Over the transom today is late word the great state of North Dakota is talking Article V Convention.
What does this mean? Right now on the Rec list is a diary posted by Howard Dean where he says:
We are all in this together and our American community can come together and move forward toward a brighter future. This country works when we work together and pull each other up.
http://www.inforum.com/...
BISMARCK – North Dakota lawmakers who want to do their part to help control the nation’s debt had their first hearing Wednesday.
A group of lawmakers wants the Legislature to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the nation’s state legislatures.
"The debt that we’re seeing right now is just horrific, and one party can point to the other, and both are guilty. We’ve all done this to ourselves," said Rep. Blair Thoreson, R-Fargo.
The nation’s debt of more than $14 trillion equates to more than $45,000 per citizen and $126,000 per taxpayer, said Sen. Curtis Olafson, R-Edinburg.
"The debt is dangerously close to where I feel that it is a serious, an imminent threat to our very sovereignty as a nation," Olafson said. "We have to find some way to get this debt under control."
If approved, Senate Concurrent Resolution 4007 states North Dakota favors a convention to be called for the federal debt constitutional amendment.
Article V of the Constitution states Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of two-thirds of the nation’s legislatures.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution when ratified by three-fourths, or 38, of the state legislatures, according to Article V. Congress may also allow ratification by conventions in three-fourths of states....
Olafson became involved in the federal debt issue after being contacted by Dallas-based RestoringFreedom.Org. He said it is not a partisan movement since the federal debt is not a partisan issue.
"We must act now. A runaway Article V Convention is a myth. A runaway $14 trillion debt is a reality," Olafson said.
As Progressives, if there are no funds to fund social programs and strengthen society, what's the point? It's like sitting in the family station wagon, talking about where we're going on vacation with no gas in the car. We Progressives need to talk about a lot of things before we plan on advocating for social issues. We need to find common ground with our fellow conservative citizens first.
Peacable Reformation
All facts on the table, objectively there's no other way to resolve the issues facing the United States of America other than the Article V Convention. It would elevate political discourse by raising it above soundbites and partisan politics. We'd be looking at possible amendments to the Constitution, a profound task, so vague rhetoric and insincerity would be exposed. The process of the convention itself is a dynamic that corporate interests will not be able to control. It's their greatest fear--a runaway convention of the people, by the people, for the people.
It will awaken a sense of confidence and participation in We The People, this will flow back into and reinvigorate the regular political process. It would provide an opportunity to expose and reign in the effects of money on the political process. Can you imagine even questioning corporate personhood in the mainstream national discourse? Where else would this issue be raised? In the corporate media? By corporate politicians? It would call the bluff on those who only talk about the Constitution, and there are many folks of many different political persuasions who are sincere in their concern about the direction of our country. Do you think Tea Party folks want to let the banks run roughshod over everyone?
The common refrain against the Article V Convention is: A Constitutional Convention would be Co-opted by Corrupt Corporatists and Crazy Christians.
The talking points of Anti-Conventionists:
- Once called, a Constitutional Convention becomes its own authority and cannot be limited;
- A corollary to the point above is that a Con-Con may become a "runaway convention" that drastically alters our form of government, or throws out the Constitution altogether and establishes an entirely new system of governance.
- It is absurd to believe that a majority (or even a sizable minority) of the individuals likely to be delegates to a Con-Con today would compare favorably with our nation’s Founders or share their commitment to liberty and limited government.
- The general public’s understanding of our Constitution has deteriorated greatly, while dependence on government programs has dramatically escalated since our founding, with both of these factors militating for bigger and bigger government.
The Framers did not place a self-destruct button in their masterwork. The Article V Convention does not become its own authority, in fact it’s strictly limited to proposing amendments "...to this Constitution...." If a delegate or group of delegates wanted to re-write the Constitution (the Seven Articles), they’d first have to propose an amendment allowing for that, go out and get it ratified by 38 states, then come back to draft a new constitution (and then get that ratified).
Does anyone believe an amendment allowing for the re-writing of the Constitution would be ratified today? Unlike most political situations the minority controls the process: to stop any amendment is a nay in 13 state legislatures, or more specifically, a nay vote in one house of each of those legislatures, or even more specifically, a nay vote in a committee of one of the houses. As those committees are run by chairs, a nay vote can be obtained with no more than 13 people, and the constitutional proposal will await ratification in vain.
In addition to that safety--consider this: a federal convention convened would contrast sharply with the modus operandi within Congress. It would be a unicameral assembly, with no conference committees required to reconcile divergent House/Senate bills. Nor would a supermajority of two-thirds be required: rather a simple majority to propose an Amendment to the States for ratification. There would be no labyrinth of autonomous standing committees, with autocratic chairmen, to pass through; and no Filibuster to overcome. Salutary checks and balances would be deferred until proposals reach the States, and again, where three-fourths 38 States would have to ratify anything emerging from "...a convention for proposing Amendments...."
Convoking a federal convention and carrying out that constitutional process is what will re-educate us all about what the Constitution means, and what our origins are. Delegates don't need to be Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, they don't need to reinvent the wheel, they simply need to have common sense.
Then consider the process of electing delegates:
Delegates will be elected to their positions of office. In Hawke v Smith (253 U.S. 221 (1920)) the Supreme Court addressed the issue when it discussed ratification conventions saying: "Both method of ratification, by Legislatures or conventions, call for action by deliberative assemblages representative of the people...." The court thus defined what the word "conventions" meant in the text of the Constitution: deliberative assemblages representative of the people, and equates that with legislatures, all of whom are representatives elected by the people of the state.
Beyond this, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause as well as Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution make it clear that all citizens are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must be citizens of the United States and that they must be elected to that office. The Fourteenth Amendment creates two citizenships for all citizens of the United States: citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside or, state citizenship. Citizens, whether elected to Congress or to an Article V Convention receive, as a result of that election, the privilege to offer amendments to the Constitution and therefore the 14th Amendment requires that both sets of citizens, members of Congress and delegates to a convention must receive equal protection under the law. This means as members of Congress are elected and receive the privilege to offer amendment proposals, delegates who are given the same privilege to offer amendment proposals, must also be elected.
The Article V Convention is how we build consensus as a nation and address the problem, instead of symptoms.
If you are so moved, read these articles and educate yourself on how to talk about it.
http://www.foa5c.org/...
http://www.foa5c.org/...
http://www.foa5c.org/...
This is a forum which has been set up so you can get in touch with other citizens in your region/state to strategize things like attending partisan rallies, or book-signings, or lectures where other Americans will be, and you can help spread brush-fires in the minds of We The People: http://www.articlevconvention.org