The solution to our national crisis is dawning on more and more. The following is late news from the front in the quest for the Article V Convention.
On a side note, I finished edits to a book I've been working on for some time--a translation of Hamlet and Macbeth. I've been poring over the manuscript for the past two months and after going over the latest print-out today I'm satisfied it's the best I can do. Today I'm working on more versions of the art work for the cover, meeting with the designer tomorrow, and that's it--off to the printers, so look for word sometime soon on its printing.
Dear Mr. Williams:
I'd like to second Mr. De Herrera's statements to the extent of saying that while there was a great deal of talk about the "runaway scenario" in the 1960s and '70, subsequent scholarship has pretty well discredited it. (The cited opinions in the post on your website are really old.) In addition, the claim that the 1787 convention was a runaway is substantially inaccurate, and that Madison is taken out of context: Madison actually recommended Article V conventions over nullification.
I've now written five separate papers on the subject, investigating it from virtually every possible angle. You can access my credentials as a constitutional scholar at http://constitution.i2i.org/... Please let me know if you'd like to know more.
Sincerely,
Rob Natelson
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:20 PM, John De Herrera wrote:
Dear Mr. Williams, I'm writing you regarding a recent post to your site: http://freewestradio.com/...
This is--objectively--all facts on the table--the single most grave matter facing the United States: whether or not we're going to overtake an out of control federal government. You recently posted to your page the common fears regarding the Article V Convention. A "constitutional convention" or Con-Con is not an Article V Convention, and failing to make the distinction between the two endangers our nation.
The Article V Convention is limited to the same powers as Congress: it can only propose amendments "...to this Constitution...."
The Article V Convention cannot become a runaway convention as it's simply a non-binding deliberative assembly of state delegates, anything of which debated/proposed must then go to the states for possible ratification. To get 3/4 of the states to agree to any one idea, that idea must of course have overwhelming and broad support.
The delegates to a convention today are not there to reinvent the wheel, nor to write a new constitution (in fact if any delegate or group of delegates did want to draft a new document, they would first have to propose an amendment allowing for that, get it ratified, then come back and propose a new constitution--the Framers did not leave a self-destruct button in their masterwork). Beyond that, to say delegates today would not compare favorably with the Founders is to assume that no one today has any common sense, and that there is no common ground between the right and the left--this is of course nonsense.
In regards to the public's understanding of the Constitution, it is the constitutional process of convoking a convention, electing delegates, and coming together as a nation which will re-educate us all in one fell swoop.
Larry Greenley, whom I've spoken with over the phone, has been informed of the misperception of the John Birch Society, and persisting in spreading such misinformation about the convention clause of Article V is traitorous.
As you may or may not know, the leading national group Friends of the Article V Convention http://www.foavc.org has recently completed the first ever audit of the Congressional record which shows the states have cast hundreds of applications for the Article V Convention, and one session of Congress after the next simply ignores its constitutional obligation to issue the call: http://foavc.org/...
Since there are no terms or conditions regarding these applications, and the Constitution mandates a federal convention, to advocate against the Article V Convention is to advocate against the Constitution itself.
FOAVC is headed up by former Michigan State Chief Justice Tom Brennan (also founder of the Cooley School of law, the largest accredited law school in the United States), and constitutional scholar Bill Walker. Either of these gentlemen would be glad to be on your show to dispel the rumors and/or lies about the Constitution.
Professor Rob Natelson: http://constitution.i2i.org/... has also written extensively on this matter, and he is guest on an internet broadcast this Sunday (3:00 PM EST): http://www.talkshoe.com/...
I encourage you to listen in so you can find out more about why the fears of a convention are bogus.
I've included these gentlemen on this e-mail and I encourage you to get in touch with them for segments on your show.
Sincerely,
John De Herrera