed before they boarded the ship says, let's just go right to what I'm on about: People will do what they are programmed to do without thinking about it or consulting the “Contract” when they are pressed into action, they go to default mode. If the Captain is programmed to think of those mechanics as expendable they will be. On the other hand if those people were not mechanics and it was Angelina Jollie and the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, half the men on the boat would volunteer for hero duty.

        So, in my mind it's not the law that needs changing, it's the way we think about things that isn't appropriate anymore. It worked great for crawling out of the slime but we did that long ago, now Earth is our space ship, together we're all taking a trip through time on it and it's time we realised that everything becomes secondary to what we as indivivuals value most. I value the health of the life on board above the health of the market that keeps the ship owner's private yachts afloat. Earth said it agrees with me.

        No matter how well written a contract is at the time it is written, as time goes on the words will gain different meanings to suit whoever is in possesion of the “White-out®” and “Magic Marker®” so giving the treasure hunters another way to get along with each other while they turn us all into mules doesn't appeal to me. The more we have to shore up this tower of Babel, the more garbage is going to pile up on us when it falls of its own weight.

        Laws don't work, people do, and I'm not voting again unless it's for an anarchist running for Dictator for Life! ;-)
        Bam

        • John

          Bam, in our case today, it's about getting enough signed on and advocating for the Article V Convention. Even if your anarchist did raise the millions to wage a campaign, the electronic voting machines would likely not compute in favor. It's convention of bust. Think about it. And while you're at it, perhaps put $10 a month where your mouth is? http://www.conventionusa.org

          • bamboozledagain

            Honestly, what good do you think will come by giving Washington one more thing to defend itself from? They're eating a plateful of dog shit with a toothpick, already.

            I guess I'm not being blunt enough. To answer the question the title asks I would say: “No, but it might be”, while your answer is “Don't even give it a chance”. And to offer further evidence that people with plans that other people need to follow are not leadership material I will add that they have no sense of humor and the power of abstract thinking while remaining grounded in reality escapes them.

            You can't vote for anarchy, Sparky! And you can't pick my pockets by distracting me and engaging my enthusiasm to fix things, I have none left. I no longer concern myself with who wins the political cockfight in America inc… why should I? Whoever wins will still think of other people as something in their way.

            Governments think they need to expect the worst from people while I expect the best, why would I throw in with something new that I believe will eventually label free men “Criminals” and bury future generations in debt like the old one did? No matter what words are on your document, the momentum of the river of money is what everyone is caught up in and short of getting out of the river all together we're not stopping until we hit the falls.

            I've noticed that shit runs downhill so I'm just gonna get used to the smell.

            Rots of ruck on your next erection,;-)
            Bam

            (Please feel free to take your last shot, that was mine, and thanks for your time);)

          • John

            “No, but it might be.”

            Exactly.

            So what are you going to do?

            Free men are already criminals in the eyes of the criminals currently locking down governance. The Article V Convention is the one and only thing they fear. If they fear it, I'm all for it–which is why pitched in my .02 here, supporting the idea.

            Piss and moan about the symptoms of the problem, or advocate for the solution.

  • John

    “No, but it might be.”

    Exactly.

    So what are you going to do?

    Free men are already criminals in the eyes of the criminals currently locking down governance. The Article V Convention is the one and only thing they fear. If they fear it, I’m all for it–which is why pitched in my .02 here, supporting the idea.

    Piss and moan about the symptoms of the problem, or advocate for the solution.

21
More in Change, Constitution, Government, Politics
How Facts Backfire: A Surprising Threat to Democracy — Our Brains

This article reminds me of Stephen Colbert's character: "I don't like books, they're all fact, no heart." Seems like political scientists are finally paying more attention to "Truthiness". Joe Keohane...

Close