Third Party & Independents: Archives

Wow, thanks for the heads up. This is just the kind of thing C-Span loves, so I’d say there is a good chance it’ll cover it.

I can’t find anything to quibble about in your article. I share your sentiments. Good article.

Posted by: Gerrold at October 14, 2007 09:08 PM

I hope all those who see the wisdom and intelligence of your analysis visit www.foavc.org and become a member; we need more public support to get the nation’s first Article V convention. More people need to understand why many groups on the political left and right oppose a convention: they want to preserve their power to maintain the corruption of our current dysfunctional political system.

Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at October 14, 2007 10:00 PM

David R. Remer,

Thank you for discussing this.

This will raise awareness.

Afterall, it is OUR Constitution.

If we do not avail ourselves of this method provided by our forefathers, we may lose it.

How much longer can Congress ignore the Constitution? There are already 567 applications by all 50 state legislatures. The two-thirds requirement has already been met (4 times even on the same-subject). On average, the states have submitted 11.34 amendment requests per state. There is something very fundamentally wrong.

Article V is one of the best kept secrets in America.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 14, 2007 10:32 PM

Gerrold wrote: This is just the kind of thing C-Span loves, so I’d say there is a good chance it’ll cover it.

I hope so. Article V is not well know. And Congress wants to keep it that way. Posted by: d.a.n at October 14, 2007 10:34 PM

I can understand the impulse towards a convention, but do not believe it will cure our nations ills any more than any other political process. If people are ignorant, it will not necessarily make them more knowledgeable, nor lead them to seek knowledge. If people are partisan, it will not necessarily lead them to transcend their party loyalties. It could in fact lead them to intensify them.

If people are imperfect before the convention, greedy, self-centered, and contentious, the convention cannot be predictably counted up on to make them better people.

Nor do amendments thought up in all good intention and passed by the American people necessarily have a good effect. Prohibition was written with the best of intentions, and it ended up such a failure that it became the one and only amendment in our history that we ever wrote an amendment to repeal.

Nor do all people see this in the tradition of open participatory Democracy. Many see it as a way to short circuit the system, to use the passions of the moment to write into the law of the land what they can’t force past the supreme court or the American people. Remember, it’s legislatures that vote on these things, which allows the uncertainty of political manuevering to intervene between the perfect relation between the will of the people and the acts of the officials in charge.

Some people see such a convention as a means to give power back to the people, but neglect the fact that it also can be a means to take it back from the people, or hand more powers to the government.

These are times of great strain in our society, where many feel times are desperate. Desperate people grab for power, or give it away. I would ask those who would grasp for a tool like a Constitutional convention to understand that whatever happens, this event will be profound, and profoundly uncertain in it’s results.

There’s a reason folks have chosen to do single amendments; it’s much easier to adjust to such change one amendment at a time.

What do I suggest? First, see what we can do under the constitution as it is, and do this seriously. As much as we might not like the shape of the current constitution, nobody doubts its current authority, beyond the ZOG-fearing denizens of survivalist militias. Second, we see whether we can get single amendments up for ballot, and don’t be afraid to play political hardball to get it there.

Then, and only then, after all else has failed, do we calmly and collectively call a constitutional convention. This cannot be simply forced on Americans, or snuck up on them. The single quickest way to get people afraid and subsequently angry and uncooperative, is to mess around with what they see as their freedoms.

At the end of the day, we should not presuppose what people’s responses will be to the event, or what the results and consequences will be. Care, not desperation, foresight, not fearfulness should guide us. We should not deny the need for such a convention when our problems merit it, but we should not underestimate the danger in taking the potential negative outcomes lightly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 14, 2007 10:43 PM

Dear David,

Thank you for the spreading the news about Article V of the US Constitution, providing for two methods for amending our Supreme Law — Congress or the amendatory convention.

You list three chief arguments for the calling of an Article V Convention:

1. Executive Power which has grown entirely out of the balances and checks devised by our founders,

2. Partisanship of judicial appointments,

3. Incredible corruption of the political process by both special interest money and the 2 political parties.

I would humbly offer a fourth and possibly more crucial argument for the absolute necessity for our nation’s first Article V Convention, and that is securing and protecting democracy’s most sacrosanct institution: the vote.

The cornerstone of our republic.

All the political wrangling and policy punditry that we spend our time, heart and soul upon becomes rather academic if we cannot tell who is voting for whom – or who is voting for what.

Today our electoral system is under attack.

It’s under attack by the fact that the proprietary source code that instructs the voting machines as to how to count the vote is being held in private hands.

Unconscionable.

More than 1/3 of all votes cast in our nation are made on touch screen machines driven by proprietary source code – 90% of all votes cast are counted by software that’s unverifiable.

There are thousands of different methods for counting the vote in America providing for a very diverse and unequal playing field, and when voting for a very singular federal office like the Presidency, having electoral systems so divergent from any inkling of a national standard violates equal protection under the law.

The Carter Center who monitors and verifies electoral results all around the world, would not even touch the US electoral system with a ten foot pole due to the vulnerabilities present from such a convoluted, unverifiable and decrepit process.

The 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should coalesce all the different methods of counting our vote into one national standard – and guarantee the independent verification of ballot results, conducted outside of private control.

The corrupting influence of big money in politics and these electoral vulnerabilities shows that today our American voting experience has been essentially privatized — don’t you think our vote should be a public process controlled by the people?

Of course that’s the only way, that’s the American way.

Sincerely,

Byron DeLear

Please visit FOAVC.ORG and join the call!

Posted by: Byron DeLear at October 14, 2007 11:43 PM

Byron DeLear wrote: You list three chief arguments for the calling of an Article V Convention:

1. Executive Power which has grown entirely out of the balances and checks devised by our founders,

2. Partisanship of judicial appointments,

3. Incredible corruption of the political process by both special interest money and the 2 political parties.

Byron, You hit that nail on the head.

And I think a growing number of Americans are catching onto this best kept secret in America.

As you can see, main party loyalists will resist it. They are for the status quo.

Your website states:

The status quo has got to go in Washington.

Yes, the status quo is the foe.

They are getting tired of Do-Nothing Congress doing … uhhhhmmmmm … pretty much nothing … if you don’t count they gave themselves their 9th raise in 10 years.

I think voters are getting more and more fed up, as they see these regressive systems pushing them down farther and farther.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 15, 2007 12:26 AM

I find it interesting that Justice Samual Alito will be leading this mock constitutional convention. Less than a year ago, this same justice, along with the rest of the Supreme Court, had no problem denying cert to a lawsuit designed specifically to compel Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as required by the Constitution. In other words to make it actually happen for real instead of just having a “mock” convention.

The record is clear. Congress has refused to call a convention. The states have applied 567 times. All 50 states have applied for a convention call and Congress has refused to obey the Constitution. The Supreme Court it seems has no problem with this as they approved this veto by Congress making it in fact actual government policy even though in the suit, the government acknowledged they were in fact mandated to call and that refuse to do so was in fact, a violation of federal criminal law.

I wonder if anyone will ask the justice at this “mock” convention why he and his fellow justices allowed this ruling to happen. Most likely he will reply it was a question of standing meaning the court holds its doctrines above that of the law of the Constitution. It’s fine to have a “mock” convention but the Supreme Court decision was real and official and at our FOAVC website you can read emails from members of Congress and others who clearly believe they have no obligation whatsoever to obey the law of the Constitution.

Seeing that a justice of the Supreme Court is now leading a “mock” convention and seeing how his court ruled on the real issue of a real convention being held and seeing that the court approved that Congress could simply ignore the real language in the law of the real Constitution, I have to wonder. Is the justice there for reasons of hypocracy or for reasons of guilt?

Posted by: Bill Walker at October 15, 2007 12:38 AM

David,

In order for any of this to be remotely relevent, Americans must step up to the plate in greater numbers than they have in the last few decades.
We have been electing the “lesser of two evils” for far too long.
Parents haven’t been instilling an interest to learn in their children for far too long.

Civics lessons or even the Constitution itself are meaningless if those that are governed by it can’t read and understand it’s meaning, and that’s assuming that they even care.

Unless we, the electorate, can turn out in greater numbers to take hold of our own country, all of this will come to naught.

Posted by: Rocky at October 15, 2007 09:33 AM

Byron De Lear-
First, we should not assume that people who ignore one part of the constitution would pay attention to other, newer provisions in it. Politicians that are corrupt weasels before the convention would probably remain such during and after the proceedings.

Second, I don’t see much reason to believe that this couldn’t be done by statute, rather than an amendment.

If we’re concerned about politicians not putting our interests at heart, giving them a Constitutional Convention to play around with would not necessarily change things. The corrupt GOP tried several times to get one going so they could force their agenda on folks.

The real mechanisms for change are already available to us, and have already worked. While I agree that the situation with voting machines is in dire need of being addressed, we should take note of the very unfavorable outcome of the last election for the Republicans.

The best way to get the law working on our side is to put constant pressure on our law makers. Make them fear for their job security.

Bill Walker-
The states have applied well over five hundred times, but all at once, together?

Under an accumulation standard, A few votes added on top of an insufficient push years in the past might be sufficient to take an entire nation of unwilling states into a constitutional convention they don’t want.

I can hardly believe that the Founding Fathers wanted a system so accidental. In every other place, the intent of these high proportions was to ensure that the bedrock foundation of our constitution would not be changed at the whim of bare, temporary majorities, much less vocal minorities, that the law of the land would be stable, and only changed when an overwhelming consensus of states and citizens wanted it.

Your standard would bring change whether or not this backing was there, making the will of the people arbitrary to the calling of a convention, much less the will of the states.

If there is one lesson we should draw from the last six years is that this nation will not have peace if a few seek to impose power over those they disagree with by seeking out power in disregard for the rules and regulations that keep those efforts within reasonable limits.

The founders intended only a real, substantial majority would be able to undo what they had done. Moreover, they intend this to be a power of the States, which is probably where you ran into problems, since you can’t really speak for them.

I would drop the speculation over whether people are hypocrites or just being troubled by their conscience. I don’t think most of your opponents actually believe what you’re pushing is correct, so their actions are likely consistent with their worldview, and moral in their eyes. You can’t simply assume these people think like you, but are being held back by some character defect.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2007 10:07 AM

Stephen,

As I wrote the last time this topic came up, I can’t find any support for anything other than an accumulation standard under Article V. It has certainly been used in the ratification of several, if not all (depending on how you define accumulation), constitutional ammendments (the process of which is outlined in Article V). While I agree with you that a Constitutional Convention would not necessarily have favorable results, I’m not sure that there is a Constitutional argument for denying it.

I believe the best course of action at this point would be to support a constitutional ammendment giving full force to your views that the call for such a Convention should be done by roll-call vote in the House. I would go further and state that the House members should be bound (similarly to electors) to vote as their constituents direct them based on the results of the most recent statewide election that included the question of whether an Article V convention should be held. The ammendment should further stipulate that the question should be placed on the ballot every two years concurrent with House Elections.

Then, we could all have this fantastic argument every two years of whether it is time to ammend the Constitution.

Posted by: Rob at October 15, 2007 11:13 AM

Minus his anti-anything-Democrat musings, Stephen is correct above.

Before we flush our entire system in hopes for a better one, one devised by the same corrupt policticians we currently elect to lead us, maybe we should actually try to use the system we have. Although I agree with Washington when he said, “I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us,” I do think he and his contemporaries came up with a pretty good, workable document that, if followed, actually provides for a pretty darn buttoned-up system of government.

It’s not like a convention, if one was called for real, would draw equally amongst the various political philosophies… no, just the opposite. The two parties would likely use the occasion to actually write into any governing document a system which not only favors a duopoly, but actually entrenches one legally.

All of the guaranteed freedoms we enjoy (?) in our current system would potentially be fair game if we decided a new system were needed. Freedom of speech could be defined to mean whatever the framers of this new document would intend, if defined at all… anyone want Karl Rove in on this?

No, a new convention is certainly not needed. We have a system that works very well, if people would actually hold their government accountable. Any new system would still have the same, apathetic populace to govern, and the same power-hungry politicians running it… the only difference would be that it would be those power-hungry politicians drafting it, too. That is not a recipe I want to try.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 15, 2007 11:32 AM

Doug and others,

The Constitutional Convention is a system we have. It’s right there in the Constitution. Nothing in the language of Article V says it should be considered a tool of last resort. Nothing in the language supports the accumulated standard. Indeed the language suggests otherwise: “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States [the Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” Note the plural “amendments.” Note the “shall.” Two-thirds must call for a convention, not call for a convention to propose any particular amendment.

Indeed, I fail to see cause for handwringing. There is nothing accidental about the process. Any amendment proposed by the Convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The only difference is that state delegates and not Congress initially propose the amendment. How that will lead to a radical undermining of the Constitution is difficult to see, and claims otherwise need support.

Some raise the specter of the first Constitutional Convention which proposed our current Constitution. That’s a red herring, scare mongering. Under Article V each particular amendment must be ratified by the same process that Congressionally proposed amendments must be ratified. The very strong obstacles to new amendments are not undermined by an Article V convention.

Here’s Article V, read it for yourself:

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.

Posted by: Gerrold at October 15, 2007 12:35 PM

We already are dealing with unconstitutional gun grabbers, unconstitutional out of control government spending on all kinds of unconstitutional and hardly unaccountable “entitlement” programs continually pushed on the public by those who favor a “European Model” Socialist unconstitutional form of government. We also are dealing with the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold so-called “Campaign Finance Reform” measure, which is an out and out assault on the First Amendment…the unconstitional Kelo v. New London case which REEKS of eminent domain abuse, and don’t forget just over the horizon, the unconstitutional “Fairness Doctrine”….yet another full frontal assault on the very Freedom of Speech guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution…..oh yeah, lest we forget the “thought police” and their unconstitional “hate speech” laws, some people actually think the Constitution allows for people to silence other people because they are “Offended”….this is a TOTAL travesty, my right to free speech and my right to offend anybody trumps their right “not to be offended…and vice-versa.

Is there any wonder I’ve become more and more of a Libertarian as the years go by…..surrounded by nanny staters, “people for a perfect world”, control freaks who continually get elected to office in order to continue passing more and more laws, rules, regulations, restriction, mandates, fees, fines, taxes….ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY! No, I, myself will continue to struggle for a more Libertarian form of governance.

Posted by: silversurfer at October 15, 2007 12:44 PM

Gerrold… yeah, I get it. I understand the Article V language… I just do not think it necessary.

All arguments about the product of such a convention aside, our government works outside of the Constitution now… how will drafting a new document change that? Our current system has adequate separation of powers if the people would hold officials accountable to the very document from which they claim to govern.

We have a great system now… if only it were followed.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 15, 2007 12:44 PM

FREE - 1. a) not under the control of some other person or some arbitrary power; able to act or think without compulsion or arbitrary restriction; having liberty; independent. 2. a) having, or existing under a government that does not impose arbitrary restrictions on the right to speak, assemble, petition, vote, etc.; having civil and political liberty. b) not under control of a foreign government. 3. at liberty; allowed[free to leave at any time]. 4. not restricted by anything except its own limitations or nature[free will].

I believe in freedom, which also includes free to succeed and free to fail. Which also fully realizes that, with a free society, comes the good with the bad. There shouldn’t be some kind of “guaranteed result” only “guaranteed opportunity”. With freedom comes the “good, the bad, and the ugly”. That’s a GENUINE Libertarian approach to governance…that’s the direction I am active towards. I do not, repeat do not approve of sacrificing individual freedoms for “the common good”…that is socialism. I prefer the Libertarian freedom of “sink or swim”…handle your business and keep most of what’s yours,(atruism should be just that…on a personal, voluteer basis….socialism and the current “war on poverty” is FORCED ALTRUISM….by the way, over forty years the “war on poverty” has cost taxpayers $7,000,000,000,000 - that’s SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS. What is the “exit strategy” for this war? What is the “exit strategy” for the “war on poverty”? 7 Trillion dollars and counting and escalating for entitlement programs…many of them UNCONSTITUTIONAL). I will be continuing to struggle for Libertarian ideals, whether they’re “popular” or not, whether they’re “mean-spirited” or not, whether nanny staters like it or not!

Posted by: silversurfer at October 15, 2007 01:09 PM

I’m all for a new Constitution. Just as long as it caters to my beliefs, needs, and prejudices. :)
While I’m only joking unfortunately there are a whole heap of folks out there that really have that attitude. And you can be sure that if this country did set out to write a new Constitution that these folks will be very vocal about their special wants. Giving in to these types would definitely have to be guarded against.

While I agree that there are some changes needed to our present Constitution I have some reservations about writing a whole new one.

1.How can we be sure it will address the future and best interest of this country and it’s citizens?

2.How can we be sure our current rights won’t taken away?

3.Who will be writing it?

(a)The current bunch we have in DC? The goes the ball game.

(b)Folks elected from each state? Better make sure we ban anyone from any political party.

(c)Lawyers? No one but them would be able to understand it.

(d)Special interest? Heaven help us.

(e)Common folks like us? How many of us really understand complexities of government enough to come up with a workable Constitution?
But then that might be just what we need. Folks that don’t understand the complexities of government. They just might make government workable again.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 15, 2007 01:24 PM

“But then that might be just what we need. Folks that don’t understand the complexities of government. They just might make government workable again.”

Nice one… just thought it bore repeating…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 15, 2007 01:54 PM

David R: Where is the list of the 23 proposed amendments and changes? Do we have to buy the book to find out? Are we going to be able to watch this convention or are we going to be dependent on the spin of the left and the right? I would be extremely suspicious of any convention resided over by Justice Alito. Why not Justice Alito and Justice Stevens? Wost people believe that the Supreme Court, being part of the government, is a major contributor to the problems that We The People have in truely being represented by our government. After all, the major obstacle to true representative government is the power manifested in wealth by the decision that the dollar is free speech.

IMO, it is going to be very difficult to hold a truely multi-partisan convention in a nation that is so polarized.

Posted by: jlw at October 15, 2007 02:47 PM

567 applications by state legislatures since 1787.
554 applications by state legislatures since 1900.
432 applications by state legislatures since 1950.
384 applications by state legislatures since 1960.
221 applications by state legislatures since 1970.
071 applications by state legislatures since 1980.
044 applications by state legislatures since 1990.

Already, on 4 occasions, there were sufficient applications by two-thirds of the states on the same subject:

• (1)direct election of U.S. Senators


• (2)repeal of federal income tax


• (3)apportionment


• (4)and balanced budget amendment

However, there is no same-subject requirement.
There is also no time-limit in Article V. It simply states “whenever”.

Congress has a clear conflict of interest, and will not address many common-sense reforms (e.g. campaign finance reform, term-limits, balanced budget, taxation, election reform, determining amount and frequency of raises for Congress, Executive War powers, etc.).

Some people have fear of Article V of the Constitution.
If justified, what does that mean?
That fear is probably not justtified, because:

• (1) Delegates from the states are who is voting on the amendments.


• (2) It takes three fourths of the delegates to ratify any amendment. To abuse the process, that means over three fourths of the delegates have to be corrupt, in which case we’re already in trouble.


• (3) The convention will receive a lot of media attention; the people will be watching and the media will be reporting on it.


• (4) The blogs and internet will be ablaze, and the Main Stream Media is finding it increasingly difficult to ignore the blogs.


• (5) The state legislatures don’t have many (if any) motivations to give up more power to the federal government.


• (6) If anything, the state legislatures will be reducing the federal government’s power (perhaps introduce term-limits, balanced budget, one-purpose-per-bill, prohibit Gerrymandering, etc.).


• (7) After calling an Article V Convention, Congress has very little to do with the voting process.

Ron Brown wrote: While I agree that there are some changes needed to our present Constitution I have some reservations about writing a whole new one. 1.How can we be sure it will address the future and best interest of this country and it’s citizens? 2.How can we be sure our current rights won’t taken away?

The three-fourths requirement for ratification should help.

Ron Brown wrote: 3.Who will be writing it?

The delegates from the states.

Ron Brown wrote: (a)The current bunch we have in DC? The goes the ball game.

No, Congress doesn’t do that.

Ron Brown wrote: (b)Folks elected from each state? Better make sure we ban anyone from any political party.

Delegates from every state (F.A.Q. # 7.1).

Ron Brown wrote: (c)Lawyers? No one but them would be able to understand it.

No. A law degree is not required.

Ron Brown wrote: (d)Special interest? Heaven help us.

The three-fourths requirement for ratification should help prevent that.

Ron Brown wrote: (e)Common folks like us? How many of us really understand complexities of government enough to come up with a workable Constitution?

I think there are plenty of good candidates.

Ron Brown wrote: But then that might be just what we need. Folks that don’t understand the complexities of government. They just might make government workable again.

You could be right. And is it really that complicated? Or do cheaters just try to over-complicate it?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 15, 2007 02:50 PM

Even as scary as an Article V convention may seem to people could it be any scarier than the one that gave us the remarkable documant we have today? Talk about bucking history! Until the U.S. did it no nation in human history had ever followed a successful revolution of secession with the establishment of a peaceful constitutional government. What were the chances then?

The one thing working in everyone’s favor is that the people who did the deed would have to live in the nation framed by their actions. There’s a cold shower.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 15, 2007 02:59 PM

David,
I meant to say- Great article.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 15, 2007 03:00 PM

Everyone, thank you for your positive comments.

jlw asked: “David R: Where is the list of the 23 proposed amendments and changes? Do we have to buy the book to find out?”

As far as I know, yes.

“Are we going to be able to watch this convention or are we going to be dependent on the spin of the left and the right?”

It is my fervent hope that C-Span will cover it. You can contact C-Span and request that it be covered. I have.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 15, 2007 04:33 PM

Ron Brown and Doug Langworthy,

Ron, in today’s political climate, it is hard to imagine the delegates would undertake to rewrite the entire Constitution - it would spell the end of their political careers. Changes made to update the principles and checks and balances to clearly address modern issues which didn’t exist in 1787, using the existing Constitution as the template, is what would be likely. But, my fear is not overreach in the effort, but, under reach, and failure to achieve consensus to actually address issues like those mentioned above.

In the discussion of the issue, the authors cited in the article raised the issue of whether the American public is educated enough in civics to act as a constructive influence on the delegates to the Convention. The general agreement was the public is not educated enough, and that the first order of business is to radically strengthen civics education in our schools and universities.

That too is a tough hurdle, since, the folks who select textbooks are partisan and many books are being chosen to reflect partisan revisionist history. This is how deeply entrenched the damage to our society has become as a result of the 2 party system where both sides are losing objectivity about even historical fact and interpretation. I suggest it is not insurmountable however. America needs to establish national educational standards which states and school districts may voluntarily elect to adopt in exchange for federal education dollars. In a generation we could produce a vastly better educated public regarding the Constitution, the history of our nation and the intents and purposes of the design of our form of government.

There may be other ways to achieve this as well, of which I am unaware. But, this is one that certainly could work, and the standards could be established by a bi-partisan commission of educators whose mission and purpose is to establish civics and history educational standards which are objective or, failing that, partisan neutral.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 15, 2007 04:50 PM

Rob-
Read it carefully: it never mentions accumulation. That’s an implication read into the proportion, treating it as an arbitrary number, and counting the constitutional calls of men long dead.

The whole point of the clause is to set a high threshold for radical alteration of the constitution, to preserve the stability of law. The stability of law is crucial. It’s what keeps rule of law from being an arbitrary joke.

Why complicate it with cycles of calls, where the calls of a few can trigger a convention most people don’t want? Making the vote a cohesive event preserves the intent. If two thirds of the states get together and want a new constitution at the same time, They should get it. Otherwise, it should not be forced on them.

This is the whole point of the high threshold. Democracy depends on the consent of the governed. That consent depends on the notion that although a government is imposed on us all, we have some freedoms from that government, and some say in how it’s run. This is what keeps our country together, keeps the folks who agree discussing things, rather than shooting each other in the streets or siccing various degrees of police state powers on one another.

As for Amending the constitution, we can have that argument anytime we want. We just got to come up with something we can all agree on, rather than something meant to impose our mutual partisan desires on the rest of the country.

Gerrold-
I don’t think it’s handwringing to say that there’s a significant risk that after this constitution, we’ll see a significantly different government. It happened the last time.

We should respect just how much power amendments to the constitution can change things. Even subtle changes in the law can have profound consequences.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2007 04:57 PM

David… agreed… we need the public to be better educated regarding the Constitution… and in fact, if this were the case, there would be no need for any alteration of the document as we might actually hold our government accountable to it.

Check that… there would be no need for major alteration outside of those things which naturally come up as our nation continues to eveolve that require ammendment (slavery, women’s suffrage, etc).

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 15, 2007 05:05 PM

Doug, I couldn’t disagree more. Education in the Constitution would highlight the need for modifications to allow its principles to encompass manifestations in modern society the drafters could not dream of.

Take a look again at Jefferson’s, Madison’s and Washington’s words quoted in the article. The Constitution was meant to be modified and updated. That was original intent, as well.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 15, 2007 05:27 PM

David… we’re disagreeing about things on which we’re agreeing… uummm… I’m confusing myself…

Yes, you are correct that the document needs to be continually updated (I said as much in my last post), and I am correct that it does not need to be overhauled… there is a difference.

Better public education on constitutional law would highlight just how far from the document we have strayed… maybe we could get Paris Hilton to take up a stint as spokesperson for this cause… that might get some attention.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 15, 2007 05:34 PM

Stephen said: “The whole point of the clause is to set a high threshold for radical alteration of the constitution, to preserve the stability of law”

Absolutely wrong, Stephen. The point of the clause was to make ratification a high threshold, NOT a convention to discuss, debate, and propose changes. Which is why the drafters provide TWO means by which such a convention could be convened, instead of just one. It was not the intent to make a convention inordinately difficult if the states or the Congress saw the need.

The words “simultaneous submitted” ALSO do not appear in the clause. So, your argument that the word “accumulation” doesn’t appear actually is an argument against the reasoning you propose. As I have educated you before, when the Constitution was drafted, states had very differing schedules for their legislatures to meet, thus necessitating an accumulated petition, as some legislatures did not meet but every couple years.

Clearly the drafters intended an accumulation of petitions to occur, because the option of State legislatures petitioning simultaneously was not even possible in their day. The drafters were not into wasted words or options in the drafting of the Constitution, as your argument implies.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 15, 2007 05:39 PM

Doug, thanks. Yes, a misunderstanding. I agree, the concept of writing a new constitution from scratch is not even remotely in the realm of possibility, without a devastating and totally destructive revolution or prolonged civil war first occurring. The vast majority of convention delegates would never even contemplate the notion of scrapping the current constitution, but, updating it for modern realities, to include a population of 300 million vs. the handful of millions in 1787.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 15, 2007 05:45 PM

Stephen,

Rather than rehash my entire post from the last debate, I’ll just remind you that the 27th Ammendment was proposed a full 200 years before final ratification. The Article in my reading does differentiate between the method for ratifying ammendments and the calling of a convention.

As for this, “The whole point of the clause is to set a high threshold for radical alteration of the constitution, to preserve the stability of law. The stability of law is crucial. It’s what keeps rule of law from being an arbitrary joke.”

I think it is worth keeping in mind that the original framers thought that the Constitution would be ammended more than it has been. During the Jefferson administration, then Secretary of State Madison considered several actions that he thought requried Constitutional Ammendments. They chose for the sake of expediency to act first and ammend later. They never quite got back to the amending. Those actions were the first steps toward the abridging of the Executive Powers David mentions in his lead articles. It’s probably also worth remembering that Jefferson at the conclusion of his Presidency was not much better thought of than Bush is now.

My point to you is that there significant ambiguity in the clause that perhaps this would be a good ammendment to make. Accumulation was the only possability in 1797, in today’s world a roll-call vote is perfectly reasonable standard.

Posted by: Rob at October 15, 2007 06:06 PM

Stephen,

Below are the ratification dates for the 27th Ammendment:

[edit] Ratification dates
Congress proposed the Twenty-seventh Amendment on September 25, 1789.[3] The following states ratified the amendment:

Maryland (December 19, 1789)
North Carolina (December 22, 1789, reaffirmed in 1989)
South Carolina (January 19, 1790)
Delaware (January 28, 1790)
Vermont (November 3, 1791)
Virginia (December 15, 1791)
Kentucky (1792, reaffirmed in 1996)
Ohio (May 6, 1873)
Wyoming (March 6, 1978)
Maine (April 27, 1983)
Colorado (April 22, 1984)
South Dakota (February 21, 1985)
New Hampshire (March 7, 1985)
Arizona (April 3, 1985)
Tennessee (May 23, 1985)
Oklahoma (July 10, 1985)
New Mexico (February 14, 1986)
Indiana (February 24, 1986)
Utah (February 25, 1986)
Arkansas (March 6, 1987)
Montana (March 17, 1987)
Connecticut (May 13, 1987)
Wisconsin (July 15, 1987)
Georgia (February 2, 1988)
West Virginia (March 10, 1988)
Louisiana (July 7, 1988)
Iowa (February 9, 1989)
Idaho (March 23, 1989)
Nevada (April 26, 1989)
Alaska (May 6, 1989)
Oregon (May 19, 1989)
Minnesota (May 22, 1989)
Texas (May 25, 1989)
Kansas (April 5, 1990)
Florida (May 31, 1990)
North Dakota (March 25, 1991)
Missouri (May 5, 1992)
Alabama (May 5, 1992)

This definitely works in favor of the accumulation argument.

Posted by: Rob at October 15, 2007 06:09 PM

Yes, a Convention is not a scraping and starting-over. That would be equivalent to a coup. That is not what Article V is about. Article V is merely a method to amend the existing Constitution. Article V provides an option for the states to do that. However, Congress is violating it. Four times, enough states (two thirds) have submitted same-subject amendments. The Supreme Court never asserted that they must be contemporaneous either. The Supreme Court simply approved the direct veto of Article V by Congress. Also, the federal government acknowledged they were in fact mandated to call an Article V Convention and that refusing to do so was in fact, a violation of federal criminal law.

Now, send a letter to your Congress persons asking about anything but Article V and you will probably get a quick response.

Then send a letter to your Congress persons asking about Article V, and see what happens.

You will probably never receive a response, and if you do, they will probably claim two thirds of the states have never yet submitted same-subject applications. We already know this is false, the court does not dispute this fact.

Rob wrote: This definitely works in favor of the accumulation argument.

Rob, you are correct.

Article V never intended the requirement for amendment applications to be same-subject or contemporaneous. Not literally, and not even in the spirit-of-the-law. If the framers intended a time limit or contermporaneousness, they would have probably stated so, since within Article V it clearly stated one time limit for the year [1808] which was 21 years into the future …
____________
Article V of the U.S. Constitution: 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 [1808] 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.
____________

In addition to that, when this Constitution was written [year 1787], they did not have railroads, telegraphs, telephones, or highways. Things did not happen quickly.

Your example above demonstrates the falacy of these mythical time limits. There are no time limits. The Supreme Court did not even argue that as the reason. The Supreme Court simply allowed Congress to violate the direct and clear text of Article V of the Constitution (not just the literal meaning, but the spirit of the law too). They know, and that is probably why most Congress persons are silent on it.

Here’s a copy of the Court brief (not really brief at 876 pages in Acrobat .pdf format), and here’s some information about the two Supreme Court case.

Doug Langworthy wrote: Minus his anti-anything-Democrat musings, Stephen [Daugherty] is correct above.

Funny!

Doug Langworthy wrote: Before we flush our entire system in hopes for a better one, one devised by the same corrupt policticians we currently elect to lead us, maybe we should actually try to use the system we have.

I agree 100% and that is what Article V is about; making amendments only. Not scraping the Constitution. Not starting over. Not a total rewrite. In fact, an attempt to scrap the Constitution is essentially a coup (and illegal). And changes to amendments are not easy to make since it takes three-fourths of the states to ratify any amendment.

Even if no amendments are ever ratified, I think an Article V Convention is a right we should preserve, a right that Congress should respect, and a convention would raise awareness and be very educational. Perhaps some things may actually finally be addressed. After all, what are the chances Congress, on its own, will ever address campaign finance reform, term-limits, balanced budget, Gerrymandering, election reform, limits on size and frequency of Congressional raises, etc.?

The problem is Congress has a clear conflict of interest. States have submitted 567 amendment applications, and Congress chooses to ignore it, despite their solemn pledge to uphold it.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 15, 2007 07:02 PM

d.a.n wrote: You could be right. And is it really that complicated? Or do cheaters just try to over-complicate it?

If folks just went by the Constitution and let it say what it says I reckon it wouldn’t be all that complicated. Trouble is we have Congress and the Oval Office trying to circumvent it, The Supreme Court trying to rewrite it, and a whole heap of folks trying to twist it to say what they want it to so it’ll fit their special interest.
Maybe that’s why it seems so complicated.

David wrote: Ron, in today’s political climate, it is hard to imagine the delegates would undertake to rewrite the entire Constitution -

AW shucks! I already had the first article (The Rights of the Citizens) written. :) or :(

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 15, 2007 11:56 PM

David wrote: In a generation we could produce a vastly better educated public regarding the Constitution, the history of our nation and the intents and purposes of the design of our form of government.

It only took a generation to get a public unaware of the Constitution and our history.
When I was in school I had to pass a test on both the Decoration of Independence and the Constitution of The United States to graduate. My younger sister who’s only 6 years younger than me didn’t have to pass the test on the Decoration but had to on the Constitution. My little sister who’s 12 years younger didn’t have to pass a test on either one. This is in the same school I went to. It only took 12 years to get teaching the Decoration and the Constitution out of the curriculum. How long will it take to get it back in?
Also in order to graduate two years of US History was required. Today History is an elective and barely taught at all.
These are some of the things I intend to address as a school board member.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 16, 2007 12:17 AM

Ron said: “These are some of the things I intend to address as a school board member.”

That is excellent, Ron. We need millions of Americans to make that kind of investment in our children’s and therefore, this country’s, future.

Because I can all but guarantee that at least half of our Congress persons could not accurately answer the question: ‘What is Article V of the Constitution about?’ Let alone its particulars. Same with nearly every other article in the Constitution.

And if they don’t know what it says, how they can possibly be expected to abide it, protect it, or defend it against onslaughts by persons both international and domestic.?

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2007 12:27 AM

Any group (e.g. younger Americans) that aren’t involved and interested will get used.
And Congress is heaping tremendous debt onto future generations.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2007 01:00 AM

Rob-
I think I have said this before, but you might not have been participating in the threads where I made this argument: the first constitutional convention was held within a year of its calling, and ratified to the extent required by the Constitution within nine months. If folks operating in 18th century, with communications only as fast as one could carry them on horseback, could call and enact the results of a constitutional convention, why would we take years to do the same?

The accumulation standard seems to me to be a rather complex interpretation of something that could be more simply interpreted to mean contemperaneous calls. It eliminates the possibility that it would happen just on the whim of a few strategic states, or that it would happen because of repetition of calls by the same states.

Additional evidence for the non-accumulation standard arises from the fact that despite their being enough calls to have initiated this convention several times over, nobody has ever called a convention this way. You would think that people in the olden days were just as committed to their causes, just as concerned about what they viewed to be constitutional issues. You would have thought that somebody would have made such a call.

No such evidence exists.

Why only now is the framer’s will manifested?

Here’s what I think: people are scared, disgusted with the government. They want the power to change it, to change the very basis of the law. They reinterpret the constitution to suit, presupposing that was is not said is not denied, either.

The major problem is that the spirit of the law is support by the majority of the states for an action. if you allow the standard to accumulate over years, that support will not likely be real. If you take the immediate standard, there’s no ambiguity for the support. With the extent to which changes in a constitutional convention can go, It would be pointless to go in without the states being in broad consensus. An accumulation standard makes an arbitrary number, rather than the mood and need of the nation, the determining factor.

A standard of immediacy bring the most robust support and meaning to the proceedings.

The trick is, if such a move toward accumulation is successful, you have two potential problems: one, that the convention will be a dud, and hardly any amendment will pass, or two, the convention creates changes too radical for most people, in which case, the paucity of the recent calls becomes a constitutional issue, and a liability for the legitimacy of the constitutional law. We all know, in the light of Bush’s election, that regrettable actions can be taken by majorities in times of great stress. Better that we begin a convention out of unity, rather than out of political manuevering

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2007 09:24 AM

I have read the bulk of the text of Walker v. Congress and see an issue in the style of the suit, which was worded as an instrument designed to back both the courts and the Congress into a corner in which both either appear to be trying to overthrow the Constitution or admit to criminal wrongdoing. Its protestations to the contrary notwithstanding the suit does not turn on a single question, but weaves proposed criminal misconduct as regards tax law and the amendment question together in a too-clever-by-half hybridization that grants the courts an escape hatch over the really important issue- the fact Congress has no choice whether to call a convention or not.

Is there a case before the courts which is sterilized against this taint of mixed issues?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 16, 2007 09:35 AM

Stephen,

I’ve said time and again that I don’t disagree with your reluctance to call a Convention. What I disagree with is your argument against the accumulation standard. Despite, the Convention not having been called, there is clear evidence in the ratification of ammendments that the accumulation standard can and has been applied in reference to Article V. In fact, historically it has been used quite a bit. It was even used in the ratification of the first Constitution. Though the votes accumulated quickly, they still accumulated. They were not all done in a singular roll-call session, which it could have been had the framers specified the ratification process differently in Article V(i.e. the signing of the Decleration of Independence).

So to the second part of your argument, the problem lies not in the process of accumulation but rather than in the timing of the accumulations. As I mentioned above, the ratification of the 27th Ammendment blows timilineess arguments out of the water. In my research on this topic, I’ve been unable to find a different standard for the calling of a Convention than I could for ratifying an amendment.

I actually agree with you that we should not use an accumulation standard in calling a Constitutional Convention; however, I think to change that would require an Ammendment. I suggested above that we should pass one. I also think that in today’s world, the calling for a convention should emenate directly from the people, thus, I would suggest that any call be done based on a roll-call vote of the House who vote based on the direction of their constituents.

For what it is worth, I think the hand-wringing over the Convention is a bit overblown. Article V only allows the convention to be called to suggest new ammendments. The ratification process doesn’t change. If the changes were too radical for people, then the ammendments would be rejected. If the convention was a dud, it would certainly not be the first time that the govenment has wasted tax payer money on political showcases.

Posted by: Rob at October 16, 2007 09:54 AM

Stephen,
On what grounds could the requirement that three-fourths of the states ratify any individual amendments lead to the conclusion that there was inadequate support for the legitimacy of the results of a convention? Particularly in light of the fact that all more recent amendments have carried, in their language, ratification time-limits?

It is clear that Article V simply does not care how the states arrange their call for a convention. What Hamilton clearly argued was that the hurdle to ratification was higher than the hurdle to the call of a convention and it was meant to be so. Why the hell would we live in fear of a convention any result of which would have to get the approval of 38 states even to come into effect?

As to the first amendment convention it was part of the agreement by which New York was convinced to ratify the original body of the Constitution, since that initial ratification had to be unanimous. Hamilton, who wrote Article V, successfully argued that, though it would be difficult to get a “perfected” document unanimously passed, the imperfect document, once in effect, could be much more easily amended. And so it was.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 16, 2007 10:45 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Here’s what I think: people are scared, disgusted with the government.

Justifiably.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: They want the power to change it, to change the very basis of the law.

Not true. Supporters of Article V are not trying to change the text or interpretation of Article V. It is those in opposition that are doing that.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: They reinterpret the constitution to suit, presupposing that was is not said is not denied, either.

Not true. It is those that oppose Article V that are reading things into it that do not exist.

Reinterpret? If there’s any re-interpretation happening, it is those that want to interpret:

• “whenever” as “whenever contemporaneous”


• and “amendments” as “same-subject amendments”.

And why?
What are they afraid of?
The court’s ruling on this really makes no sense.
The court’s ruling essentially permits Congress to re-interpret the Constitution any way it wants, without amending the Constitution.
That is what people should be concerned with.
Until Article V is amended, should it not be obeyed?

Lee Jamison wrote: Is there a case before the courts which is sterilized against this taint of mixed issues?

No, not that I know of. However, I’m not sure that would make any difference to Congress.

Clearly, from these many discussions, it is difficult to read Article V and then understand how 523 amendment applications can be ignored, when no such time-limits exist on ratification. That is, it makes it difficult to re-interpret the text of Article V (literally and in the spirit of the law too) any other way. But that is indeed what Congress did without first amending Article V to clear up this literal interpretation.

Therefore, it is difficult to not conclude that refusal to obey the constitution is a violation of the oath of office. Without amending Article V first, the actions of Congress are criminal, and not simply a civil or political action. Without amending Article V first, the refusal of the members of Congress to call a convention not only violates the Constitution, but is a criminal act as well; a violation of their oath of office. Congress can not merely re-interpret the Constitution. It must obey it until they explicity amend Article V to clearly state “same-subject” and “contemporaneous” (or whatever). And what are the chances that the states will ratify that? How many states do you think will ratify this new re-interpretation? How many states do you think will ratify a new re-interpretation that takes more power away from the states and gives it to Congress? Especially since our Congress is so responsible and accountable?

It would be interesting to see, if someone were to file another suit, whether Congress would give it any more attention than the first two suits. If 34 states (two thirds) would all file a same-subject amendment contemporaneously, the states could obliterate these suspicious re-interpretations of Article V and it would then leave no doubt about it that Congress is violating the Constitution.

NOTE1: The required (two-thirds) number of same-subject amendments has already been met 4 times, so that is not the reason for not calling a convention.

NOTE2: Due to NOTE1 above, the only other excuses left is the “contemporaneousness” or Congress simply has the power to ignore or re-interpret the Constitution anyway they wish.

What should concern the people is how can Congress simply veto the literal meaning of Article V without first amending Article V?
This is a slippery slope.
People that do not agree with the “same-subject” or “contemporaneous” arguments are not reaching.
Their interpretation is not ridiculous or unreasonable.
What is more unreasonable is the re-interpretation of:

• “whenever” as “whenever contemporaneous”


• and “amendments” as “same-subject amendments”.

Here’s the warning. If Congress (despite how wonderfully responsible, accountable, and productive Congress is today) is allowed to arbitrarily veto the literal text of Article V of the Constitution, it will do it again and again. People in fear of a convention should really be afraid of a runaway Congress that can re-interpret or veto any parts of the Constitution that it wants, anytime it wants.

People should send their Congress persons a letter and ask them why an Article V Convetion has not already been called?
Then wait and see what the answer is (if any, since most are strangely silent on this subject).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2007 11:49 AM

d.a.n said:Any group (e.g. younger Americans) that aren’t involved and interested will get used.

How can anyone be involved or interested unless they know what the Constitution says? And when it’s not taught in our schools how are they gonna learn?
I have this sneaking feeling that’s exactly what our elected officials want. If more folks new what our Constitution says they’d be up in arms against our current crop of politicians and none of them would out of their cu$hy jobs the next election.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 16, 2007 01:01 PM

Ron Brown said: “I have this sneaking feeling that’s exactly what our elected officials want. If more folks new what our Constitution says they’d be up in arms against our current crop of politicians and none of them would out of their cu$hy jobs the next election.”

Bingo! Let’s keep the focus on math and science which are skills that innovative employers need and demand. Passable English is important, but, not so much they might read the Constitution on their own and understand it. But, civics and history, no! What politician in their right mind wants a knowledgeable voter capable of casting a vote other than what candidate and political party advertising tell them to cast?

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2007 01:09 PM

I have this sneaking feeling that’s exactly what our elected officials want.

You bet it is. Many things are not by mere chance. These 10 things (and ignoring Article V) are not all by mere chance. Manipulation exists, and we must educate ourselves about our rights, otherwise we will lose them; we will be abused; the list of regressive systems will grow, and so will the disparity trend. In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount. Ignorance is an invitation to be abused, and there are always some that are all to happy to oblige. Especially where power and opportunity exists.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2007 02:09 PM

Rob-
Ratification of amendments, by its nature, has a natural limit imposed. Once a certain number of unique, individual states sign on, it’s the law of the land.

Before I continue, let me straighten one thing out about my opinion. In the law, we do not see the constitution alone used for interpretation. We use Precedent and tradition to fill in the blanks, to work through the uncertainties of what was meant.

I point out this standard has never been used before to call a convention, despite there being more than enough calls to call a convention more than ten times over to bring to light a rather overlooked fact: Nobody else, in the history of this country, has made the same claim, despite what must be plenty of opportunities to do so.

Additionally, if the States themselve regarded this as true, they would not repeatedly make convention calls. If you look in the records, you’ll find some states repeating calls in the space of a year!

The whole point of the threshold is to make sure people are together on this major method of altering the constitution. The legitimacy of the document is in its stability.

Lee Jamison-
Why would the PATRIOT act inspire fear if nearly everybody signed onto it in the beginning? We’ve seen all too much how the passions of the moment can lead us astray. We’ve also seen, lately, how perverse politicians can be in their relationship with the constituents.

Dan-
There’s no explicit call for the votes to be simply accumulated like numbers on an odometer.

Not everything in the constitution is explicitly spelled out. Not the procedurees for attaining a warrant, what exactly constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, nor what exactly constitutes establishment of a Church or intereference with other First Amendment rights.

It’s not personal whim or sense of semantics that drives the law in these cases, but precedent, tradition, and the judgment of the judiciary.

And what is the precedent? Despite multiple opportunties to call such conventions, they have not sone things that way.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2007 03:20 PM

You fellas can’t theorize that the governments dismissal of Article V and the Constitutional ignorance of the people is a conspiracy without admitting that it is just a part of the grander conspiracy on behalf of the Corporate Government.

A majority of the people have been there waiting for quite a while now. Although they have done fairly well, they see the trouble looming in the future and they are receptive to a new paradigm but, most are programed to follow and they need leadership.

Posted by: jlw at October 16, 2007 03:38 PM

Stephen’s comment completely ignores the evidence and logic in order to preserve preferences and illusions. Oh, well. Partisans all have their blind spots, just like a driver barreling down the road ab out to switch lanes, oblivious to what’s behind them in their rear and side view mirror blind spots.

If they are allowed to change lanes without turning their head, they are going to cause harm to them and those around them. Which makes it incumbent on the rest of us to keep our eye on the Stephens in the Democratic and Republican parties, who refuse, for whatever reasons, political, ego, to turn their head and gaze into their blind spot with open eyes and awareness.

Many Republicans are like that too, regarding their party being the fiscally responsible one. Very dangerous those blind spots and the drivers who refuse to eliminate them by looking at, and accepting, the reality around them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2007 03:48 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- There’s no explicit call for the votes to be simply accumulated like numbers on an odometer.

There’s nothing explicit against it either.

In fact, what is most explicit is the words “whenever” and “amendments” (plural).

To re-interpret any other way is more of a burden the defending the literal meaning.

Just because Congress and the Supreme Court choose to re-interpret it doesn’t make it right. Agreeing with the corrupt, do-nothing Congress and other defenders of the status quo does not make it right.

Especially since Congress has a clear conflict of interest, which is why it conveniently chose to re-interpret (in Article V) :

• “whenever” as “whenever contemporaneous”


• and “amendments” as “same-subject amendments”.

Many other people see it much differently, and for justifiable, logical, and ehtical reasons.
There are others in government too that also believe Article V is being violated (none in Congress, of course).
Many other people believe Article V should be obeyed; not just because of the literal meaning and text, but in the spirit of the law too, because requiring two-thirds of states to all do apply the same-subject amendment contemporaneously is too onerous; too ridiculous; practically impossible. Herding cats would be easier.

The interpretation I choose is the not just the literal meaning, but what I think is also the intended meaning. And I think it is a stretch to see it otherwise, as evidenced by the questions and disputes over this issue.

In my opinion, until Article V is amended to explicity define time-limits, and clear up these re-interpretations regarding same-subject amendments and the contemporaneousness of amendments, then I believe Congress should obey the Constitution. The Courts have essentially given Congress the right to veto the literal meaning without amending Article V first. Therefore, it is just a matter of time before other parts of the Constitution are re-interpreted. And prescendent is not a good excuse, since some amendments were allowed a long time for ratification, and some were subject to time limits (e.g. 7 years).

Since Congress has a clear conflict of interest, and is allowed this creative re-interpreation of Article V, what is to prevent Congress from another create re-interpretation should two-thirds of the states ever simultaneously submit same-subjet applications for an amendment?

Congress should err on the side of the will of the people, the literal text of Article V, and the probable intent of Article V, instead of always trying to weasel out of everything. No wonder they call it Do-Nothing Congress.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2007 04:56 PM

David R. Remer-
Let’s see the evidence.

Since the Constitution was ratified, there has not been one convention, much less one convened under the accumulation standard.

We have had multiple calls from nearly ever state in the union (if not all).

There is no explicit requirement for Congress to recognize or forbid the recognition of accumulated calls together. And just to clarify, we’re talking about beyond a year or two in accumulation.

High threshold standards are asserted in many places, such as the passage of a bill over a veto, the proposing of a single amendment through Congress, and in the requirements of ratification for all amendments, regardless of origin.

Thresholds are meaningless if calls are allowed to accumulate arbitrarily, and over extended periods of time. You could theoretically trigger a convention involving all the states by just the calls of a few. Why set high thresholds, then, if you’re thinking of having the thresholds be so easily surmountable, and under such arbitrary circumstances? All the other thresholds seem to indicate the need for a supermajority, a broad consensus of people, representatives and states in order to perform the extraordinary procedures laid out.

So, the evidence seems to indicate that the intentions of the founders were for people to call for the convention as simultaneously as possible. Given that the states, who are the real stakeholders in this process seem to act like the comtemperaneous standard holds, that there is no historical record of anybody using the accumulation standard, and they’re not the ones complaining right now, and the fact that there is no explicit support given for the standard, there’s no reason to consider it the sole legal standard.

Personally, David? I offer the broader vision of history, law, and constitutional interpretation, rather than resort to making straw men and adversaries out of the person I’m debating with. The ideosyncratic interpretation of the constitution is not enough to make that interpretation the law of the land. The ad hominem remarks towards those who don’t agree doesn’t help the argument any.

What cannot be argued strongly without strong words, cannot be made right with them.

The real question here is “Why do we have to use this standard, and not the one we’ve been using for over 200 years?” With no explicit requirement for allowing accumulation indefinitely, much less within any specified time period, what would put the contemperaneous standard at odds with the Constitution?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2007 05:50 PM

Stephen,

You said, “Ratification of amendments, by its nature, has a natural limit imposed. Once a certain number of unique, individual states sign on, it’s the law of the land.”

Is this different than the accumulation method that you have said doesn’t apply to article V? My point is that in my research I can find nothing to the method for calling an Article V Convention from the ratification of a particular ammendment. I’ve failed to find much of any constitutational law references on the matter at all. Can you please point to some to support your claim?

“Before I continue, let me straighten one thing out about my opinion. In the law, we do not see the constitution alone used for interpretation. We use Precedent and tradition to fill in the blanks, to work through the uncertainties of what was meant.”

Agreed mostly, because the ratification of Ammendments and the calling for a Constitutional Ammendment are both described in Article V, I have looked to precedent in the ratification process for ammendments to support my logic. Tradition is a dangerous method to use to support lawful action in Constitutional law. For example, it’s what got us further and further expansions of the Unitary Executive construct. I would rather not depend upon tradition in matters of constitutional law and rather depend on precedent and legal bound interpretation. I think I have been using this method to support my logic while you have been relying on interpretation.

“I point out this standard has never been used before to call a convention, despite there being more than enough calls to call a convention more than ten times over to bring to light a rather overlooked fact: Nobody else, in the history of this country, has made the same claim, despite what must be plenty of opportunities to do so.”

This is undoubtedly a fact that supports the tradition arguments. There are others that I have stated that support the call based on precedent. Are you picking and choosing your interpretative methods to get the result that you desire?
“Additionally, if the States themselve regarded this as true, they would not repeatedly make convention calls. If you look in the records, you’ll find some states repeating calls in the space of a year!”

There were also multiple affirmations by States in support of the 27th Ammendmnet. I’m not sure that this proves anything necessarily.

“The whole point of the threshold is to make sure people are together on this major method of altering the constitution. The legitimacy of the document is in its stability.”

It bears repeating that this is not a method to alter the Constitution but merely to suggest alterations. Any ammendment suggested by the Convention would still be required to meet the ratification guidelines further described in Article V. Food for thought, I believe it is likely that because the other methods have in the past been equally effective, this may explain why no one has clamored loudly for such a call to action. The immigration issue may push this over the edge.

What I find most interesting is your continued unwillingness to consider the arguments of others in light of additional evidence on this topic. Something I read recently about the disruptive lenses of bias springs to mind.

Posted by: Rob at October 16, 2007 05:55 PM

Dan-
The trouble here is that if there’s no explicit prohibition or prescription in the constitution, then you have no constitutional argument for the exclusive validity of your standard, and therefore cannot say that the refusal or simple neglect of the Congress throughout American history is illegal.

In the space of all possible constitutional laws, only a few laws have been legislated, and those, not the other, potential laws, represent the laws that must be followed and can be followed as law.

The question of whether Congress and the Supreme Court are doing the right thing can be made fairly subjective. People have all sorts of opinions about these things. In the end, though, we set up Congress to make the law, the Executive branch to carry it out, and the Judicial branch to interpret it. Whether or not we agree, they have authority. We did not set up this system to agree with any one person’s sense of right and wrong, but our collective sense of it, bounced back and forth through a system meant to represent our political will.

At the end of the day, the government must represent an agreement on what is right between its citizens, rather than an imposition of the few on the many.

That is the spirit of the requirements for Article V, and why I do not budge from the notion that it must be satisfied in full, with 34 or more states deciding at one time that there must be a convention. We cannot profit by dragging people unwillingly into an unwanted political process.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2007 06:02 PM

Stephen,
That’s you opinion.
Not everyone’s
So you side with Congress.
Imagine that.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2007 06:37 PM

So what is this mysterious time limit?
The number of years it took to accumulate 34 same-subject amendment applications, minus one ?
What ever interpetation is convenient?
What good is the Constitution if the literal text can be vetoed without amending it?
If the states ever do get an Article V Convention, Term-Limits should be at the top of the list.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2007 06:53 PM

Stephen said: “The trouble here is that if there’s no explicit prohibition or prescription in the constitution,”

But there is a prescription. The word “whenever” means “at such time as” the following condition is met. What part of English do you not speak or understand? Or, are you playing the Clinton game of it depends on what the meaning of is, is? Your entire argument is naive and without logical or linguistic merit.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2007 08:28 PM

Stephen said: “And just to clarify, we’re talking about beyond a year or two in accumulation.”

No, we are not. That appears to be your idiosyncratic dictate, but, then you are not King George, and lack to power to dictate according to personal whim.

‘Whenever’ such events occur, means ‘at such time as’ such events occur. It is quite explicit on this point. Unless you translate whenever in Aboriginal Bornean, to Japanese, and then back into English. Then it may lose that meaning in the translation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2007 08:35 PM

Dan-
It’s not my opinion solely. It’s the opinion of the states who repeatedly make calls, yet have not troubled Congress over it’s failure to do things your way.

As for time limits, there’s none required for roll call votes, but you don’t see people taking weeks to do one of those.

Nor is there any explicit time limit on voting for candidates. Yet for some odd reason, we have it all occur during one day.

Hell, I don’t think there’s even a day set aside as the only constitutionally viable day to vote. Yet we set one aside.

The Constitution does not require a time limit, but it does not preclude one, either, anymore than the lack of an explicit time limit prohibits the practice of keeping Senate and House votes brief, and election seasons within prescribed time limits.

Here’s the question I want to ask: what do you have against getting all thirty four calls together at one time? What’s the problem with only calling the convention after there’s been a clear, unambiguous call for it? Aren’t you denying the states and their current governments their say in whether they want to take this country to a convention if we do it this way?

In a way, you could say I side with Congress. That is, the congress of each and every state that should have, in its current form, the right to determine whether it wishes to call for a convention.

You don’t realize it, but you’re taking power away from people at the local and state level, in this day and age, in order to get the convention now rather than wait for the overwhelming consensus to back it under the traditional standard.

My feeling, and this backed by most of what the framers talked about, is that this is about balancing the power of the states against that of the Federal government which they are obligated to be a part of. By making the standard one of indefinite accumulation, you rob the states as they are now of their say.

I think you do this, though, out of misguided good intentions. But I do think you’re wrong.

David R. Remer-
“Whenever” does not mean under every possible circumstance semantics and imagination could dream up. Everything depends on what the definition of three quarters of the several states. For the most part, people treat it like it sounds, like a proportion, which would mean contemperaneous votes.

“whenever” is when the conditions are met. Well, are the conditions not met when thirty four states get together and call a convention?

Consider that under an accumulation standard, you could have any number of states make a call at one time, and trigger it. Making it an accumulation standard makes it too easy to make a call, which is definitely not the intention of those who set such a high standard in Congress and among the states for the consensus it would take to propose and ratify regular amendments.

With the contemperaneous standard, you know exactly where you stand, exactly what kind of support it takes to call the convention. There’s no need to worry that some regional party might use power in their states to impose a convention on everybody else, just because they can.

The whole point of the threshold is to have the country call these conventions as close to a whole as is reasonable to expect, so that there’s far less argument about whether there should be a convention held at all, and far more focus on the purpose for which it is called.

As for why I picked a year or two? Simple: that’s the longest the Congress or the state Governments can be expected to remain themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2007 10:01 PM

Term limits….yes, yes and YES. I was contemplating a possibility of:

6 x two year terms max in the House of Representatives for a total of 12 years occupied in one particular seat in the House.

2 x six year terms max in the U.S. Senate for the identical total of 12 years occupied in one particular seat in the Senate.

3 x four year terms max as President, also for the identical total of 12 years occupied in one particular seat in the Executive branch(keep in mind that as recently as little more than half-century ago, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to a FOURTH term before his untimely death cut his final term short and the law was subsequently altered to limit the President’s term to two).

These term limits are not to say that the lawmaker would be prohibited from running for any other office - see examples like Jerry Brown(Cal. Gov., Oakland Mayor, Cal AG. or Zell Miller(Georgia Gov., Georgia Sen. & a host of others). But what these term limits would do would be to prevent politicians from “pitching a tent” as incumbants for DECADES in the SAME DAMN SEAT….maddening.

Posted by: silversurfer at October 16, 2007 10:10 PM

silversurfer,
Yes, term-limits are needed because:

tenure corrupts

Also, the structure of the Senate should be changed to resemble the structure of the House, because the current structure of the Senate (two Senators per state) allows a state of very small population to over rule the will of the people of states with much larger populations. I wouldn’t extend the President’s term beyond the current 2 x 4 year term-limit, and I’d change the Senate terms to 2 years also (like the House).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Here’s the question I want to ask: what do you have against getting all thirty four calls together at one time?

Nothing. But that requirement is ridiculous. Expecting two-thirds of the states to ever submit amendment applications simultaneously is ridiculous and oppressive. Herding cats would be easier. Congress and the Supreme Court have suspiciously and dishonestly re-interpreted Article V in such a way that the bar is set so high, it makes it too difficult to ever bring about an Article V Convention. What is Congress afraid of? Term-Limits? Campaign Finance Reform? Congress has a clear conflict of interest, which explains their ridiculous re-interpretation of Article V.

Besides, the word “whenever” and “amendments” is quite clear. Siding with Congress and the Supreme Court on this doesn’t make it right. It merely supports the corrupt status quo. Now that the states see that Congress is violating Article V due to a suspicious re-interpretation of :

• “whenever” as “whenever contemporaneous”


• and “amendments” as “same-subject amendments”

… the states will be forced to try to get 34 states to submit same-subject amendments simultanouesly.

But then, what new hurdles will Do-Nothing Congress and the complicit Supreme Court invent to set the bar too high again?

So, if two thirds of the states do manage to meet the new re-interpretations of Article V, what will keep Congress and the Supreme Court from a new re-interpretation?

Stephen, Some in the government has actually already admitted to violating Article V.

Check this out (blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/10/15/203631/82)

Posted by: d.a.n at October 17, 2007 11:08 AM

Stephen,

Once again I refer you to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 85

“But every amendment to the Constitution, if once established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. There would then be no necessity for management or compromise, in relation to any other point no giving nor taking. The will of the requisite number would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue. And consequently, whenever nine, or rather ten States, were united in the desire of a particular amendment, that amendment must infallibly take place. There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of affecting an amendment, and that of establishing in the first instance a complete Constitution.”

In this paragraph there is support for the notion that, while the desire of the requisite number of states need not necessarily be directed at a single moment in time, Hamilton seems to suggest that they should, or might reasonably be expected to, be directed at a single purpose. On the other hand, he then adds the following-

” By the fifth article of the plan, the Congres will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States, which at present amount to nine, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air.”

Again, no time limit implied, but here Hamilton’s wording allows that the convention itself will be a platform for the “proposing of amendments”. So Stephen, on the basis of the actual words of the person most responsible for the wording used in the Constitution (Hamilton was the chairman of the Styles Comittee which was charged with putting the intent of the convention into clear language.) the call for a convention can not be said to be tied to subject, and there is no mention of time. You are not “reading intent into” Hamilton’s words as even a wishful legal scholar might. You are making things up as a child might make up powers for his favorite superhero.

As Hamiloton closed his defense of the nascent Constitution he quoted David Hume

“To balance a large state or society Õsays heå, whether monarchical or republican, on general laws, is a work of so great difficulty, that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able, by the mere dint of reason and reflection, to effect it. The judgments of many must unite in the work; experience must guide their labor; time must bring it to perfection, and the feeling of inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they INEVITABLY fall into in their first trials and experiments.”

Hamilton readily admits to the imperfections of the original Constitution and knows it will need to be amended. He has spent the bulk of this final Federalist Paper reassuring the reluctant people of the state of New York that it will be done and probably done often and without needing the cooperation of a willing Congress.

The members of Congress who would stand in the way of this process are also making up powers for their favorite superheroes who, unfortunately, are themselves.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 17, 2007 11:13 AM

If you are intrigued by the idea of a convention, you should check out Sabato’s YouTube page with videos of him discussing his rationale.

Posted by: UVa Politico at October 17, 2007 11:33 AM

d.a.n.,

I favor the current structure in that it is a guard against a type of full-fledged “mob rule”. The fact that the U.S. is not a democracy but actually a representative Constitutional Republic serves to protect the rights and POCKETBOOKS of the minority.

If these states with their vast populations start incurring tremendous state deficits(many already are - just check out the coming MONSOON of budgetary woes that will hit California in the near future…Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee has written extensively on the matter), anyway, the states with the vast population will allocate themselves a greater and greater piece of the Federal Government’s pie, and the less populated states will have nary a say in the matter.

So, in effect, states which are fiscally irresponsible, will take money away from those who pay Federal taxes that live in states that are more fiscally disciplined. It ain’t right to expect taxpayers in, say, Oklahoma, to have to bail out people in, say New Jersey, time and time again through Federal money appropriations.

You would be penalizing good behaviour and rewarding poor choices over and over again due to the fact that the states with the vast populations will continually use the “mob power grab” to “gangster” the money that other states pay into Federal taxes.

Yet another reason I favor reducing the role the Federal government plays in the lives of Americans…I guess its just a Libertarian thing, but, hey, someone’s gotta do it:)

Posted by: silversurfer at October 17, 2007 12:11 PM

d.a.n., I favor the current structure in that it is a guard against a type of full-fledged “mob rule”.

And a more representative Senate (more like the House instead of 2 Senators per state) would enhance the representation; not harm it. And as long as the Constitution isn’t violated, and no one’s rights are violated, shouldn’t the will of the majority prevail?

Or should the will of the minority prevail?

With the current Senate structure, a few very less populous states can overrule the will of the majority. Is that right? Is that true representation? That’s really the problem we have these days. And a filibuster and other abused rules exacerbate the problem to allow a minority to obstruct, despite the House that may have voted in favor of a BILL.

But, when you get right down to it, the real problem is that Congress and the federal government are simply dysfunctional, bloated, wasteful, irresponsible, corrupt, and unaccountable. And still they find time to give themselves their 9th raise in 10 years, cu$hy perks, resist ethics reform, campaign finance reform, Article V, balanced-budget, term-limits, and any common-sense, no-brainer reforms that might even remote reduce their power, opportunities for self-gain, or reduce the security of their cu$hy incumbencies. Also, the size of a mob can vary. And some mobs are the obstructionist minorities. Is that really a good thing? More often than not, it probably is one of the reasons Do-Nothing Congress can’t get much done.

On the issue of money coming back to states, look at which states get the most federal money (e.g. Alaska, Hawaii, D.C., New Hampshire, West Virginia, Montana, etc.). They receive the highest per-capita pork-barrel.

Also, this entire system of sending the money to the federal government in hopes of getting part of it back in the form of pork-barrel, graft, and waste is a practice that should be reduced or eliminated. The states have made themselves too dependent on the federal government. And the federal government most certainly abuses the entire process.

You would be penalizing good behaviour and rewarding poor choices over and over again due to the fact that the states with the vast populations will continually use the “mob power grab” to “gangster” the money that other states pay into Federal taxes.

Again, this entire system should be re-examined. Also, except for matters of national defense, why not distribute funds to all states equally per-capita and end this competition for pork-barrel, waste, and graft; a process that can never be fair?

But then, Congress also enjoys a 95% to 99% re-election rate too. So voters are culpable too.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 17, 2007 01:44 PM

d.a.n.,
I’ve become quite a fan of the split between the Senate and the House. Ditto the Electoral College, and