If you did not read through, Rusty1776's diary yesterday was refreshing:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
In it, I personally see truth coming to light. How far out into the light will the truth come, who knows? We can only say what's on our minds.
But if you had to tally the voices for impeachment and against the status quo, and the voices against impeachment and for the status quo, I'd say the former far outweigh the latter.
Anyway, if you have time for a little "They said/I said" from another diary last night....
If you scroll through the comments in Rusty1776’s diary, you catch glimpses of us monkeys wising up: that subpoenas are distractions away from the inaction of Congress. This will prove false as soon as Impeachment proceedings get underway. But I’m doubting they will. Not because there is any sort of political expediency and/or maneuvering, but because the Congress has been taken over by special interests. If true, then we must realize that no amount of work to "elect" new faces to it is going to change that.
Take that sentiment or leave it.
If, perchance, the Americans who frequent this site come round to the same conclusion--if you take it--you’d probably want to know what the hell can be done to remove the special interests from Congress, so we can get some form of credible governance back intact.
Of course, as a few of you may know, a small but growing number advocate dusting off the U.S. Constitution and putting it to work for us.
Last night there was a diary by xynz: http://www.dailykos.com/...
While I didn't care to discuss anything about Kos, I did zero in on his comment about how Congress--Republicans as well as Democrats--have "...united behind a secret 'free' trade deal and they've agreed to leave the corrupt lobbying system intact...." (And in case you did not hear it between Chris Matthews and Trent Lott last night, they're going to attempt to use the immigration issue to institute a national ID card.)
And to that quote I replied:
yes, this is why we need to dust of the constitution and put it to work for us. http://www.foavc.org
all this talk of the constitution lately causes me to remind folks that the document is made up of two types of law: structural and civil.
the civil law can be debated all day long and forever. the stuctural law revolves around the word Shall.
one of the instances of shall is that which states "congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments...."
since there is this strange situation that both parties have united behind a secret "free" trade deal and left a corrupt lobbying system intact, that is exactly when to put the convention clause to work.
the talk of impeacement in rusty1776's diary is nice, but ultimately even if we did successfully impeach, the special interests which control the congress would still be in place.
and let's not even start about how the special interests have allowed the country to inch closer to a brand new and permanent voting machine lobby.
And then xync replied:
A Constitutional Convention would be a means for wholesale change. But I think that would be too dangerous, due to the disproportionate power the Christian Right has over the frame of debate in the US. Too many Americans believe in Creationism for anything good to come out of a Constitutional Convention.
As I've noted previously, we can move to a Parliamentary system without amending the Constitution....
Then I said:
huh? you seem to be under the same spell most americans are, that by discussing an idea at convention it will somehow accidentally turn into law.
this is an unwarranted fear since a convention does not have power of ratification. ratification requires 38 states to agree to an idea before anything is amended. this would not take place over night, but it would return the country to the rule of law over night, because anyone who was corrupt would suddenly realize they might soon find themselves without cover.
the reason the framers made ratification a 3/4 requirement is because they knew whatever the idea--conservative to liberal--it's going to need all of one group signed on, plus at least half the other.
all this means, that if an idea is even slightly questionable--it's toast. it'll never get ratified. a proposed amendment must have overwhelming and broad support (there are literally thousands of proposed amendments in the office of the secretary of congress now, in various stages of ratification--the idea got ten states to sign on, twenty--whatever--but never garnered the required 3/4).
with the country as polarized as it is today the only things with any chance of ratification are electoral reform, media reform, balanced budget, term limits, tax reform.
so, a national convention--or Article V Convention--is not a wholesale rewrite of anything. it's the legal mechanism to turn the lights ON when the bullshit of politicians makes it too dark to see.
it's important to look at the convention clause in real terms, not in theory. in real terms, once the call is issued, the states would hold special elections for delegates, and since the delegates are not running for an office, but simply to attend a conventionto propose ideas--what are the corporate interests going to buy? and what will any shills propose--that the status quo stays in place?
the dynamic would be the same as if impeachment proceedings began--whomever is not guilty would get the hell out of the way because the vast majority of the electorate has had enough of politics as ususal.
the constitution was written specifically to be amended, and the framers all agreed there ought to be two ways to propose those amendments: when the one tended toward institutionalized corruption, the states would get fed up and apply for a convention. read Federalist 85.
the convention clause is in the constitution specifically to crush the globalist agenda which threatens our country today.
And then xynz replied:
Yes, well, with over 2/3rds of the American people believing in the Religious Right's frame of science wrt Creationism, then it is very likely that they could be convinced to do something incredibly silly....like ratify an amendment to ban alcoholic beverages.
I know that it's very silly of me to think that the American people would ever do something so stupid.
But considering the fact that they are still practicing a de-facto prohibition of something relatively innocuous, like marijuana, then while they might not actually ban alcohol, they could very well be deceived into doing something equally silly.
We need heaps of campaign finance reform, a return of the fairness doctrine and some real public education about what the Constitution is supposed to do, before we can trust the electorate to amend it.
And then I replied:
you appear to believe what the media has told you.
i've toured the country three times, once during the 2004 presidential campaign, where i went to a dozen rallies each of both bush and kerry. i talked with americans from the left and the right about the convention clause.
my research refutes your assertions as bogus. americans are not 2/3rds of a religious right's frame of mind. they are sensible, concerned citizens, who want to live and let live.
the history of the amendment which had alcohol banned was that of a very different era. to equate that era and that sensibility with today is silly.
the things we need--campaign reform, return of a fairness doctrine--would be issues that would be raised at a national convention so your position is without logic.
you are the proverbial horse led to water.
Anyway, all I ask is that anyone reading please keep in mind the option of the convention clause. If it happens, the same dynamic will appear as would if impeachment appeared--those who are not guilty and/or corrupt would get the hell out of the way. Except a convention would be different than impeachment in that it would be a civic ceremony, and non-partisan. Yes, there will be partisan amendments proposed, but the convention itself is non-partisan. Doesn't that sound like fun? Sounds like a lot more fun than all the nonsense that would arise out of impeachment, but with the same result: a revival of the U.S. Constitution, and a return to the rule of law.
Plus the joy of seeing some modern-day Jeffersons and Madisons emerge. They are out there, they are here on this website, and we will witness them if enough of us want to.
And I mean joy in the sense that the mugs on C-Span are no joy.