Third Party & Independents Archives

From Populist Rage to Revolution

Americans clearly are capable of being outraged. Missing, however, is a sustained, vibrant demand for deep reforms of our political and government system. You hear a lot about populist rage these days, especially connected to the AIG bonus debacle. But populist rage as a reflection of class conflict and anger about our economic meltdown does not necessarily make a political revolution.

The saddest thing about Obama winning the presidency was that his change message drained what might have been sufficient national energy for true revolutionary political reforms.

With the Bush-corrosion of our Constitution and collapse of the economic system after it had been exploited by the rich and corrupt, what better time for revolution? Instead, we got a president with a glib tongue, a terrific smile and a deep commitment to the two-party plutocracy and corporate state. Obama is no populist, not even close. Nor is he a genuine reformer. At best, he is a master exploiter of populism.

Obama was and still is a master of masquerading as just a regular guy. Even now, after making more than $8 million from his books, and even before when his wife made a huge salary and he lived in a million dollar house, and he reaped the many benefits of an elite Harvard Law School ticket to success. Totally consistent with his plutocratic and elitist background he has packed his administration with the same Harvard, elitist and Wall Street crowd that pumped many millions of dollars into his campaign and did nothing to stop the mortgage crisis and economic meltdown.

He has shown absolutely no courage or interest in standing up to the status quo, earmark-driven, and corrupt Democratic leaders in the House and Senate who, in large measure, share blame for the nation’s economic crisis, especially its roots in the mortgage insanity and under-regulation of the financial sector that they nurtured. Obama should have rejected the spending bill with tons of pork earmarks. But in reality Obama has shown no taste for standing up for principles. He had no problem with a Treasury Secretary that was a blatant tax dodger. Almost on a daily basis there is news about decisions being made that resemble Bush policies. Rather than shunning signing statements when Congress sends him bills, so abused by Bush, Obama immediately issued his own one.

The spending of the nation’s debt-based wealth on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue with no end in sight, despite the painful economic meltdown and mind-boggling deficit spending. When it comes to the wars and domestic problems, he seeks success through massive spending rather than through structural and systemic reforms.

Here is the problem: All the venom aimed at AIG and its bonus-receiving employees served more as a distraction than a viable political strategy to reform our government. True, there has been terrible economic warfare by the rich and corrupt in government and the private sector that has savaged ordinary Americans. Our corrupt and dysfunctional government did not protect us. We need a Second American Revolution. We need deep structural reforms to make our current MISrepresentatives obsolete and return our government to us. For this to happen we must not let ourselves be deceived by lying politicians. We must recognize that voting and elections have NOT worked effectively. We must look to our Constitution for the legal path to revolution.

The Founders anticipated that Americans would eventually lose confidence in the federal government. They created a never-used option in Article V. Never used because Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and gotten away with violating it and their oath of office. That option is an Article V convention of state delegates that has the constitutional power to propose constitutional amendments, only amendments, no wholesale rewriting of the Constitution. The one and only requirement in Article V is that two-thirds of state legislatures must apply to Congress for a convention. In fact, there have been over 700 such state applications from all 50 states.

Why no Article V convention? Because Congress and virtually every politically powerful group on the left and right oppose and fear an Article V convention. Why? Because clearly such a convention which is outside the control of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to discuss and propose amendments that could truly reform our government to remove corruption and make it much more equitable and effective for we the people. Where is the public outrage over Congress disobeying and disrespecting the Constitution? There is far less to fear from a convention than from maintaining the status quo two-party plutocracy.

If you believe in our Constitution, if you liked the change rhetoric of Obama, if you are furious about the economic meltdown, and if you see the need to seriously reform our government, then examine the materials at foavc.org and become a member of the nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention. Help make Congress obey the Constitution and give us the convention we have a constitutional right to have. If you see yourself as a patriot, dissident or activist, join our effort.

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at March 27, 2009 2:07 PM
Comments
Comment #278921

Does anyone else get the feeling that the Article V Convention is Joel’s hammer, and every possible problem is a nail?

I think we’re not far from Supreme Court Justice has Excess Flatulence - We Need an Article V Convention to Fix It!

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2009 2:27 PM
Comment #278929

Joel, I support FOAVC, have a write up and a link on our weebsite. But, I just can’t see it happening. Government will not, cannot reform itself. Corporatist have no reason to give an inch of power to the people. Whether its working for AVC, flat tax, fair trade, campaign finance recorm, reforming the money policy, are any REAL reform issue you are going to hit a brick wall.
The only non-violent way this government can be reformed is through a new political party that is comprised of the disenfranchised and unrepresented. This Party would have to put forth an agenda targeted solely at reform, void of most social issues. The Party’s candidates would have to be sworn to pursue the Party’s reform agenda. And, the Party membership would provide oversight for those candidates who become elected to offic. If elected officials don’t follow the Party agenda they are subject to rejection from the Party.
Once reform is achieved it can be maintained by the same political process, citizens oversight.
I suggest, instead of wishing for some people’s rebellion to come through AIG bonuses, you get behind a political party such as Republic Sentry or work to start a similar Party.
A new third party with a different political attitude can deliver AVC, a flat tax, clean elections, fair trade, clean up the Fed Rsv or anything else folks can agree on.
What does it say that we haven’t had a strong third party effort? Says folks are keenly aware that after a third party comes to power, within a couple of years it would simply become part of the duopoly or status quo. Why would it not? The moneyed interest hasn’t gone away. What it says is, we need a new third party with a different political attitude. Folks who register must sign to support the published agenda. Candidates from that party who become elected must then support the published agenda. If they go crazi or stray to far from the agenda they are subject to complaints from the membership. A certain number of compaints will require an up/down vote by the majority on that official. If the official fails to get 66% of the favorable vote then that official is rejected from the party. Loses membership and no further support for any political endeavor. The official can serve out his term but with no political support is much like the withering grape on the vine. In brief, it puts accountability into the political equation.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 27, 2009 3:30 PM
Comment #278952

Article V is not a silver bullet for all of our problems, but people should be concerned about the violation of any part of their Constitution.
If we allow the Constitution to be selectively enforced and/or ignored, it will become useless.

Also, the the most popular Article V applications (of 730+ applications from all 50 stats) is a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, from more than the 34 states required between years 1975 and 1980.

Altogether, there have been 104+ BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications by 38 different states.

Just think, if the states had been able to ratify a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, then perhaps the $11.1 Trillion National Debt would be so out-of-control today? And that does not even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby boomer bubble approaching.

Other parts of the U.S. Constitution are being violated (e.g. One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm), but the more we allow it to be chipped away, the longer and harder it will be to restore and enforce those laws later.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 27, 2009 6:26 PM
Comment #278972

outrage over the AIG bonuses was nothing but the tail wagging the dog. everyone was to busy being pissed about 165 mil in bonuses to pay attention to the 5.5 billion in pork in the omnibus spending bill. how convenient.

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2009 7:34 PM
Comment #278981

Joel, effective non-violent revolutionary political reforms require a consensus of the citizenry. That is in fact what November’s election represented. A consensus on campaign promises and qualities of the candidates who sought to represent the consensus and the interests of the nation if elected.

To state that American voters are not entirely of like mind on any given issue is an understatement. Still, there are revolutions by force, and revolutions by coup d’etat, and revolutions by election. To make radical and fundamental political changes either takes a violent revolution or coup d’etat, or a very, very long time by small increments if by elections in a stable society. The latter seems to apply to us at this time.

America’s politics have evolved and revolved considerably over the last 230 some years. One of its great strengths has been change by increments through elections. I hope that legacy continues.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 8:26 PM
Comment #278983

Agree Dan. AVC could give us reform in a single threaded fashion and you can fer shure we have a balanced budget amendment from that process. I do believe that a new third party could achieve reform on a range of issues in compartively short order compared to the AVC process. Doesn’t mean that several partitions could not be in process at the same time, but kind of unlkely IMO.

dbs, I agree that the bonus issue is being pandered to keep the media and public attention off what is going on with the bailout bucks.

Even a guy like me, just shy of taking my wife, my dog and my gun and heading for the mouuntains, continues to be amazed by how quickly the in-party becomes the more corrupt party and how blatantly and arrogantly they pursue their objectives.
Remember the transparent team Obama stood up to report on where the bail out money was going. They haven’t had an open meeting yet, not even a formal meeting, only meeting one or two at a time in the hallway, etc. And we have the Treasury thing with Dodd and Geithner. The FBI has 2400 ongoing fraud/corruption investigations involving government officials. I see all the immigration giveaway stuff as fraud and corruption. Calif vs people is going to court over Calif providing free college for illegals. Nine other states offering same. And, a bill has surfaced in congress to give illegals free college ed. Occasionally we have 4.0 Virginia students that can’t get accepted to the mjaor Va. colleges. 50% of graduate degrees in this country are issued to foreign students. You don’t get the stats on how many go home to work.
Word is that as the drug war weakens Mexico’s economy more people from that area will want to come to the US.
My point in what do we plan to do about this corporatist government come 2010 or 2012? Will we vote a Republican in? Vote third party? Not vote, etc? How do we plan to change the system if we don’t like it so much?

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 27, 2009 8:47 PM
Comment #278989

The whole point of the way a constitutional convention like this is called in the constitution is to avoid internal civil strife.

Which is to say, by depending on the consensus consent of the states, the constitution makes it less likely that this just becomes some political manuever pulled by a group of state legislature controlled by an impatient minority.

If we look at the high thresholds set for both the proposal and the ratification of the amendments, we see that the mechanisms in article five are set to be deliberately conservative. The constitution was not to be changed at the drop of the hat. I certainly don’t see why one would set such high thresholds of unitary action (two thirds votes by both houses to propose, three quarters of the state legislatures consenting for ratification), only to set one where sheer accident of numbers would trigger the convention.

The whole point is to have the Constitution be rewritten by pretty much the same thresholds that made the document official to begin with. They themselves were set to avoid the political problem of having the newborn nation splitting apart along the seams on the subject of ratification.

Some impatient advocates here, in their zeal to do good, do not see the way in which having just a few state legislatures triggering such a revolution might be counterproductive, either to their purpose, or the chances of ratification for the measures in question. The whole point of needing two thirds of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment is to start out the amendment process with a reasonable consensus among the representatives of the states, and their senators, that such a change is needed and/or wanted in the first place. The changes should be blindingly obvious enough so that the country doesn’t split apart over controversial, spur of the moment revisions of the national charter.

Look around the world, at the political struggles in places where the national governmental order is more malleable. We enjoy a stable government with a stable federal system because our system moderates radical changes, forces those who would push a radical agenda to prove the value of that agenda until it’s no longer radical, just majority consensus. And in the case of something so fundamental as a change to the constitution itself, the Framers left nothing to chance.

The Framers obviously did not see it proper to have amendments proposed by less than a supermajority of both congressional houses. This was meant to represent the will of the states. The same threshold, the same fraction of states is used in the convention method. Ockham’s razor would lead most to suspect that the Famers wished the effect in both cases to be the same, to require a supermajority of states to sign on to a convention for the alteration of the Constitution, before it happens. The idea being, that put asunder the Constitution as the Articles of Confederation had been put asunder, a high threshold would be required, just like it had been before to create the nation in the first place.

The people who wrote the main constitution were federalists, believers in additional centralized power. They did not want to make a challenge or an alteration of that power easy for the states. Folks like Jefferson would only sign on when the Bill of Rights was included. Both of these elements made for a stable country, in spite of major differences, allowing the United States to avoid the turmoil that plagues less moderated societies.

The Federalists meant this to be a republic of reason, where folks getting together and agreeing on things was to be the driving force. I would suggest to those who want true political change need to figure out ways to get a majority of people to support them, and not go for big power grabs. It is the unchallenged shift of power back to the rich and the powerful that’s become the problem in this society. We need to be less complacent, less intent on our own selfish goals, and more concentrated on figuring out what to do to make life in America better.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2009 10:39 PM
Comment #279004

David,
I would agree with your three ways to change Government and Society and offer a Fouth Path that I do believe is unique to America. For just as the Children of the 70’s learned and taught their Parents Right from Wrong so have they taught Their Children their beliefs in Right vs. Wrong. And though I cannot talk about 3rd Generational Change as outlined by the Founding Fathers of America. I do believe that it is through Education that the most Peaceful and Lasting Changes can withstand the Test of Time.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 28, 2009 4:47 AM
Comment #279012

There is room for more ‘populist rage’. Here is an excerpt from an a Yahoo article re insurance fraud. Your biggest corporations preying on the weak and powerless. Nothing new there.

“Ever wonder how that bill was calculated if you had to pay to see a doctor outside your insurance network?

Might be a scam, says a senator investigating the issue.

“… lawsuits and an investigation by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo alleging that UnitedHealth and Ingenix manipulated rate data so insurers had to pay less and patients more for out-of-network services.

“They’re lowballing deliberately. They deliberately cut the numbers so the consumer has to pay more of the cost,” Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said in an interview with The Associated Press on Friday.

“It’s scamming. It’s fraud,” he said.

In January, UnitedHealth agreed to pay $350 million to settle a suit by the American Medical Association and others over the issue. UnitedHealth did not admit wrongdoing. But, under pressure from Cuomo, the company agreed to pay $50 million toward creation of an independent claims database and eventually close down the Ingenix databases.

Cuomo has secured similar agreements from other major insurers, including WellPoint Inc., Aetna Inc., and Cigna Corp. The AMA is pursuing suits against those companies, too.”

Good post Stephen D. Your last few sentences are most poignant. “It is the unchallenged shift of power back to the rich and the powerful that’s become the problem in this society. We need to be less complacent, less intent on our own selfish goals, and more concentrated on figuring out what to do to make life in America better”.

Working on that. In gisting a quote by somebody: “this is the worst of times and the best of times”. In the middle of this recession and about to become an indebted nation of something like $100 trillion dollars while at the same time there are something like 75M baby boomers moving into retirement years who should have plenty of time to work on things political. I believe they will fill the ranks of the Republic Sentry and similar parties that will challenge the corporatist power structure and win. And, yes, by increments if necesssary.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.


Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 28, 2009 10:07 AM
Comment #279037
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The constitution was not to be changed at the drop of the hat. I certainly don’t see why one would set such high thresholds of unitary action (two thirds votes by both houses to propose, three quarters of the state legislatures consenting for ratification), only to set one where sheer accident of numbers would trigger the convention.
The 2/3 requirement has already been met (even if any same-subject or contemporaneous requirements existed within Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which there are not; see words of Article V below).

Two thirds of the states have already submitted the sufficient number (a minimum of 34) of BALANCED BUDGET Amendmemt applications, as evidenced by this photocopy of the Congresstional Records (and that occurred between years 1975 and 1980).
There are others Article V applications not even listed on that photocopy of the Congressional Record, and we are still finding more Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET.
And they occurred in a relatively short period of time too (i.e. shorter than a Senator’s 6 year term to Congress).

Also, there are many dozens of General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications too, from many states that have already submitted MANY Article V applications and now simply want Congress to obey the constitution.

Thus, there have been 104 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention from 38 states since year 1961.

There were 154+ Amendments by 34 States in 7 years from year 1963 to 1969.

There were 102+ Amendments by 35 States in 7 years from year 1965 to 1971.

However, there is nothing in Article V about any time limits or same-subject requirements.

    ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.

There are a couple of things to note above.
  • (1) Notice the word “whenever” ? Since when did “whenever” become “when Congress feels like it”?

  • (2) Notice the time limit (e.g. year 1808] above on changes to the 1st and 4th clause of the 9th section of the 1st article? Gee, if they were so careful to state a time limit for some other part of the Constitution, how could the then forget to place a time limit in submitted Article V applications? Since when did “whenever” become “10 years, 8 years, 6 years, 4 years, 2 years, 1 day, or 1 minute” ?

  • (3) Notice the word “shall”? Since when did “shall” become “maybe” or “only if Congress feels like it”?/b>

  • (4) Notice the words to “for proposing amendments”? Notice that “amendments” is plural. So how can there be a same-subject requirement when the purpose of the convention “is for proposing amendments” ?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Some impatient advocates here, in their zeal to do good, …
At least you are fair enough to recogonize that intentions are good.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Some impatient advocates here, in their zeal to do good, …
“Impatient”

However, when did wanting Article V of the U.S. Constitution to be obeyed become mere “zeal” or being “impatient advocates”?
Is that an attempt to besmirch and slander those in support of Article V, or a logical argument why Congress doesn’t have to call an Article V Convention?
Because if it is a slander, you are not doing yourself or your position any favors.
Has it ever occurred to you that that the declines in many areas in the U.S. are possibly related to growing abuses and corruption in an increasingly plutocratic, kleptocratic government that is severely bloated, fiscally and morally corrupt, and things might be better today if the states (who have submitted 730+ Article V applications) had been allowed by Congress to vote on amendments per Article V (such as the growing debt of nightmare proportions)?
Why is wanting reforms (e.g. TERM LIMITS, a BALANCED BUDGET, public campaign finance, non-regressive taxation, and other common-sense reforms) mere “zeal” or being “impatient”?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Some impatient advocates here, in their zeal to do good, do not see the way in which having just a few state legislatures triggering such a revolution might be counterproductive, either to their purpose, or the chances of ratification for the measures in question.
A few states?

ALL 50 States have submitted 730+ Article V Applications.
There have been 104 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention from 38 states since year 1961.
There were 154+ Amendments by 34 States in 7 years from year 1963 to 1969.
There were 102+ Amendments by 35 States in 7 years from year 1965 to 1971.

That’s more than a few.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Some impatient advocates here, in their zeal to do good, do not see the way in which having just a few state legislatures triggering such a revolution might be counterproductive, either to their purpose, or the chances of ratification for the measures in question.
“Revolution” ?

Who said anything about a “revolution”?

That sort of fear-mongering is not substantiated by history, because there have been over 679 State Constitutional Conventions between years 1776 and 1916, and none of those resulted in a revolution.
Hell, most people don’t even know about it.
Besides, it requires 3/4 (three fourths) of the states to ratify any proposed amendment.
So those are two historical and logical reasons why fear about Article V makes no sense.

For example, Massachussetts had 4 state constitutional conventions between years 1778 and 1916:

  • (1) CONVENTION 1778

  • (2) CONVENTION 1779-1780

  • (3) CONVENTION 1820-1821

  • (4) (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Constitutional_Convention_of_1853) CONVENTION 1853

See page (www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Articles/StateConstitutionalConventions.pdf) 21 of 48 for details for Massachuesetts
And there were 2 or 3 more Massachusetts state constitutional conventons in years 1917 (source: www.questia.com/library/book/debates-in-the-massachusetts-constitutional-convention-1917-1918-by-massachusetts-constitutional-convention.jsp), 1920, and 2007 (source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU71RjMPKdQ).
HHHHMMMmmmmmmmmmmm … Massachusetts is still here.
So are all 50 states.
Even if 1 or 2 states ever had a problem, what’s that percentage for 679 state constitutional conventions between 1776 and 1916?

Iraq had a constitutional convention.
Afghanistan had a constitutional convention.
So, it appears there is no credible basis for the fear-mongering about Article V.
More likely, those that oppose Article V the most want to retain power (especially Congress; especially the IN-PARTY).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Some impatient advocates here, in their zeal to do good, do not see the way in which having just a few state legislatures triggering such a revolution might be counterproductive, either to their purpose, or the chances of ratification for the measures in question.
“Counterproductive” ? HMMMMmmmmmmmm … just think if the states had been able to pass a BALANCED BUDGET amendment in year 1980 (when 2/3 of the states had submitted more than 34 BALANCED BUDGET applications)?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The whole point of the way a constitutional convention like this is called in the constitution is to avoid internal civil strife.
Like this economic melt-down largely caused by government FOR-SALE, incomptence, corruption, and greed?

Perhaps the federal government would not be swimming in $11.1 Trillion of National Debt (which does not even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby boomer bubble approaching at one of the worst times possible)?
That $11.1 Trillion National Debt is the biggest debt ever per-capita ($35,806), with a U.S. population of 310 Million.
The total federal debt of $23.9 Trillion ($11.1T + $12.8T) is the largest debt ever in size, per-capita ($77,097), and as a percentage (172%) of GDP (GDP=$13.86 Trillion in year 2007).
And so much federal debt has not set a good example for the nation either, which now has 69.8 Trillion of nation-wide debt (up from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to over 503% of GDP today; source: mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm ).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Some impatient advocates here, in their zeal to do good, do not see the way in which having just a few state legislatures triggering such a revolution might be counterproductive, either to their purpose, or the chances of ratification for the measures in question.
“Counterproductive” ? Is that statement also advocating that Article V should be ignored if a sufficient number of states have satisfied the requirements of Article V of the U.S. Constitution?

730+ Article V amendment applicaitons (see the most complete (if not only) online source of photocopied Article V applications here) from all 50 states is starting to look pretty ridiculous, and it is most likely only a matter of time before one or more states force the issue in the Supreme Court, at which time Congress will finally (hopefully) be forced to obey the Constitution.

And why does it require an independent organization to find and count these Article V applications?
Does it appear to you that Congress has been trying to hide these Article V applications?
Do you doubt Congress’ confict of interest?
Why would Congress want to obey Article V if it leads to things like TERM LIMITS, a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, publicly financed elections, limit raises for Congress (who just gave themselves their 10th raise in 12 years and $93,000 for petty cash and expenses), and any other reforms that may even remotely reduce Congress persons’ power, opportunities for self-gain, their ability to give themselves raises, or possibly reduce their power and the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies?

Anyway, the same-subject and contemporaneous arguments are now pretty ridiculous with so many Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET anmendnent in only a few years, and 730+ (and growing) other Article V amendments from ALL 50 states.

That only leaves the argument about whether an Article V Convention is a good idea or not.
Well, Article V is the law.
The Constitution should not be violated, should it?

So, those that don’t like Article V should probably submit an Article V application to change Article V.
OOHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh … but wait.
All 50 states have already submitted 730+ Article V applications, and Congress has ignored it.
So good luck with that (or any) amendment, eh?

Roy Ellis wrote: Agree Dan. AVC [Article V Convention] could give us reform in a single threaded fashion and you can fer shure we have a balanced budget amendment from that process.
I do believe Article V was put in the Constitution for a reason, and its violation (despite the sufficient number of Article V applications even based on the fictitious same-subject and contemporaneous requirements), among some other constitutional violations (One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm) is possibly why we have so many problems growing in number and severity, and some of the worst economic conditions ever, and/or since the Great Depression. After all, rececssions and depressions are most likely more about societal and governmental problems, than business cycles or phenomena.
Roy Ellis wrote: I do believe that a new third party could achieve reform on a range of issues in compartively short order compared to the AVC process. Doesn’t mean that several partitions could not be in process at the same time, but kind of unlkely IMO.
If the absues causing a lot of pain and misery are allowed to grow in number and severity, and/or if the federal government and Federal Reserve create hyperinflation, you will most likely see a third party result from it. Pain and misery is the fail-safe mechanism. The voters will get their education one way or another. The smart way would be preferrable. The sooner the better, because we may be running out of time to stop historic economic declines caused by decades of a myriad of abuses that still exist (abuses: One-Simple-Idea.com/Abuses.htm), such as unfair and regressive taxations; illegal immigration and undermining E-Verify for votes and profits disguised as compassion; corruption and an increasingly plutocratic, kleptocratic, FOR-SALE government; election irregularities and election fraud; constitutional violations; killing 195,000 people per year by medical mistakes while gouging and cheating people for skyrocketing medical costs; declining quality and rising cost of education; record level federal debt (highest per-capita debt) and many trillions of dollars unfunded liabilities; a dishonest, usurious, inflationary monetary system that is essentially a pyramid scheme and largely responsible for this economic nightmare and nation-wide debt-bubble growing from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to 503% of GDP by MAR-2009; some unnecessary wars;

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 28, 2009 2:24 PM
Comment #279043

David writes: “effective non-violent revolutionary political reforms require a consensus of the citizenry. That is in fact what November’s election represented.”

November’s election did not represent a “consensus.” With just under 57% voter turnout, Obama got 53% of the vote. Obama was thus voted into office by a minority (just over 1/3) of eligible voters in the US. That’s hardly a consensus. But you also seem to agree: “To state that American voters are not entirely of like mind on any given issue is an understatement.”

Posted by: d.eris at March 28, 2009 3:02 PM
Comment #279064

d.eris-
Your argument’s shorter, so I’m going after your point first.

At the very least, those who did not vote consented to whatever result came of the others voting. That’s why I vote in every major election. Silence is consent.

Besides, Obama consistently remains above sixty percent in the Gallup tracking poll, and around that generally in other polls.

Americans want a change. Almost every poll on almost every subject indicates this.

Dan-

The 2/3 requirement has already been met (even if any same-subject or contemporaneous requirements existed within Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which there are not; see words of Article V below).

No, it hasn’t. More to the point, the states, who had the right and the place to complain, haven’t. The only person complaining, out in the courts, is a guy who doesn’t get to speak for the states. That simple. If the states wanted to consider things under those terms, they could sue the government themselves. They haven’t.

The whole point of this clause is to give the states a way to directly impose change on Washington, when their Representatives and Senators don’t do the job for them. Any cumulative argument throws out the need for their to be a definitive majority at present, which contradicts the spirit of the whole rest of the article.

And no, you don’t have to highlight the articles. It’s not as if I haven’t read it. I’ve merely taken a different interpretation, one which is backed by history.

However, when did wanting Article V of the U.S. Constitution to be obeyed become mere “zeal” or being “impatient advocates”? Is that an attempt to besmirch and slander those in support of Article V, or a logical argument why Congress doesn’t have to call an Article V Convention?

Because if it is a slander, you are not doing yourself or your position any favors.

Has it ever occurred to you that that the declines in many areas in the U.S. are possibly related to growing abuses and corruption in an increasingly plutocratic, kleptocratic government that is severely bloated, fiscally and morally corrupt, and things might be better today if the states (who have submitted 730+ Article V applications) had been allowed by Congress to vote on amendments per Article V (such as the growing debt of nightmare proportions)?
Why is wanting reforms (e.g. TERM LIMITS, a BALANCED BUDGET, public campaign finance, non-regressive taxation, and other common-sense reforms) mere “zeal” or being “impatient”?

The whole foundation of the argument is that calls should be counted over history. Maybe you could derive that from the text (just like you could derive my meaning), but the law is more than just text. It’s intent.

There are always reasons that you folks offer for action, as if we should already be clear on what the truthful interpretation is, and all you have to do is break our final resistance by indicating out desperate things are.

The question is whether we consider these constitutional calls together or individually, whether their purpose is simply to add ticks to some counter, or whether it is to represent a consensus of the majority of the states. With the cumulative interpretation, You could have two or three states pile on to a previous list of calls, and that would be it. But clearly the constitution was aiming for collective actions by Congress and the legislature. That’s what the other thresholds are for.

This is an action meant to be taken by the states together. But apparently, you guys think that you shouldn’t have to be bothered to get 34 or more states to call for something together. We should just count all the calls that have come before, regardless of what the states’ sentiments are now.

Even if you succeeded, you would succeed with almost no public backing, no real state backing to this venture. It would be something the country was drug into, rather than something it took steps together to do.

You should look at the history of political manuevering: when you try and force something through a minority parliamentary manuever, it breeds resentment on the spot.

The point of what the founding fathers wrote was to make sure that our constitution was only changed by a distinct majority of the states that the document would apply to. This fosters stability, creates more certainty in the laws. If changing the constitution were easy as accumulation what kind of legal chaos would there be?

I think we’d be better advised to approach things from a standpoint of statutory reform. The idea of always appealing to constitutional change, unlikely as it is, in order to bring change, is part of what’s made the conservative movement and others so lacking in political agility.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2009 6:55 PM
Comment #279065

“David writes: “effective non-violent revolutionary political reforms require a consensus of the citizenry. That is in fact what November’s election represented.””

d.eris said: November’s election did not represent a “consensus.” With just under 57% voter turnout, Obama got 53% of the vote. “

Let me repeat your own words, d.eris, “Obama got 53% of the vote.”

Thank you for agreeing with statement, even though you object to agreeing. 53% of the vote is a consensus, BY DEFINITION! (50% + 1, or, a majority). Non voters chose not to participate, their vote is abstention, and therefore not to be counted or considered for the purposes of determining a consensus in an election. Again, by definition.

Your argument that a 53% vote majority is NOT a consensus is simply illogical. Unless, one participates in that favorite American political game of creating one’s own definitions to force one’s arguments to fit.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 28, 2009 7:13 PM
Comment #279071

You’ve got me on that point David. But I was thinking of ‘consensus’ in the sense of ‘general agreement/accord’ and ‘agreement on the part of all concerned,’ which are also standard usage. However, I do not agree with Stephen that silence is consent. It could represent tacit consent. But it could equally well represent dissent, a boycott for instance. My suspicion is that in many cases it is the result of discontent.

Posted by: d.eris at March 28, 2009 7:58 PM
Comment #279077

d.eris-
Boycotts work for those in consumer markets because the company’s costs are its own worst enemy. Deny them enough money for their product, and they will feel it.

On the other hand, The only time somebody will feel a boycott in an election, is when they could have expected your support. It’s a nice, self sacrificial move, but it doesn’t strike me as a good, consistent strategy.

When it comes to voting, being counted is the best way to be heard.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2009 8:40 PM
Comment #279092

d.eris, a non-vote, or person refusing to participate in a poll, is but one thing categorically, and that is UNKNOWN!

While it is logical to assume that of all non-voters some portion would dissent with any particular candidate’s views, and some other portion assent to those same views, in what proportions and with what interest or ardor, is entirely unknowable. Making speculation about percentages nothing more than wild, and likely prejudiced, guesses.

For all intents and purposes, non-votes are entirely irrelevant to an election’s results, and the policies represented by the candidates or parties running.

I suspect a large number of non-voters are honestly aware of how little they know in order to cast an intelligent vote, and therefore abstain from voting uninformedly. But, there is absolutely no evidence to support that suspicion without polling them in a rigidly controlled survey which measures that particular reason for their not voting. Perhaps such a reliable and valid research has been done, but, I am unaware of it.

I find the vast majority of political polling to be either highly unreliable or invalid due to non-neutral and non-reiterated questions in the poll. Which makes finding out who funded the poll, and the reliability and validity stats for a poll, imperative before putting too much confidence in its results. But that is survey polling, which is different from democratic election polling in some significant ways. For one, that is virtually no sampling error in election polling because there is no extrapolation from a sample to the general population possible, or needed for reliable results. (There is fraud, but, not a result changing variable in most elections.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 29, 2009 2:45 AM
Comment #279098

d.eris,
Do you want to start a battle with the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s over Their Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights to Drop Out?

And why there does exist a more Honoredable and Dishonorable Logic and Reason for one refusing to vote or be heard in public. I do see over the last few elections more and more Americans Tuning In and Voting.

David and Stephen,
Why I was to Young and Dumb in the 70’s to understand My Elders insistance over My Community Elders and Peers at the time. I do remember something like what Stephen said above; however, being just a little rehelous at the time you can imagine what I told them.

However, is this the part of the Constitution President Obama is refering to when he offers a Challenge to His Loyal Opposition over the Federal Budget (i.e. A Federal Investment Plan)?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 29, 2009 5:58 AM
Comment #279114
Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n-
  • d.a.n wrote: The 2/3 requirement has already been met (even if any same-subject or contemporaneous requirements existed within Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which there are not; see words of Article V below).
No, it hasn’t.
False.

Can’t you read?

There most certainly have been 34+ (i.e. two thirds) Article V same-subject (BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications) from 34+ different (unique) states, and it also occured in a realatively short period of time too (between years 1975 and 1980; a period shorter than the term of a U.S. Senator).

So, what do you call these 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 34+ different states between years 1975 and 1980?

What do you call 104+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 38+ different states (most since year 1961)?

38 is also enough to ratify a BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment too (i.e. three fourths required to ratify any amendment).

QUESTION #1: With so much federal debt of nightmare proportions ($11 Trillion National Debt), why do you think 38+ different states have submitted 104+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications? And that doesn’t even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby boomer bubble approaching.

Your entire argument about history is total nonsense, because there is nothing, there is no court case, there is nothing in the federalist papers, and nothing anywhere that overrides the U.S. Constitution. Congress is quite simply in violation of Article V of the U.S. Constitution, and people like you that condone, and defend it with a lot of weak, circular gobbledygook doesn’t change it or make it right. Your argument about history makes no sense at all. Your re-interpretations makes no sense at all. Your arguemnts have been about non-existent same-subject and contemporaneousness and now those excuses are irrelevant too because even those conditions have been met too.

QUESTION #2: Are you seriously going to deny the photo-copied evidence?
There have been more BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications since 1980.

Do you still assert that those 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 34+ different states are meaningless?

QUESTION #3: So, now that there is proof of Article V amendment applications from more than 34 states and in a relatively short period of time (less than 5 years), are you still going to try to argue the fictitious same-subject and/or comtemporaneous requirements?

That was your argument in the past (i.e. same-subject and contemporaneousness).

So what is your argument today?
History?
The “truthful interpretation” ?
What do you mean exactly by “history”?
What will your next excuse?
The “price of rice in China on Tuesdays”?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: More to the point, the states, who had the right and the place to complain, haven’t. The only person complaining, out in the courts, is a guy who doesn’t get to speak for the states. That simple. If the states wanted to consider things under those terms, they could sue the government themselves. They haven’t.
So, you are now asserting that only states have a right to want the U.S. Constitution obeyed?

That’s lame too, but it will be entertaining to watch you dig yourself into a very deep hole again with a bunch of circurlare gobbledygook like that trying to defened the indefensible.

By the way, there may be one or more states soon who will be doing just as you suggest (i.e. sueing the federal government).
So, you also seem to be asserting that states must sue the government in order to protect their constitutional rights?
Do you see how that hole your diggin’ just keeps gettin’ deeper and deeper when you subbornly choose to defend nonsense with circular gobbledygook?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The whole point of this clause is to give the states a way to directly impose change on Washington, when their Representatives and Senators don’t do the job for them. Any cumulative argument throws out the need for their to be a definitive majority at present, which contradicts the spirit of the whole rest of the article.
Cumulative?

Can’t you read?

What do you call these 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 34+ different states between years 1975 and 1980?
What do you call 104+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 38+ different states (most since year 1961)?

Your argument of fictitious, non-existene same-subject and contemporaneous requirements in Article V are now a moot point since there exists 34+ (i.e. two thirds) BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 34+ different states in a relatively short period of time between years 1975 and 1980.

Yet you still have the gall to push that same old circular gobbledygook about same-subject and contemporaneous requirements?
Not only that, there have more since.
It continues.
That have been 104+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendments since 1961 from 38 different states that that is enough (more than 3/4) to also ratify a BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment.

By the way, don’t be surprised when one or more state legislatures and/or state attorney generals do sue the federal government.
Despite your circular logic, it should not be necessary to sue the government every time it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: And no, you don’t have to highlight the articles. It’s not as if I haven’t read it. I’ve merely taken a different interpretation, one which is backed by history.
If you actually read it, then how do you explain these 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 34+ different states between years 1975 and 1980?

QUESTION #4: If that (34+ states in less than 5 years) isn’t sufficient, then what is? Something ridiculous moving target like 5 weeks, 5 days, or 5 minutes?

Will (can) you answer that question?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The whole foundation of the argument is that calls should be counted over history. Maybe you could derive that from the text (just like you could derive my meaning), but the law is more than just text. It’s intent.
Can’t you read?

What do you call these 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 34+ different states between years 1975 and 1980?
What do you call 104+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 38+ different states (most since year 1961)?

  • (1) That is over 2/3 of the states (i.e. 34 different states).
  • (2) And they were submitted in a relatively short period of time (less than 5 years; less then the lenght of a U.S. senator’s term in office).
What part of that do you not understand?

Please explain to us how that is not sufficient?
You previously argued against Article V based on same-subject and contemporaneous requirements.
QUESTION #5: Now that those two excuses have been blown out of the water, what is now your new excuse?

I can’t wait.
The answer will be entertaining, or it won’t surprise me one bit if you simply ignore the questions and refuse to answer them?

You talk about intent and history and other nebulous things lacking specificity, but refuse to admit that the requirements of Article V have already been met.
What are you going to say when the case finally goes to the Supreme Court and the court finally rules that Congress must obey Article V and call a convention as specified in Article V?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: There are always reasons that you folks offer for action, as if we should already be clear on what the truthful interpretation is, and all you have to do is break our final resistance by indicating out desperate things are.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Some impatient advocates here, in their zeal to do good, …
That is more weak, circular, lame obfuscation and nonsense.

“you folks”?

So, when your arguments are failing miserably, it’s time to paint those who disagree as “impatient”, “zealots”, or simply unable to see the “truthful interpretation” of Article V?

So, anyone who wants the U.S. Constitution obeyed is simply an “impatient” “zealot”?
I see.
That’s always the tactic when one’s own arguements are failing miserably.
In failing to provide any credible arguments, simply resort to attacking the messenger, eh?
That is usually a sure sign of a failing argument.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The question is whether we consider these constitutional calls together or individually, whether their purpose is simply to add ticks to some counter, or whether it is to represent a consensus of the majority of the states. With the cumulative interpretation, You could have two or three states pile on to a previous list of calls, and that would be it. But clearly the constitution was aiming for collective actions by Congress and the legislature. That’s what the other thresholds are for.
Can’t you read? Seriously?

QUESTION #6: What do you call these 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 34+ different states between years 1975 and 1980?
What do you call 104+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications
from 38+ different states (most since year 1961)?

Do you actually read what others write, or simply think you know everything already?
You keep blathering about same-subject and contemporaneous requirements which have most certain already been met, and if you don’t believe our photo-copies from the National Archives and Records Administration, then simply go to the National Archives in Washington D.C. and see for yourself.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: This is an action meant to be taken by the states together. But apparently, you guys think that you shouldn’t have to be bothered to get 34 or more states to call for something together. We should just count all the calls that have come before, regardless of what the states’ sentiments are now.
Again, can’t you read? Seriously?

You obviously haven’t read it, and have no idea what you are talking about.

What do you call the 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications already submitted by 34+ different (unique) states between years 1975 and 1980?
What do you call 104+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 38+ different states (most since year 1961)?
Are you still saying that doesn’t count?

So, your arguement is completely baseless.
But are you man enough to admit you are wrong?
What other nebulous, contorted, nonsensical excuse are you going to come up with next?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Even if you succeeded, you would succeed with almost no public backing, no real state backing to this venture. It would be something the country was drug into, rather than something it took steps together to do.
Pure nonsense, since 34+ different (that means unique) states have already submitted 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications, and they did it in a relatively short period of time (between years 1975 and 1980; shorter than the term of a U.S. Senator)?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You should look at the history of political manuevering: when you try and force something through a minority parliamentary manuever, it breeds resentment on the spot.
And perhaps you should go back to school to learn how to count and read? (NOTE: That’s a question).

Your arguments are baseless and will only become more and more difficult to defend, but please continue so that we may continue to be entertained with more obfuscations, re-interpretations, and pretzel imitations.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The point of what the founding fathers wrote was to make sure that our constitution was only changed by a distinct majority of the states that the document would apply to. This fosters stability, creates more certainty in the laws. If changing the constitution were easy as accumulation what kind of legal chaos would there be?
What do you call the 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications already submitted by 34+ different (unique) states between years 1975 and 1980?

What do you call 104+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 38+ different states (most since year 1961)?

What do you call 730+ Article V amendment applications from ALL 50 states (i.e. 14.6 applications per state on average)?

What part of that do you not understand?

HHHMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … it all looks like obstructionism to me.
Is there really any doubt that Congress has been trying to hide these Article V applications in many volumes in the National Archives?
Is there really any doubt about Congress’ conflict of interest?
Why would Congress want to obey Article V of the U.S. Constitution, when it will probably lead to things like TERM LIMITS, a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, publicly financed elections, limit raises for Congress (who just gave themselves their 10th raise in 12 years and $93,000 for petty cash and expenses).
Why would Congress want to obey Article V of the U.S. Constitution, or any reforms that may even remotely reduce Congress persons’ opportunities for self-gain, peddling influence, their ability to give themselves raises, or possibly reduce their power and the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies?

Do you want to perpetuate that by continuing to claim Article V requirements have not been met?

Are you so determined to not lose an argument that you will make a fool of yourself with a plethora of obfuscations, re-interpretations, and pretzel imitations?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think we’d be better advised to approach things from a standpoint of statutory reform. The idea of always appealing to constitutional change, unlikely as it is, in order to bring change, is part of what’s made the conservative movement and others so lacking in political agility.
Wanting the U.S. Constitution obeyed is not a conservative movement, and that is yet another lame attempt to besmirch those in support of Article V.

That is a sure sign of a weak case.

So, are you going to answer those questions above?
Are you going to explain why 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications already submitted by 34+ different (unique) states between years 1975 and 1980 is still insufficient?
Are you going to explain why 104+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications already submitted by 38+ different states is still insufficient?

Is it any wonder states want to limit the federal government’s fiscal irresponsibility, with a $11.1 Trillion of national debt that (a debt per-capita of $35,806 which is 65% larger than the $21,719 national debt per-capita after World War II)?

Is maintaining power for the IN-PARTY so important that it justifies violation of the U.S. Constitution?

If not, then how do you explain the 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications already submitted by 34+ different (unique) states between years 1975 and 1980 as still being insufficient?

How do you explain 104+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 38+ different states (most since year 1961)?

QUESTION #7: Are you saying 34/50 is not greater than two-thirds?

QUESTION #8: Are you saying 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications between years 1975 and 1980 is too short of a period?

Please tell us (if you can).

More pretzel imitations, gobbledygook, and obfuscation is bound to be quite entertaining.

Or ignore it, and we’ll chalk it up to finally tiring of pretzel imitations.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 29, 2009 11:29 AM
Comment #279127

David: “Perhaps such a reliable and valid research has been done, but, I am unaware of it.”

If it exists I can’t find it either. What we do know is that voter turnout in presidential elections has not gotten above 58% in the last forty years and tends to hover in the low to mid 50% range. In midterm elections, it hasn’t been above 40% since 1970. (According to a chart at infoplease.) In these conditions, no president or representative has been elected to office by a majority of eligible voters in quite some time, certainly not in my lifetime. The duopoly parties and the media often blame voter apathy for this state of affairs, but it is just as much an indictment of the two-party system itself as it is of the voting populace.

Posted by: d.eris at March 29, 2009 2:48 PM
Comment #279135

d.eris

One thing I think you are forgetting is that the average voter turnout that you quote is an average of all the districts, so some places have higher turnout and other places have lower turnout. So there are a few places where a representative has received an absolute majority of the population’s votes. One example is the District of Columbia. Out of 426,761 registered voters, Barack Obama received 245,800 votes (58%) and the nonvoting delegate to the US Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, received 228,376 votes (53.5%)

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 29, 2009 4:59 PM
Comment #279139

Dan-
It’s a simple question: were the states doing this together? You could have a hundred calls, but if it’s say, ten or fifteen states getting together at a time, many of them repeatedly, does it really reflect that consensus?

The threshold was never meant to be an arbitrary number. It was meant to represent America’s unity on the need to change. But you keep on evoking numbers of calls as if the constitution is some kind of odometer, and the convention is like a regular oil change. As appealing as that idea may be to some who want change, and want it now, I don’t think it fits the way the article is written. These were high thresholds that required states and their representatives to cooperate and work together to propose and pass amendments. The Federalists were not about to hand people the means to just hold another constitutional convention just on some arbitrary rollover of calls.

I mean, why would they enact such a lopsided standard? And wouldn’t the Anti-Federalists of the time have taken advantage of this, even demanded it? God knows the political tensions would have motivated the Democrats of pre-Civil War America to re-write slavery permanently into the document.

Your motivation or mine for wanting a constitutional convention are irrelevant. Doesn’t matter how good or wonderful our plans or motivations are. There was a threshold set, and nobody’s gotten the states sufficient to call it all together to call it properly. The states have not viewed this perpetual failure to call a convention as some sort of conspiracy by Congress. They have never said a word, or levelled a lawsuit, not in over two centuries of American life that certainly were not short of controversy or change.

You claim congress is in violation. Maybe it’s in violation of your special, personal sense of hte law, but that doesn’t count in terms of the law America operates by. There has been no supreme court case to support your interpretation. So far, I have seen no historical sources indicating that this is anymore than newfound, creative constitutional semantics. I can cite The Federalist in supporting the view that this was supposed to be a common cause of the states, rather than just some accidentally accumulated number.

Your side, though, has no such evidence. It has only created a patchwork of circular arguments based on legal cases regarding Article V’s other clauses. It essentially says that Article V must be obeyed, but it does not successfully speak to why it must be obeyed according to your interpretation; neither years of practice nor the documentation of history and legal thought back that point.

So, if we’re not at a place where anybody has established a legal necessity to see the article your way, then the legal jurisprudence falls on the side of what seems, to all intents and purposes, to be the original interpretation. Mine, in other words.

So, that being the case, why should I take seriously any rhetoric about how bad a person I am for not seeing things your way?

You can talk trash about my arguments, but can you defeat them by reason alone? Can you offer what is missing? What historical accounts confirm that at any period of history, other than the contemporary, that we see this interpretation used. What documentation can you offer showing this to be adjudicated, on this particular clause, not ones related to the regular, more used amendment process? Which founding father’s words can unambiguously demonstrate to us the validity of the cumulative interpretation?

Where can you show the aggreived states taking actual legal action to force the government to do as you say?

The burden of proof is on you. You can’t prove this with mere semantics. You can’t prove it by appealing to the rightness of your cause. You need facts and law on your side. All I’ve seen is a rhetorical argument with no history and no directly applicable law presented. You’re arguing original intent without one bit of evidence that any man, woman, or child in early America even understood this interpretation to exist, much less rule the day. I mean, how does that work?

So much of the harm in these past few decades have been done by people so wrapped up in the rightness of their causes that they never stopped to examine the factual or logical foundations of their policy or politics. They hastily, noisily pushed their way to power, and then spent the next few decades imposing themselves on everybody else because they knew they were right.

But they weren’t and their unwillingness to see past their own face-value beliefs to the greater truths of what was going on cost this country dearly.

This the kind of attitude I oppose, because I believe that observation and reason should substitute for party sloganeering and philosophizing as much as possible.

When I apply my reason and my observation to this problem, I can’t seem to find the evidence that backs the historicity much less the acceptance of your interpretation. Without such evidence, you will be ill-prepared to argue to skeptics the validity, much less the justice of your interpretation here.

But will that stop you?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2009 5:52 PM
Comment #279149

However we get a balanced budget amendment, we sorely need one. And sovereignty busting didn’t start with AVC. Lemme get my licks in.
One More Time! This corpocracy of a government has, over the last 40 years, behind our back and in secrecy, given us a globalized economy. They have deregulated business and finance, rearranged our borders, rewrote administrative and trade law to conform to the world order, and herded in some 40M foreign workers with the intent of breaking the back of the middle class work force. Their policies caused massive failure in the housing, financial, and manufacturing sectors bringing on a recession worldwide in magnitude. Now the corpocracy is hard at work bailing out not only the too big to fail but literally throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at smaller businesses, state governments, foreign entities or just about any entity that will take the money along with the attached strings. There is absolutely no plan as to how or where these trillions are spent. The spending bills were rushed through congress and passed without a single congressperson reading or comprehending these bills. The goal is simply to break the back of the middle class to bring them into wage/material parity with the developing nations. Their plan is to bring nationwide wide debt to something near a 100 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. In so doing, the corporatists believe they have delivered a blow from which the middle class can’t recover. They will still want to pull back social security, pension plans and any corporate payment towards healthcare.
In today’s paper George Will writes that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) is unconstitutional. He makes some good points; that the corpocracy congress is once again abrogating their responsibility and outsourcing their authority to the Executive to not only decide where and how the money is spent but write the rules as well. Bush and Obama may have changed seats but congress hasn’t. George writes: “With ESSA, Congress forces the county to ponder the paradox of sovereignty: If sovereign people freely choose to surrender their sovereignty, is this willed subordination really subordination? It is. Congress has done that. A court should hear the argument that Congress cannot so divest itself of powers vested in it.”
As far as I know George was quiet on NAFTA, NAU, enforcement of immigration law, and a host of other sovereign busting actions. Don’t know why he rose to the bait on this one. Don’t know why he would rush to the courts for jurisprudence as the courts, Congress and the Executive have merged into a corporatist oligarchy. What we have is a government Of, By and For the Corporation.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve)

Government Reform - - - (www.republicsentry.com

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 29, 2009 7:19 PM
Comment #279159
Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n - It’s a simple question: were the states doing this together?
Yes. Two thirds of the states have already submitted the sufficient number (a minimum of 34) of BALANCED BUDGET Amendmemt applications, as evidenced by this photocopy of the Congresstional Records (and that occurred between years 1975 and 1980; a shorter period of time than a Senator’s term in Congress).

Yes, as evidenced also by 104+ Article V applicaitons for a BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention from 38+ states.

Yes, as evidenced by 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states.

What part of that do you not understand?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You could have a hundred calls, but if it’s say, ten or fifteen states getting together at a time, many of them repeatedly, does it really reflect that consensus?
Yes.

See above. What part of that do you not understand? Do you want everyone to think you can’t read and comprehend?

Besides, there are no same-subject or contemporaneous requirements in Article V, but even if there were, those conditions have been met.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The threshold was never meant to be an arbitrary number.
That’s right.

The number is 2/3 of the states.
2/3 of 50 is equal to 34.
Over 34 different (unique) states have filed an Article V application for a BALANCED BUDGET amendment.
38+ different states have filed 104 Article V application for a BALANCED BUDGET amendment.
All 50 states have filed 730+ Article V applications (14.6 per state on average).
What part of that do you not understand?
Seriously, is there somehting wrong with your ability to comprehend?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It was meant to represent America’s unity on the need to change.
Yes. The conditions of Article V have been met.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But you keep on evoking numbers of calls as if the constitution is some kind of odometer, and the convention is like a regular oil change.
Numbers are necessary since Article V applications are required from 2/3 of the states (and 2/3 of 50 equals 34).

Sorry if number bothers you, but they are very pertinent and have significant relevance.

    ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As appealing as that idea may be to some who want change, and want it now, I don’t think it fits the way the article is written.
The perhaps you should go back to school and learn some reading and comprehension?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: These were high thresholds that required states and their representatives to cooperate and work together to propose and pass amendments. The Federalists were not about to hand people the means to just hold another constitutional convention just on some arbitrary rollover of calls.
The threshold have been met.

QUESTION: How exactly have the thresholds NOT been met?
What are these thresholds?
With you, it’s likely to be a moving target, so what are these thresholds that have not been met?
Are you going to ignore yet another simple question because it will make your position look even more foolish than it already does?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I mean, why would they enact such a lopsided standard? And wouldn’t the Anti-Federalists of the time have taken advantage of this, even demanded it? God knows the political tensions would have motivated the Democrats of pre-Civil War America to re-write slavery permanently into the document.
No.

Because it requires 2/3 of the states to call a convention and it takes 3/4 to ratify any proposed amendments.
But the continued obfuscation and pretzel imitations are doing wonders for the credibility of your comments.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your motivation or mine for wanting a constitutional convention are irrelevant. Doesn’t matter how good or wonderful our plans or motivations are. There was a threshold set, and nobody’s gotten the states sufficient to call it all together to call it properly.
False.

So, what do you call these 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 34+ different states between years 1975 and 1980?

What do you call 104+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 38+ different states (most since year 1961)?
38 is also enough to ratify a BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment too (i.e. three fourths required to ratify any amendment).
What do you call 154 Article V applications by 34 States in a 7 year period between years 1963 to 1969?
What do you call 102 Article V applications by 35 States in a 7 year period between years 1965 to 1971?
What do you call 730 Article V applications by ALL 50 states?

Why exactly do none of those qualify?

But the continued obfuscation and pretzel imitations are doing wonders for the credibility of your comments.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The states have not viewed this perpetual failure to call a convention as some sort of conspiracy by Congress. They have never said a word, or levelled a lawsuit, not in over two centuries of American life that certainly were not short of controversy or change.
The constitution has been violated before, as it is now.

So you think the thresholds have not been met merely because the states have not yet pressed the issue?
It is only a matter of time before that happens.
Several attorneys are working on it now.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You claim congress is in violation. Maybe it’s in violation of your special, personal sense of hte law, but that doesn’t count in terms of the law America operates by.
And maybe you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about?

The text of Article V is not difficult to understand (at least for most people).
Only because you have an obvious difficulty in comprehending Article V, does not mean the majority does too.
Only because states have not yet force the issue in the Supreme Court does not mean Article V has not been violated.
Besides, the thresholds have been met and you have failed time and time again to even state what those thresholds are, despite the clear and unambiguous language in Article V.
There are a lot of people that argue whether an Article V convention is the best thing for the U.S., but you are one of the very few who fails to comprehend the clear and unambiguous language. I don’t believe you can truly be that stupid. It’s more likely the inability to admit you are wrong. As a result, the continued obfuscation and pretzel imitations are doing wonders for the credibility of your comments.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: There has been no supreme court case to support your interpretation.
There has not yet been a case, because the Supreme Court refuses to hear any individual citizen.

It is only a matter of time before a state presses the issue in the Supreme Court.

There have also been several court cases and several have explicitly reference Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
While there are undoubtedly some ambiguities in the U.S. Constitution, there are rules of interpretation, to avoid the type of construction and re-interpretations that you have engaged in. Therefore, the courts and legal system have developed rules about construction and interpretation:

  • U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941): “Where there are several possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that meaning which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose cannot rightly be preferred.”

  • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Words of [the] Constitution are to be taken in natural and obvious sense, and not in sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.”

  • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Where the text of the constitution is “clear and distinct”, no restriction on its plain and obvious import should be admitted unless the inference is irresistible.”

  • Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827): “Where provision in United States Constitution is unambiguous and its meaning is entirely free from doubt, the intention of the framers of the constitution cannot be inquired into, and the supreme court is bound to give the provision full operation, whatever might be the views entertained of its expediency.”

  • Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842): “[The] Court may not construe Constitution so as to defeat its obvious ends when another construction, equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect them.”

  • Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580 (1880): “A constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.”

  • Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. [ … ] The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”

  • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true.

  • U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): “Where intention of words and phrases used in Constitution is clear, there is no room for construction [re-interpretation] and no excuse for interpolation.”

Stephen Daugherty wrote: So far, I have seen no historical sources indicating that this is anymore than newfound, creative constitutional semantics. I can cite The Federalist in supporting the view that this was supposed to be a common cause of the states, rather than just some accidentally accumulated number.
They exist.

What do you call the 34+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 34+ different states between years 1975 and 1980?
What do you call 104+ BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment applications from 38+ different states (most since year 1961)?
38 is also enough to ratify a BALANCED BUDGET Article V amendment too (i.e. three fourths required to ratify any amendment).
What do you call 154 Article V applications by 34 States in a 7 year period between years 1963 to 1969?
What do you call 102 Article V applications by 35 States in a 7 year period between years 1965 to 1971?
What do you call 730 Article V applications by ALL 50 states?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your side, though, has no such evidence.
Nonsense.

The Congressional Records at the National Archives Record Administration contain the evidence.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It has only created a patchwork of circular arguments based on legal cases regarding Article V’s other clauses.
That’s funny coming from a master of circular gobbledygook, obfuscations, and pretzel imitations.

And the continued obfuscation and pretzel imitations are doing wonders for the credibility of your comments.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It essentially says that Article V must be obeyed, but it does not successfully speak to why it must be obeyed according to your interpretation; neither years of practice nor the documentation of history and legal thought back that point.
Nonsense. The evidence is in the Congressional Records at the National Archives Record Administration contain the evidence, and we have compiled photo-copies of 730 (so far) Article V applications from ALL 50 states. Read it and weep.

Again, your continued obfuscation and pretzel imitations are doing wonders for the credibility of your comments.
The evidence is there for all to see.
I do not see anyone supporting your interpretation.
I see a LOT more people supporting the obvious interpretation (which coincides with my interpretation).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: So, if we’re not at a place where anybody has established a legal necessity to see the article your way, then the legal jurisprudence falls on the side of what seems, to all intents and purposes, to be the original interpretation. Mine, in other words.
More of that obfuscation and pretzel imitations are doing wonders for the credibility of your comments.

Seriously, I would be embarrassed to so stubbornly ignore that fact and numbers simply to win an argument.
The evidence is there for all to see.
I do not see anyone supporting your interpretation.
I see a LOT more people supporting the obvious interpretation (which coincides with my interpretation).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: So, that being the case, why should I take seriously any rhetoric about how bad a person I am for not seeing things your way?
Oh nooooooo … pack your bags, because we’re all goin’ on a guilt trip.

Who said you were a bad person?
Your continued obfuscation and pretzel imitations, which are doing wonders for the credibility of your comments, doesn’t mean you are a bad person.
Where did anyone say you were a bad person?
Grow up.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can talk trash about my arguments, but can you defeat them by reason alone?
You are trashin’ your own arguments because they are weak (if not totally absurd).

You used to say the 2/3 requirement wasn’t satisified. Now it turns out it has been.
You used to say the contemporanous requirement wasn’t satisified. Now it turns out it has been.
Both have been satisfied.
Now what?
If the thresholds have not been met, they what are they?
Your own refusal to answer these simply questions, and your continued obfuscation, is what trashes your own arguments.
Only a fool can make a fool out of themself.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Can you offer what is missing? What historical accounts confirm that at any period of history, other than the contemporary, that we see this interpretation used.
First of all, simply read Article V (see above).

Then see the court cases above.

Then see the 730+ Article V applications.

If you still don’t get it after that, then it’s probably hopeless.
Logic and common-sense doesn’t work for everyone.
But if you want to continue the obfuscation and pretzel imitations, which are doing wonders for the credibility of your comments, then please do, because it is most entertaining.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What documentation can you offer showing this to be adjudicated, on this particular clause, not ones related to the regular, more used amendment process? Which founding father’s words can unambiguously demonstrate to us the validity of the cumulative interpretation?
Read the Federalist papers.

Federalist 85 Papers make it very clear that Article V is peremptory:

  • Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 85 Papers: The words of this article [5] 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. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

Would you now like to debate the meaning of the words: “whenever”, “shall”, “peremptory” , “obligatory” , “mandatory” ?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Where can you show the aggreived states taking actual legal action to force the government to do as you say?
They haven’t yet, but they most likely will. Several attorneys are working on it now.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The burden of proof is on you.
The proof is indisputable and you still refuse to answer simple questions.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can’t prove this with mere semantics. You can’t prove it by appealing to the rightness of your cause. You need facts and law on your side.
We do.

We have attorneys, a former Chief Justice, State of Michigan, support from state Supreme Court attorneys, and other attorneys.
And the facts proof is overwhelming, and the 730+ Article V applicaitons from ALL 50 states are open to the public.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: All I’ve seen is a rhetorical argument with no history and no directly applicable law presented.
What do you call 730+ Article V applications from all 50 states.

Do you only see what you want to see?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re arguing original intent without one bit of evidence that any man, woman, or child in early America even understood this interpretation to exist, much less rule the day. I mean, how does that work?
Well, first you have to learn how to read, then you have to learn how to comprehend what you read.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: So much of the harm in these past few decades have been done by people so wrapped up in the rightness of their causes that they never stopped to examine the factual or logical foundations of their policy or politics. They hastily, noisily pushed their way to power, and then spent the next few decades imposing themselves on everybody else because they knew they were right.
Is that a reason to violate the Constitution?

It could be that you and those have a disdain for Article V are the very people you speak of.
Especially if you advocate the violation of the Constitution.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: This the kind of attitude I oppose, because I believe that observation and reason should substitute for party sloganeering and philosophizing as much as possible.
That’s really funny coming from someone who fuels and wallows in the circular, petty, distracting, partisan warfare, as evidenced by the following. There’s no mystery that you don’t like anyone suggesting anything non-Democrat or non-partisan, as evidenced by the following statments:
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: … as I don’t like to hear people get down on my party, …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- If third parties can’t win offices, what good are they to the voter?
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: … because then your [independent/3rd] parties get blamed for sending things in a lousy direction. {Huh? I belong to no third parties.}
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: How many people curse the Green party for George W. Bush (43) getting elected?
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Republicans have the choice, which I gladly let them have, of doing scuzzy things so they can make the Democrats look bad …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Being spoilers [independent/3rd party voters] only ensures being fringe…
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I do think voters should ally with Democrats.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: In my opinion, the proper people to run this party are the voters who elect Democrats.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve been rather cross about your tendency to call the new [110th] congress a do-nothing congress … {Why? What did the 110th do-nothing Congress accomplish since 7-NOV-2006 ? And the 111th Congress consists of 86.9% of the 110th Congress.}
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think you’re underestimating the results of this last election. {We’ll see, since 85%-to-90% of incumbent politicians were re-elected.)
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t disdain third parties.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s what Democrats like myself had to do, after all, to take back the majorities and the White House.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Democrats have significantly shifted the balance of power, despite all the barriers the Republicans put in place to keep their power.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: And yes, I obviously want voters to vote for Democrats. {Really? No kiddin’?}
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote {NEW!, which is ironic indeed}: … why do you uncritically accept partisan rhetoric …?
Yep. Those are some real gems.

Yet you’re telling us …

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I believe that observation and reason should substitute for party sloganeering and philosophizing as much as possible ?

How credible is that based on your statements above?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: When I apply my reason and my observation to this problem, I can’t seem to find the evidence that backs the historicity much less the acceptance of your interpretation.
Well, it can be hard for people to see clearly when they have their head up their butt.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Without such evidence, you will be ill-prepared to argue to skeptics the validity, much less the justice of your interpretation here.
There is ample evidence in the Congressional Records from the National Archives and Records Administration in D.C.

There are 730+ Article V applications from all 50 states.
There are 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET from 34+ different states filed between 1975 and 1980.
There are 104+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-a-Convention from 38+ different states.
There is the Walker vs Members of Congress, which the Supreme Court dismissed, but not first without acknowledging the interpretation of Article V is correct and coincides with the plain and unambiguous meaning.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: But will that stop you?
No.

You still refuse to answer simple questions because you know it will make your arguements look even less credible than they already do.

If you want to continue the obfuscation and pretzel imitations, be my guest.
It will be interesting to see how twisted your obfuscations become and how deep that hole you’re diggin’ goes.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 29, 2009 9:44 PM
Comment #279170

d.a.n., ditto. Amazing how much allegiance some folks put into a political party. It’s clear to me from the response I got from my representatives that they have no interest or intention of entertaining a discussion on AVC. Cantore even feigning ignorance of the issue or maybe he really was unaware. Oh, those Republicans. Webb, I think, never answered as I had pissed him off on something else previously. And, John Warner pretty much saying you aint’ going to get avc because we dont want avc. I think he gave an honest answer.
In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white. You can only imagine the effect an AVC would have had on our political system. Fer shure we’d have a balanced budget amendment and that could well have kept us out of this little recession.
Cantor’s response is so illiterate I love to post it every chance I get. My question to hims was “what is your position or AVC.” His, or somebody on his staff replied: “Article V of the Constitution lays out the process by which amends to the document can be made. Amendments may be proposed by the Congress or by a national convention called for by at least two-thirds of state legislatures. You maybe assured that I will keep you thoughts” …
I;m paying taxes for that crap? More tea in the comode dear!

May as well cite Warmer’s excuse: Whne considering proposed amendments to the Const., I first look back to history. In the summer of 1787, fifty-five individuals gathered in Phil. to write our Const. It was a very hot summer, and it it was a long and arduous debate. Finally, in mid-Sept., our Founding Fathers produced a Constitution that was a monumental achievement; an achievement that would enable the US, today, theses 200-plus years later, to become the oodest continuously surviving Republic form of government Earth today. Should you have other questions” …

d.a.n, we ain’t goin to get AVC through the likes of these scallywags. Best and only way I know, outside of shooting our way in, is to jack up a new third party with a different political attitude, citizens oversight and all that…

Please find this interesting. Many of the following state laws remain on the books today.

A charter was granted for a limited time.

Corporations were explicitely chartered for the purpose of serving the public interest - profit for shareholders was the means to that end.

Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

Corporations could be terminated if they exceeded their authority or if they caused public harm.

Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts they committed on the job.

Corporations could not make any political contributions, nor spend money to influence legislation.

A corporation could not purchase or own stock in other corporations nor own any property other than that necesary to fulfill its chartered purpose.

From Theo. Roosevelt: “There can be no effective control of corporations whle their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done.”

Sure can Theo, with a 3rd party with a different political attitude.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 29, 2009 11:28 PM
Comment #279174

D.A.N and Roy,
Why I can understand your feelings about why the States are not allowed to introduce admendments to the U.S. Constitution I wonder how well both of you know why those limits were put into place by the Elders and Powers-that-Be of the 70’s?

For why Theo. Roosevelt was correct when he said that control of corporations can be done. I do not believe that it can even be done by a 3rd Political Party with a different political attitude.

And why that mat sound bad, unless you as a Citizen are willing to give up your Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights than the American Small Business Owner has to be allowed to make mistakes and hopefully have others learn from them.

No, AIG and the Government being an 80% Stockholder should give you some insight how best to deal with the difference between a Corporation taking Risk out of Ignorance and that same company taking Risk out of Stupidity. For why the Consumer may be limited by their purchase power, knowing and understanding your Rights as Stockholders of any Corporation and the Power of a Single Vote should open your eyes to why Congress does not want to hear from the States about a balance budget or almost anything else.

Now, I’m not sure how well both of you remember the Civil Rights Movement or what Governmental and Societal Changes were made 30 years ago, but can you give me one solid Argument of Logic and Reason why America as a Nation should have and maintain a Balance Budget in Mans’ Quest to build a Better World? Especially knowing that they can spend the Taxpayers dollar to meet the needs of the American Consumer and Small Business Owner.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 30, 2009 12:18 AM
Comment #279303
Roy Ellis wrote: d.a.n., ditto.
Thanks!
Roy Ellis wrote: Amazing how much allegiance some folks put into a political party.
Yes, it is amazing and sad too.

It reminds me of what d. eris wrote …

d. eris wrote: In incestuously transferring power back and forth between themselves, the duopoly parties supply just enough change so that everything stays the same.

Yes, but not forever, because eventually, power corrupts and eventually causes enough corruption which eventually causes enough pain and misery to provide enough motivation for reform. Progress is slow (i.e. 2.00 steps forward and 1.99 steps backward), corruption appears to runs in cycles, and we have been going backwards for many years as evidenced by several deteriorating economic conditions (caused by several abuses hammering most people).

I don’t know if an Article V Convention would result in many reforms.
I’d like to see TERM LIMITS, a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, CAMPAIGN FINANCE reform, ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL, etc.
But what good are laws if they are routinely broken?

Roy Ellis wrote: It’s clear to me from the response I got from my representatives that they have no interest or intention of entertaining a discussion on AVC.
No doubt about it. We’ve seen lots of letters from Congress persons who refuse to answer simple questions and take the position that the states have not met the Article V requirements. By doing so, Congress persons are litterly comitting a felony by violating their oath of office. And that violation is official and a matter of public record since Congress members joined in a lawsuit (Walker vs Members of Congress) to explicitly violate Article V, despite the court’s choice to not hear the case based on their opinion that no individual U.S. Citizen has standing if Article V is violated. I would think that any individual has standing if any part of the U.S. Constitution is violated.
Roy Ellis wrote: Cantore even feigning ignorance of the issue or maybe he really was unaware.
Yes, we have many letters from Congress persons playing the same game, doing everything possible to evade the question, and failing to ever answer the question.
Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right.
I know it.

You know it.
800 members of FOAVC know it.
But obviously, a few (such as Stephen Daugherty demonstrates above), and members of Congress who have an obvious conflict of interest, don’t appear know it.
Or if they do know it, they support the continued violation of Article V.
In the beginning, some people argued that an in sufficient number of different states have submitted Article V applications.
Then some people argued that the states have not submitted Article V applications in a timely manner, and had to be contemporaneous.
Then some people argued that the Article V applications had to be about the same subject AND contemporaneous.
Then when the photo-copies of the Article V applications have been provided that prove over 2/3 of the states (i.e. 34+ different states) have submitted same-subject Article V applicaitons for a BALANCED BUDGET, and it was done in a relatively short period of time, some people still claim that the thresholds have not been satisfied and Congress’s continued igoring Article V, and the lack of any lawsuit forcing Congress to obey the constitution must be proof of it.
And when you ask them what these fictitious thresholds are (i.e. time-limits and total applications required, etc.), they refuse to answer the question becasuse they know it wake them look even more ridiculous than they already appear.
Then some people try to tell you that you don’t understand the original intent of Article V, when the language is quite clear and unambiguous and other court cases have stated that very thing explicitly about Article V (see below):

  • Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. [ … ] The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”

  • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true.
  • Yes, those sort of obfuscation and pretzel imitations can most certainly be considered “intellectual dishonesty”

    Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right.

    I could be wrong, but I don’t think many people could really be that stupid.
    It is more likely simply an inability to admit an error, resulting in that hole their diggin’ gettin’ deeper and deeper.

    Roy Ellis wrote: It’s there in black and white.
    True.

    It’s not that complicated.
    Artricle V is only one sentence consisting of 143 words:

      ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.

    Those requirement have been met not only based on the straight-forward interpretation, but also based on fictitious same-subject and contemporaneous requirements too (see below).

    One of the chief tools of obfuscators is to introduce unnecessary complexity to cloud the issues and obscure the facts.
    When that fails, they question the validity of the evidence, or outright refuse to admit it exists.
    When that fails, they resort to fear-mongering, despite:

    • (1) Most states are calling for the convention solely to deal with an obvious debt issue. That is obvious.

    • (2) An Article V Convention cannot change the constitution. It can only propose amendment language.

    • (3) A proposed amendment has to be ratified by three-fourths (3/4) of the states, which is a rigorous procedure and a solid safeguard. States have had 679+ state constitutional conventions and many nations have had constitiutional conventions, and they’re all still here.

    • (4) Which Congressmen or which state legislators want to scrap the U.S. Constitution? None.

    • (5) Congress can propose an amendment at any time. So why fear proposed amendments by the states?

    • (6) Many states have adopted balanced budget amendments. Experience has proven that amending is a safe process. The constitution was designed to be amended and Article V is one of those methods. A balanced budget amendment would most likely have flexibility in time of war or economic trouble. For many years balanced budget requirements in state constitutions have been effective. Besides, Congress has proven that it can not be fiscally responsible.
    And when that fails, it’s time to resort to the ridiculous. For example
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: But you keep on evoking numbers of calls as if the constitution is some kind of odometer, and the convention is like a regular oil change.

    There are no same-subject or contemporaneous requirements in Article V, but even if such requirements actually existed, anyone who can count can prove that there are not only 34 Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET amendment from 34+ different states, but 29 Article V applications for a GENERAL-CALL-for-an-Article-V-Convention from 29 different states (adding 5 more different states to the total of unique states, bringing the total to 39 different states filing BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention Article V applications):
      BALANCED BUDGET Article V Applications:
    • (001) CR 128 Pg 00798 Yr 1982-AK-Balanced Budget

    • (002) CR 121 Pg 28347 Yr 1975-AL-Balanced Budget

    • (002) CR 125 Pg 05368 Yr 1979-AL-Balanced Budget

    • (002) CR 125 Pg 04861 Yr 1979-AL-Balanced Budget

    • (002) CR 135 Pg 19782 Yr 1989-AL-Balanced Budget

    • (002) POM 311 Pg S10817 Yr 1989-AL-Balanced Budget

    • (002) CR 135 Pg 20052 Yr 1989-AL-Balanced Budget

    • (002) CR 062-2000 Pg H05485 Yr 1989-AL-Balanced Budget

    • (002) POM 433 Pg S02776 Yr 1990-AL-Balanced Budget

    • (003) CR 121 Pg 05793 Yr 1975-AR-Balanced Budget

    • (003) CR 125 Pg 04372 Yr 1979-AR-Balanced Budget

    • (003) CR 125 Pg 03906 Yr 1979-AR-Balanced Budget

    • (004) CR 123 Pg 18869 Yr 1977-AZ-Balanced Budget

    • (004) CR 123 Pg 18873 Yr 1977-AZ-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 18874)

    • (004) CR 125 Pg 07920 Yr 1979-AZ-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 07921)

    • (004) CR 125 Pg 08108 Yr 1979-AZ-Balanced Budget

    • (005) CR 138 Pg 16552 Yr 1992-CO-Balanced Budget

    • (006) CR 122 Pg 05572 Yr 1976-DE-Balanced Budget

    • (006) CR 122 Pg 04329 Yr 1976-DE-Balanced Budget

    • (007) CR 125 Pg 03655 Yr 1979-FL-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 3656)

    • (007) CR 125 Pg 03427 Yr 1979-FL-Balanced Budget

    • (007) CR 125 Pg 03007 Yr 1979-FL-Balanced Budget

    • (007) CR 125 Pg 03655 Yr 1979-FL-Balanced Budget

    • (007) CR 134 Pg 15363 Yr 1988-FL-Balanced Budget

    • (008) CR 122 Pg 02740 Yr 1976-GA-Balanced Budget

    • (008) CR 122 Pg 03161 Yr 1976-GA-Balanced Budget

    • (009) CR 125 Pg 15227 Yr 1979-IA-Balanced Budget

    • (009) CR 125 Pg 15792 Yr 1979-IA-Balanced Budget

    • (009) CR 125 Pg 16351 Yr 1979-IA-Balanced Budget

    • (010) CR 125 Pg 03657 Yr 1979-ID-Balanced Budget

    • (010) CR 125 Pg 03522 Yr 1979-ID-Balanced Budget

    • (011) CR 109 Pg 03982 Yr 1963-IL-Balanced Budget

    • (012) CR 103 Pg 06475 Yr 1957-IN-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 06476)

    • (012) CR 122 Pg 01400 Yr 1975-IN-Balanced Budget

    • (012) CR 122 Pg 00931 Yr 1975-IN-Balanced Budget

    • (012) CR 125 Pg 09368 Yr 1979-IN-Balanced Budget

    • (012) CR 125 Pg 09188 Yr 1979-IN-Balanced Budget

    • (013) CR 124 Pg 14584 Yr 1978-KS-Balanced Budget

    • (013) CR 124 Pg 14193 Yr 1978-KS-Balanced Budget

    • (014) CR 121 Pg 25312 Yr 1975-LA-Balanced Budget

    • (014) CR 121 Pg 24412 Yr 1975-LA-Balanced Budget

    • (014) CR 125 Pg 19470 Yr 1979-LA-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 19741)

    • (014) CR 125 Pg 19359 Yr 1979-LA-Balanced Budget

    • (015) CR 123 Pg 02545 Yr 1977-MD-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 02546)

    • (015) CR 125 Pg 13387 Yr 1979-MD-Balanced Budget

    • (016) CR 129 Pg 20352 Yr 1983-MO-Balanced Budget

    • (016) CR 129 Pg 18473 Yr 1983-MO-Balanced Budget

    • (016) CR 129 Pg 04942 Yr 1983-MO-Balanced Budget

    • (016) CR 129 Pg 10594 Yr 1983-MO-Balanced Budget

    • (017) CR 121 Pg 12175 Yr 1975-MS-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 12176)

    • (017) CR 121 Pg 12168 Yr 1975-MS-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 12169)

    • (018) CR 125 Pg 03007 Yr 1979-NC-Balanced Budget

    • (019) CR 125 Pg 10144 Yr 1979-ND-Balanced Budget

    • (020) CR 125 Pg 04702 Yr 1979-NE-Balanced Budget

    • (020) CR 125 Pg 04152 Yr 1979-NE-Balanced Budget

    • (021) CR 123 Pg 20659 Yr 1977-NH-Balanced Budget

    • (021) CR 125 Pg 11203 Yr 1979-NH-Balanced Budget

    • (021) CR 125 Pg 12888 Yr 1979-NH-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 12889)

    • (021) CR 125 Pg 11584 Yr 1979-NH-Balanced Budget

    • (022) CR 125 Pg 03656 Yr 1979-NM-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 3657)

    • (022) CR 125 Pg 03322 Yr 1979-NM-Balanced Budget

    • (023) CR 126 Pg 00909 Yr 1980-NV-Balanced Budget

    • (023) CR 126 Pg 01104 Yr 1980-NV-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 01105)

    • (024) CR 101 Pg 08397 Yr 1955-OK-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 08398)

    • (024) CR 124 Pg 12397 Yr 1978-OK-Balanced Budget

    • (024) CR 124 Pg 12011 Yr 1978-OK-Balanced Budget

    • (025) CR 125 Pg 05368 Yr 1979-OR-Balanced Budget

    • (025) CR 125 Pg 05953 Yr 1979-OR-Balanced Budget

    • (025) Senate Joint Memorial 009 Pg 00042 Yr 2000-OR-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 00043)

    • (025) POM 393 Pg S00084 Yr 2000-OR-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page S00085)

    • (026) CR 125 Pg 04627 Yr 1979-PA-Balanced Budget

    • (027) CR 122 Pg 04329 Yr 1976-SC-Balanced Budget

    • (027) CR 122 Pg 04090 Yr 1976-SC-Balanced Budget

    • (027) CR 124 Pg 14911 Yr 1978-SC-Balanced Budget

    • (028) CR 125 Pg 03656 Yr 1979-SD-Balanced Budget

    • (028) CR 125 Pg 03427 Yr 1979-SD-Balanced Budget

    • (028) CR 139 Pg 05905 Yr 1992-SD-Balanced Budget

    • (029) CR 123 Pg 18419 Yr 1977-TN-Balanced Budget

    • (029) CR 124 Pg 11437 Yr 1978-TN-Balanced Budget

    • (029) CR 124 Pg 11438 Yr 1978-TN-Balanced Budget

    • (030) CR 125 Pg 00134 Yr 1979-TX-Balanced Budget, Reaffirming Application of 1979

    • (030) CR 125 Pg 05223 Yr 1979-TX-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 05224)

    • (030) CR 125 Pg 00134 Yr 1979-TX-Balanced Budget

    • (030) CR 125 Pg 05368 Yr 1979-TX-Balanced Budget

    • (031) CR 125 Pg 04071 Yr 1979-UT-Balanced Budget

    • (031) CR 125 Pg 04372 Yr 1979-UT-Balanced Budget

    • (032) CR 121 Pg 04730 Yr 1975-VA-Balanced Budget

    • (032) CR 121 Pg 05793 Yr 1975-VA-Balanced Budget

    • (032) CR 122 Pg 08019 Yr 1976-VA-Balanced Budget

    • (032) CR 122 Pg 08335 Yr 1976-VA-Balanced Budget (continued to: Page 08336)

    • (032) CR 125 Pg 05450 Yr 1979-VA-Balanced Budget

    • (033) CR 125   Pg 11583  Yr 1979-WA-Balanced Budget

    • (034) CR 107 Pg 02759 Yr 1961-WY-Balanced Budget

    • (034) CR 107 Pg 02742 Yr 1961-WY-Balanced Budget

    • (034) CR 107 Pg 02799 Yr 1961-WY-Balanced Budget

      GENERAL CALL for an Article V Convention to Propose Amendments:
    • (001) CR 112 Pg 00043 Yr 1966-AL-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (001) CR 137 Pg 00669 Yr 1992-AL-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (002) CR 109 Pg 02768 Yr 1963-AR-General Call for an Article V Conventio

    • (003) CR 130 Pg 14344 Yr 1984-AZ-General Call for Article V Convention

    • (004) CR 045 Pg 07113 Yr 1910-CO-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (005) CR 107 Pg 04715 Yr 1961-GA-General Call for an Article V Convention, State Legislative Review of Supreme Court Rulings

    • (005) CR 107 Pg 04454 Yr 1961-GA-General Call for an Article V Convention, State Legislative Review of Supreme Court Rulings

    • (006) CR 045 Pg 07114 Yr 1910-IA-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (006) CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-IA-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (007) CR 045 Pg 07114 Yr 1910-ID-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (007) CR 109 Pg 03274 Yr 1963-ID-General Call for an Article V Conventio

    • (007) POM 409 Pg S00739 Yr 2000-ID-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued to: Page S00740)

    • (008) CR 045 Pg 07114 Yr 1910-IL-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (008) CR 109 Pg 03982 Yr 1963-IL-General Call for an Article V Conventio

    • (008) CR 111 Pg 18999 Yr 1965-IL-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (009) CR 045 Pg 07114 Yr 1910-IN-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (010) CR 041 Pg 03072 Yr 1907-KS-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (010) CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-KS-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (010) CR 045 Pg 07115 Yr 1910-KS-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (011) CR 042 Pg 05906 Yr 1908-LA-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (011) CR 045 Pg 07115 Yr 1910-LA-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (011) CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-LA-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (012) CR 035 Pg 00117 Yr 1901-MI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (013) CR 045 Pg 07116 Yr 1910-MO-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (013) CR 111 Pg 03714 Yr 1965-MO-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (014) CR 046 Pg 02411 Yr 1911-MT-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (015) CR 111 Pg 24720 Yr 1965-NE-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (016) CR 112 Pg 00044 Yr 1966-NM-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (017) CR 109 Pg 10241 Yr 1963-NV-General Call for an Article V Conventio

    • (018) General Annals of Congress 1 (J. Gales Ed.) Pg 00248 Yr 1789-NY-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (019) CR 045 Pg 07117 Yr 1910-OK-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (020) CR 035 Pg 00117 Yr 1901-OR-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (021) General Annals of Congress 1 (J. Gales Ed.) Pg 01103 Yr 1790-RI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (022) CR 111 Pg 03714 Yr 1965-SC-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (023) CR 043 Pg 02667 Yr 1909-SD-General Call for an Article V Convention; over 2/3 of all states requirement already met (continued: Page 02688)

    • (023) POM 037 Pg S03233 Yr 1989-SD-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (024) CR 112 Pg 00044 Yr 1966-TN-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (024) CR 112 Pg 00199 Yr 1966-TN-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued to: Page 00200)

    • (025) CR 033 Pg 00219 Yr 1899-TX-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (025) CR 033 Pg 00280 Yr 1899-TX-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (026) CR 111 Pg 00094 Yr 1965-VA-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (026) General Annals of Congress 1 (J. Gales Ed.) Pg 00257 Yr 1789-VA-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued 259, 261)

    • (027) CR 046 Pg 03035 Yr 1911-WA-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (028) CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention; over 2/3 of all states requirement already met (continued to: Page 07120)

    • (028) CR 047 Pg 01842 Yr 1911-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (028) CR 047 Pg 01842 Yr 1911-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall

    • (028) CR 047 Pg 02000 Yr 1911-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall

    • (028) CR 047 Pg 01872 Yr 1911-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (continued to: Page 01873)

    • (028) CR 047 Pg 02188 Yr 1911-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall

    • (028) CR 047 Pg 03087 Yr 1911-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall

    • (028) CR 071 Pg 03369 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention; over 2/3 of all states requirement already met

    • (028) CR 071 Pg 03856 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention; over 2/3 of all states requirement already met

    • (028) CR 071 Pg 02590 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (029) CR 045 Pg 07120 Yr 1910-WY-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (029) CR 109 Pg 05014 Yr 1963-WY-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • (029) CR 109 Pg 04900 Yr 1963-WY-General Call for an Article V Convention

    … not to mention 730+ Article V applcations from ALL 50 states.

    Roy Ellis wrote: You can only imagine the effect an AVC would have had on our political system. Fer shure we’d have a balanced budget amendment and that could well have kept us out of this little recession.
    Perhaps, if 4 more states (for a total of 38) also ratified a balanced budget amendment.
    Roy Ellis wrote: Cantor’s response is so illiterate I love to post it every chance I get. My question to hims was “what is your position or AVC.” His, or somebody on his staff replied: “Article V of the Constitution lays out the process by which amends to the document can be made. Amendments may be proposed by the Congress or by a national convention called for by at least two-thirds of state legislatures. You maybe assured that I will keep you thoughts” … I;m paying taxes for that crap? More tea in the comode dear!
    Congress’ conflict of interest is all to obvious, as evidenced by the fictitious same-subject and contemporaneous requirements of Article V.

    That’s not surprising. There was one politician that thought Article V had something to do with taxes and the IRS.

    Roy Ellis wrote: May as well cite Warmer’s excuse: When considering proposed amendments to the Const., I first look back to history. In the summer of 1787, fifty-five individuals gathered in Phil. to write our Const. It was a very hot summer, and it it was a long and arduous debate. Finally, in mid-Sept., our Founding Fathers produced a Constitution that was a monumental achievement; an achievement that would enable the US, today, these 200-plus years later, to become the oldest continuously surviving Republic form of government Earth today. Should you have other questions” …
    Yes, the evasion is obvious.
    Roy Ellis wrote: d.a.n, we ain’t goin to get AVC through the likes of these scallywags. Best and only way I know, outside of shooting our way in, is to jack up a new third party with a different political attitude, citizens oversight and all that…
    That could easily happen, as voters become increasingly unhappy.

    Or, voters will do what most voters did in years 1927, 1929, 1931, and 1933 (voting out 206 members of Congress in 1933):

    • Start _ End _ Congress _ Re-Election _Party Seat-Retention

    • Year __ Year __ # ______ Rate _______ Rate

    • 1927 __ 1929 __ 070st __ 83.6% ______ 96.4% (87 incumbents ousted: 22(D), 64(R), 1(FL) )

    • 1929 __ 1931 __ 071st __ 79.7% ______ 92.5% (108 incumbents ousted)

    • 1931 __ 1933 __ 072nd __ 76.8% ______ 88.5% (123 incumbents ousted)

    • 1933 __ 1935 __ 073rd __ 61.2% ______ 78.7% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted; 59 Dems, 147 Repubs)

    Roy Ellis wrote: Please find this interesting. Many of the following state laws remain on the books today.
  • A charter was granted for a limited time.
  • Corporations were explicitely chartered for the purpose of serving the public interest - profit for shareholders was the means to that end.
  • Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
  • Corporations could be terminated if they exceeded their authority or if they caused public harm.
  • Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts they committed on the job.
  • Corporations could not make any political contributions, nor spend money to influence legislation.
  • A corporation could not purchase or own stock in other corporations nor own any property other than that necesary to fulfill its chartered purpose.
  • From Theo. Roosevelt: “There can be no effective control of corporations whle their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done.”
  • Sure can Theo, with a 3rd party with a different political attitude.
    Reforms and progress will (most likely) come about eventually, when failing to do so finally becomes to painful.

    There is no doubt that some corporations are abusing many people.
    However, a corporation is merely a front for their owners, CEOs, and board members.
    That is, the problem is “some wealthy people” whose greed knows few (if any) bounds.
    But also, it is consumers who fail to boycott those bad corporations.
    So, once again, as with voters, there’s plenty of blame to go around (but in varying degrees of culpability).

    Roy Ellis wrote: Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.
    That’s right. Eventually, enough voters will (most likely) be less apathetic, complacent, and blindly partisan when enough of the voters are deep in debt , jobless , homeless , and hungry as a result of continued abuses and deteriorating economic conditions.
    Henry Schlatman wrote: D.A.N and Roy, Why I can understand your feelings about why the States are not allowed to introduce admendments to the U.S. Constitution I wonder how well both of you know why those limits were put into place by the Elders and Powers-that-Be of the 70’s?
    What limits (in Article V of the Constitution)?

    The only limits in Article V are a 2/3 requirement of different states to trigger a peremptory Article V Convetion, and 3/4 to ratify any proposed amendments.

    But you are right about limits if you are referring to Congress’ ignoring 730+ Article V applications from all 50 states (of which the largest single subject was a BALANCED BUDGET amendment).

    Henry Schlatman wrote: For why Theo. Roosevelt was correct when he said that control of corporations can be done. I do not believe that it can even be done by a 3rd Political Party with a different political attitude.
    Maybe. Maybe not. Remember Ross Perot? When voters become unhappy enough, it can give rise to a third party fast.
    Henry Schlatman wrote: And why that might sound bad, unless you as a Citizen are willing to give up your Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights than the American Small Business Owner has to be allowed to make mistakes and hopefully have others learn from them.
    Propping up and rewarding failed businesses and banks certainly isn’t making things better is it, and it is also unfair to their competitors. There are a LOT of banks (of 8,000+ nation-wide) and businesses that played by the rules, only to have the government prop-up and reward their competition (at tax payers expense).
    Henry Schlatman wrote: No, AIG and the Government being an 80% Stockholder should give you some insight how best to deal with the difference between a Corporation taking Risk out of Ignorance and that same company taking Risk out of Stupidity. For why the Consumer may be limited by their purchase power, knowing and understanding your Rights as Stockholders of any Corporation and the Power of a Single Vote should open your eyes to why Congress does not want to hear from the States about a balance budget or almost anything else.
    Right. Congress’ conflict of interest and obstructionism is all too obvious. Congress won’t voluntarily obey Article V (and other parts of the Constitution) if it even remotely leads to things like TERM LIMITS, a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, publicly financed elections, limitations on raises for Congress (who just gave themselves their 10th raise in 12 years and $93,000 for petty cash and expenses), and/or any other reforms that may even remotely reduce Congress persons’ power, opportunities for self-gain, their ability to give themselves raises, or possibly reduce their power and/or the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies?
    Henry Schlatman wrote: Now, I’m not sure how well both of you remember the Civil Rights Movement or what Governmental and Societal Changes were made 30 years ago, but can you give me one solid Argument of Logic and Reason why America as a Nation should have and maintain a Balance Budget in Mans’ Quest to build a Better World? Especially knowing that they can spend the Taxpayers dollar to meet the needs of the American Consumer and Small Business Owner.
    Yes. A few reason are:
    • to avoid total fiscal bankruptcy;
    • to avoid an $11.1 Trillion national debt of nightmare proportions growing ever larger and more out-of-control;
    • to avoid pressures risking hyperinflation and debauching the currency;
    • and to limit an out-of-control, spend-crazy, fiscally irrepsonsible Congress.
    Think about this.

    What if a BALANCED BUDGET amendment had been passed in the 1970s or 1980s when most of the states submitted their BALANCED BUDGET Article V applications?
    Perhaps we wouldn’t be swimming in debt today?
    Perhaps this massive economic crisis caused by a massive debt-bubble would not have occurred?

    Of course, a BALANCED BUDGET amendment alone is not enough.

    More widespread education and reform is needed.
    However, Article V represents a violation of the Constitution.
    The fictitious re-interpretations inventing non-existent same-subject and contemporaneous requirements in Article V need to be tested in the Supreme Court.
    We should not ignore constitutional violations, because it will simply lead to more constitutional violations (One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm).

    Enough voters must also do their part too and stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates (86.9% for election 4-NOV-2008). And enough voters most likely will when failing to do so becomes too painful. The sooner, the better.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 31, 2009 11:12 AM
    Comment #279342

    D.A.N,
    Why asking an Anti-Authoritarian to defend the actions of their Elders and Powers-that-Be probably is not a good idea I’ll do my best to answer you by staying on the line that seperates their Authority to do so and My Personal Ability to properly question their Authority and that of My Peers.

    1) Government and Societal Limits to the Known Universe of Man and a persons self-ability to prove politically that the Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders can build a Sustainable World based on the Principles and Standards of the Founding Documents of America and Humanity.

    Now why Mr. T. Boone Pickens has showm President Obama and Congress a path forward that can make Government and Society free of Foreign Oil. I fail to see a plan offered by the Loyal Opposition that can show how that helps the American Consumer and Small Business Owner become more Self-Sufficient considering that Commerce and Industry will still be charging them for the everyday energy our ancestors use to get for free.

    And though I may be able to prove that argument in Theory as an Anti-Authoritarian does My Peers care to give up their Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights to be Adults and Parents. For why “Just Because I said so wins the Debate” explaining why the Elders and Powers-that-Be of the 70’s limited Federal Government and the States to that is a question for the Ages and History.

    2)Why I will not easily count out the Republican Leadership of America I do see that one of the party problems is that some of the Right Wing believe that they are entitled to more money than the Left Wing who represent Labor. And why personally I think that it is strange that the Party that stopped Slavery in America would dare to keep the American Consumer and Small Business Owner in Economic Slavery. Seeing the Injustice that they are doing to the Stockholders I to wonder if a 3rd Political Party could take away their National Standing. Yet, am bound by a promise not to directly interfer with that Natural Course of Human Events.

    3)What now is commonly known as the Bailout of the Banks and the Stabilization of the Market may in its zealous caught corporations and individuals that do not deserve the protection of “We the People” at the time; however, when you find a hole in the side of your ship than is not the time to ask who put it there. And why we can blame it on the captain or crew members that should of kept their eyes open, I do believe that reasonable people would agree that getting the water out of the ship should be priority one.

    So say we overspent by a few billion dollars so that all the American Consumers and Small Business Owners would not experience the Great Depression of their Grandparents and Great Grandparents. Do you really want to live in a society were a piece of bread and a coffee will cost you a nickel? For than how could you get paid the wages that you enjoy today when the company selling you those products are only making a 20% profit instead of the 300% mark-up many retailers enjoy today.

    4)Why I will not get into the many different ways that Stockholders can and should have used their oversight of the Market to stop the build up that lead to 30% of the Market being bought on borrowed money, I do believe that going forward Americans are going to need to find better financial advisors and managers of their 401k plans and other investment tools. For technology speaking the Government is doing nothing more than what any Stockholder or Group of Investors who hold a Majority stack in the corporation should be doing to ensure ther investment. So if you want the government not to have the final word in AIG, pay the current Market Value so that America does not own 51% of the business.

    5) Yes. A few reason are:
    a)to avoid total fiscal bankruptcy;

    Why others will have to explain why the Federal Government of America and other Nations have the right to keep things on and off the books the myth that America could experience a total fiscal bankruptcy would mean that more than the Banks would have to fail. And considering that “We the People” hold that Authority and not “We the Corporation” I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

    b)to avoid an $11.1 Trillion national debt of nightmare proportions growing ever larger and more out-of-control;

    Why a projected national debt is forecasted to be somewhere in the range of $11.1-22 Trilion the Truth is that if America and Humanity cannot find another source of Energy other than coal and oil than the expandtion of business and the market will grind to the point where paying even the interest on such loans would become impossible. Not to mention the suffering of the citizens. For could you imagine what would happen if the DOw hit 3,000 and kept going lower?

    c)to avoid pressures risking hyperinflation and debauching the currency;
    and to limit an out-of-control, spend-crazy, fiscally irrepsonsible Congress.

    Why My Peers and Their Children have two courses in solving that problem I do believe that it will be a good combination of those things that will become the Societal Norm in time. For why we know that Labor and Management will fight over the scraps that they are given by the Barons of Corporations I see that personal gardens are starting to make their way even to the White House. Because why the Corporations insist on raising the cost of Energy, Food, and other Living Needs even though they say we are in deflation I do believe that if the American family can reduce by 50% the items they need by becoming more Self-Sufficient than the inflation will not be a problem. Since in today’s environment I don’t think it is a good idea to go ask for a 40% cost of living raise so that one can keep up with the Jones.

    And BTW, considering that every American would have yo purchase or be taxed that current %61 Trillion owed by “We the People” by October 1, 2009 I do not think the States have seriously thought through their argument of a balanced budget on the Federal level. Especially since they are now seeing the problems of coming up with all the funds they need to meet their Duty Bounds Respnsibilities.

    At any rate, I do believe My Peers need to listen to Their Children about how to build a Sustainable Green Civilized Society so they can Educate their Parents Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders.

    Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 31, 2009 8:35 PM
    Comment #279370

    Joel
    BHO is doing just fine,thank you.
    RE: Artical V convention…..yawn.

    Posted by: bills at April 1, 2009 11:03 AM
    Comment #279391
    Henry Schlatman wrote: D.A.N, … … 1) Government and Societal Limits to the Known Universe of Man and a persons self-ability to prove politically that the Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders can build a Sustainable World based on the Principles and Standards of the Founding Documents of America and Humanity.
    Sustainability and equilibrium is the goal we should be thinking seriously about, rather than unsustainable inflation-fueled bubble-after-bubble.

    Some people think we can revive GDP to out-pace the debt.
    I don’t think that will be possible this time, but even if we do get one more bubble out of this economy, it will merely make things worse later.
    The debt-bubble is becoming more and more untenable every day the debt-bubble grows ever larger.
    In fact, the rate of growth of the debt today is phenomonal and hard to keep up with (sometimes jumping by trillions in only a few months).
    The $11.1 Trillion National Debt per-capita (for 310 Million people) is $35,807 , which is 65% higher than the previous record-high national debt per-capita (of $21,719 in 2008 dollars) in year 1945 after World War II. And that does not even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching at one of the worst times possible.

    Henry Schlatman wrote: Now why Mr. T. Boone Pickens has showm President Obama and Congress a path forward that can make Government and Society free of Foreign Oil. I fail to see a plan offered by the Loyal Opposition that can show how that helps the American Consumer and Small Business Owner become more Self-Sufficient considering that Commerce and Industry will still be charging them for the everyday energy our ancestors use to get for free.
    You’re right. Our energy vulnerability still exists and should gasoline prices spike again, it won’t be good for an economy already in dire straits.
    Henry Schlatman wrote: 2)Why I will not easily count out the Republican Leadership of America I do see that one of the party problems is that some of the Right Wing believe that they are entitled to more money than the Left Wing who represent Labor. And why personally I think that it is strange that the Party that stopped Slavery in America would dare to keep the American Consumer and Small Business Owner in Economic Slavery. Seeing the Injustice that they are doing to the Stockholders I to wonder if a 3rd Political Party could take away their National Standing. Yet, am bound by a promise not to directly interfer with that Natural Course of Human Events.
    BOTH extremes are problematic.
    • Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism, little (if any) government regulations, and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed.
    • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.
    Henry Schlatman wrote: 3)What now is commonly known as the Bailout of the Banks and the Stabilization of the Market may in its zealous caught corporations and individuals that do not deserve the protection of “We the People” at the time; however, when you find a hole in the side of your ship than is not the time to ask who put it there. And why we can blame it on the captain or crew members that should of kept their eyes open, I do believe that reasonable people would agree that getting the water out of the ship should be priority one.
    Good point (i.e. about hole in the boat).

    Unfortunately, the bail-out mania went way too far.
    I can understand keeping some banks with border-line problems solvent.
    I can understand guaranteeing money-market funds 1.0-to-$1.00.
    I can understand raising the FDIC limits from $100K to $250K.
    The problem (with 8,000-to-9,000 banks nation-wide; most of which are OK) bailing out bad banks, horribly mismananged corporations (e.g. Chrysler), and paying for exacutive management bonuses and other forms of exorbitant compensation, and Congress’ (by Chris Dodd, per the Treasury’s request) removal of amendments to the Stimulus BILL to restrict such bonuses. It’s un-American and unfair to the competition who played by the rules.

    Henry Schlatman wrote: So say we overspent by a few billion dollars so that all the American Consumers and Small Business Owners would not experience the Great Depression of their Grandparents and Great Grandparents. Do you really want to live in a society were a piece of bread and a coffee will cost you a nickel? For than how could you get paid the wages that you enjoy today when the company selling you those products are only making a 20% profit instead of the 300% mark-up many retailers enjoy today.
    Only certain items are experiencing any deflationary pressures (e.g. housing, gasoline, etc.), because they were severely over-priced for too long to begin with. Those bubbles have burst. However, over-all inflation (as of 28-FEB-2009) was still positive, and based on pre-1983 CPI/inflation calculations, inflation as of 28-FEB-2009 is actually 7.5% .
    Henry Schlatman wrote: 4)Why I will not get into the many different ways that Stockholders can and should have used their oversight of the Market to stop the build up that lead to 30% of the Market being bought on borrowed money, I do believe that going forward Americans are going to need to find better financial advisors and managers of their 401k plans and other investment tools.
    I had several brokers and financial advisors telling me I should not have paid off my house because I could make more money in the stock market.

    Good think I didn’t listen to them, and lose in the bursting 1999 and/or 2008 stock-market/real-estate bubbles.

    Henry Schlatman wrote: For technology speaking the Government is doing nothing more than what any Stockholder or Group of Investors who hold a Majority stack in the corporation should be doing to ensure ther investment. So if you want the government not to have the final word in AIG, pay the current Market Value so that America does not own 51% of the business.
    So, has bailing out AIG really resulted in a better outcome? What’s the cost now up to? $170 Billion (about $550 per man, woman and child).
    Henry Schlatman wrote: Why others will have to explain why the Federal Government of America and other Nations have the right to keep things on and off the books the myth that America could experience a total fiscal bankruptcy would mean that more than the Banks would have to fail. And considering that “We the People” hold that Authority and not “We the Corporation” I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
    They will not let the federal debt default, because the Federal Reserve and federal government will create as much new money needed to service the debt and continue spending. That is why high inflation is a danger. Despite reports of inflation near ZERO as of 28-FEB-2009, inflation is really 7.5% based on pre-1983 CPI/inflation formulas.
    Henry Schlatman wrote: Why a projected national debt is forecasted to be somewhere in the range of $11.1-22 Trilion the Truth is that if America and Humanity cannot find another source of Energy other than coal and oil than the expandtion of business and the market will grind to the point where paying even the interest on such loans would become impossible. Not to mention the suffering of the citizens. For could you imagine what would happen if the DOw hit 3,000 and kept going lower?
    The current (not future liabilities or interest on debt) federal National Debt is $11.1 Trillion. Some people say it is less due to Social Security surpluses, but Social Security surpluses are really non-existent and actually exist as non-marketable I.O.U.s. To date, $12.8 Trillion has been borrowed from Social Security over several decades, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching at one of the worst times possible. That actually should be considered debt too, but it isn’t. Anyway, while there is no interest on that $12.8 Trillion, the actual non-existence of real Social Security surpluses means that more money must eventually come later from more taxes, borrowing & debt, and/or new money created from thin air. Combining that $12.8 Trillion with the current $11.1 Trillion National Debt places total federal debt as $23.9 Trillion (which is about $77,097 per-capita, which is 355% higher than the national debt per-capita in year 1945 after World War II). That’s pretty crazy (in my opinion), and even crazier to think that debt should be allowed to grow significantly larger.
    Henry Schlatman wrote: Why My Peers and Their Children have two courses in solving that problem I do believe that it will be a good combination of those things that will become the Societal Norm in time. For why we know that Labor and Management will fight over the scraps that they are given by the Barons of Corporations I see that personal gardens are starting to make their way even to the White House. Because why the Corporations insist on raising the cost of Energy, Food, and other Living Needs even though they say we are in deflation I do believe that if the American family can reduce by 50% the items they need by becoming more Self-Sufficient than the inflation will not be a problem. Since in today’s environment I don’t think it is a good idea to go ask for a 40% cost of living raise so that one can keep up with the Jones.
    Yes, more focus on sustainability is needed; not another bubble fueled by false wealth and inflation.

    But instead, many people think we need to get GDP growing again.
    Why does GDP need to grow?
    Why can’t GDP merely be sustainable?
    What will be the price to fuel another bubble to increase GDP?
    Will another bubble produce more real wealth? No.
    These bubbles are fueled by inflation which is (in the long run) economically destabilizing.

    Yes, they say we are in deflation, but overall year-to-year inflation has never been negative (i.e. deflation) once in the last 52 consecutive years, and even the federal government’s and Federal Reserve’s own fishy numbers show that overall inflation is still positive. The deflation on homes, real-estate, and gasoline is because those things were severely over-priced to begin with. Now there’s a glut of homes on the market. While there don’t appear to be any shortages of gasoline at the moment, that could change fast.

    Henry Schlatman wrote: And BTW, considering that every American would have yo purchase or be taxed that current $61 Trillion owed by “We the People” by October 1, 2009 I do not think the States have seriously thought through their argument of a balanced budget on the Federal level. Especially since they are now seeing the problems of coming up with all the funds they need to meet their Duty Bounds Respnsibilities.
    A BALANCED BUDGET amendment is not a silver bullet.

    It’s actually just another indication of a lack of interest in violations of the Constitution and real reforms (also evidenced by 85%-to-90% re-election rates for Congress).

    But it may become painfully obvious in the coming years that a BALANCED BUDGET amendment may have possibly avoided the massive $70.44 Trillion nation-wide debt-bubble we have today (that’s current nation-wide debt; not future debt).

    The numbers are changing faster than ever now, but here’s the current break-down of total nation-wide debt (all federal and non-federal debt):

    • Private domestic financial sector debt=$17.0 Trillion;

    • Household debt= $14.44 Trillion;

    • Business debt=$10.66 Trillion;

    • Federal government National Debt = $11.1 Trillion

    • State and local government debt = $2.68 Trillion;

    • Other private sector foreign debt = $1.8 Trillion;

    • __________________________________________________________

    • Total nation-wide debt = $57.64 Trillion (and that does not even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 million baby boomer bubble approaching);

    • If the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security is also included:
      • Total nation-wide debt = $70.44 Trillion = $57.64 Trillion + $12.8 Trillion = 508% (i.e. 5.08 times) the nation’s $13.86 Trillion GDP (year 2007) !

      • So, total current (not future) federal debt is = $23.9 Trillion = $11.1 Trillion + $12.8 Trillion = 172% (i.e. 1.72 times) the nation’s $13.86 Trillion GDP (year 2007) !

    Henry Schlatman wrote: At any rate, I do believe My Peers need to listen to Their Children about how to build a Sustainable Green Civilized Society so they can Educate their Parents Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders.
    Yes. Sustainability will become increasingly important as the $6.7 Billion world population continues to grow by 211,000 per day (8,791 per hour = 147 per minute = 2.442 per second).

    The End-Game of Debt Expansion (untenable debt) -

      Esteemed Economist Ludwig von Mises stated the end-game brought on by reckless expansion of credit (debt):
      • “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion.

      • The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”
        • Two Questions:
        • 1. Does anyone wish to offer guarantees that Dr. von Mises is wrong?

        • 2. Does anyone believe these debt trends can continue forever - without dire consequences?

    bills wrote: BHO is doing just fine,thank you. RE: Artical V convention…..yawn.
    Obama is only one person, and even some of his own ranks are beginning to question the huge spending.

    Article V is no silver bullet.
    But citizens should be interested and concerned about any violation of the Constitution, lest it lead to more violations.
    Parts of the constitution have always been violated, but allowing too many is a slipperly slope.
    And this particular violation should be telling voters something about Congress and Congress’ obvious conflict of interest.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 1, 2009 4:57 PM
    Comment #279425

    D.a.n,
    Why GDP can be re-expanding fairly quickly in America and eslewhere I do not believe that is the question the American Consumer and Small Business Owner should be asking. For as the Elite of Society has already proven you can only own so many TVs before the game gets old and boring.

    No, why not a part of the Main Stream Futuristics of Society I do believe that if the American Baron and Corporations want to stay on top than the goods that they sell your children ad grandchildren should be built in a manner that allows them to be Self-Sufficient as Consumers and Small Business Owners.

    For example, an electric car that last over ten years with little maintain and the capability of producing enough excess electricity so that it can pay for itself within the first 3-5 years would be better than any car Detroit or the Foreign Car Companies have or intend to have on the road today. Yet, it is not the Government that holds back “We the People” from having that capability.

    And for the balanced budget. I wonder if you know how it is that the American Consumer and Small Business Owner can afford to carry the extreme debt while hearing from those in currency trade that the dollar still needs to go down lower? For how is it that a strong dollar brings on inflation?. So why the $11.1-22 trillion sounds like a lot of money even by today’s standards, I wonder if you could tell me what $3.6 trillion would be in terms of the dollar in Dec. 1941.

    Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 2, 2009 1:28 AM
    Comment #279435
    See above. What part of that do you not understand? Do you want everyone to think you can’t read and comprehend?

    There’s a major flaw in your argument: The states are not operating according to your cumulative standard. Why is Alabama repeatedly making calls at different years if its old calls are still valid?

    I’m not one to question the intelligence of Southerners, but wouldn’t the smart thing be to simply let the call lie there, and wait for the other states to make calls of their own? I don’t think you can explain this, except for some convoluted notion that somehow, they’re desperate, they’re sort of slapping the top of the television to get it to work… over five hundred times. Either these people are morons and fools who don’t understand the way the system really works, or they do understand, but as they watch the progress of events, they don’t see some critical threshold passed.

    Either everybody else is an idiot, and the States don’t know what they’re doing, or you’re the one who’s wrong. (though not dumb.)

    This was supposed to be an agreement by the states. Is it agreement when such time passes that people’s opinion at any given moment is uncertain? It take a solid agreement of the states with every other provision of Article V to get something done. You can’t stretch that 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress until you get what you want. Why should there be, with no visible difference between the thresholds, any difference between how we treat the political unity required for a congressional proposal of an amendment, and one by the states?

    I’m simply not going to read a world of difference between two parallel thresholds of identical proportions for the same purpose, without the language actually being there. While there is no language that explicitly provides for a contemporary standard on Article V’s convention clause, there is an implicit limitation of that kind on Congress with the standard amendment clause, and an identical threshold to Congress’s imposed on the state. Given that Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist, speaks of concurrence and unity in terms of this Convention clause, we have good reason to believe that where the constitution says the same thing, it means the same thing.

    So, the question becomes, what can you see in Article V’s convention clause that all the rest of us can’t? Where does it say that any vote, perpetuated and repeated time and again adds up to valid consent?

    The only possible way to justify all these calls having come to pass is to act as if the states are screaming something that the Congress is not listening to. But wouldn’t the states eventually tire of it, wouldn’t they just treat the practice as vestigial, the old guys saying “don’t make a convention call, they won’t listen”

    These people are making the calls, because they do believe that they will be listened to. But they’re not behaving as if they’ll just magically add up. You wouldn’t make another call again, if you believed your other calls were still valid.

    The states have had plenty of reason over the last two hundred years to call for a convention. Hell, we had a fricking Civil War, not to mention the turmoil that lead up to it.

    No Supreme Court case has been levelled by the states regarding that particular clause. You toss a bunch of them at me, but I know from past debates on these issues that none of those cases you Cite actually have bearing on the critical clause in question. Every one of them deals with proposal by Congress or ratification. That’s what they’re referring to when they say that Article V must be obeyed. It’s not some abstract principle floating out in the breeze. It’s something they invoke in the service of other parts of Article V. They are not invoking it to make YOUR argument, favoring YOUR interpretation. You can’t just patch together the Supreme Court decisions from a dozen different, irrelevant cases on different subjects, and claim that this quilt supports your point. The whole point of citing a decision is to support a substantive part of your argument.

    There is no evidence of ANYBODY else taking up your interpretation. Not the states, nor the Supreme Court. Where’s the beef?

    You go back and read Alexander Hamilton’s defense of the Article V provisions. You will find words like Concurrence, words like Union. Words that indicate a simultaneous flowing together of opinion.

    You think you’re beating the crap out of me, but you’re really just having it out with a strawman, while I stand, with history, the language of the constitution, and the practices of the states for 200 years at my side, puzzled about just what you think you’re doing.

    So do this: present historical evidence that ANYBODY at all ever took your position, in the early 1800’s, or late 1700’s. If anybody at all every did so, you’ll have much more of a point, and this will be more than you people just playing semantics with the language of the constitution.

    Oh, by the way: calling people pretzels, doesn’t make them so. Go ahead and start calling people pretzels out there in the real world. Note how many drop and take the form of salted fried dough goodness. You can’t make a poor argument better by talking trash to your opponent.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 2, 2009 8:24 AM
    Comment #279436
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: There’s a major flaw in your argument: The states are not operating according to your cumulative standard.
    So you’re back to dig that hole deeper, eh?

    Wonderful. The obvious frustration is doing wonders for the credibility of your comments.

    No, there’s no flaw, and that is what must be so frustrating, eh?.
    Article V is only one sentence containing 143 words, and it’s meaning is clear and unambiguous:

      ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Why is Alabama repeatedly making calls at different years if its old calls are still valid?
    All 50 states, on average, have submitted 14.6 Article V applications per state (730+ combined). Just because states continue to re-submit applications over-and-over proves nothing at all. There are no same-subject or contemporaneous requirements in Article V, despite the incessant, twisting, contorting, nefarious re-interpretations and pretzel imitations.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m not one to question the intelligence of Southerners, but wouldn’t the smart thing be to simply let the call lie there, and wait for the other states to make calls of their own? I don’t think you can explain this, except for some convoluted notion that somehow, they’re desperate, they’re sort of slapping the top of the television to get it to work… over five hundred times.
    730+ times. The repeated submission of Article V applications is no proof of anything, and claiming it is, is what is truly desparate.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Either these people are morons and fools who don’t understand the way the system really works, or they do understand, but as they watch the progress of events, they don’t see some critical threshold passed.
    They aren’t morons or fools, and understand perfectly that Congress is violating Article V, as evidenced by these 8 Congressional Records.
    • CR 042 Pg 00164 Yr 1907-NJ-Direct Election of Senators
    • CR 043 Pg 02667 Yr 1909-SD-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 02688): Notice in the Congressional Record where it states as follows:
        “Whereas the House of Representatives of Congress of the United States has on four separate occassions passed by a two-thirds vote a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution …”
    • CR 045 Pg 07117 Yr 1910-NJ-Direct Election of Senators: Notice in the Congressional Record where it states as follows:
        “Whereas the House of Representatives of Congress of the United States has on four separate occassions passed by a two-thirds vote a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution …”
    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 07120) (see: foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/045_cg_r_07119_1910_HL.JPG)
    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-UT-Direct Election of Senators (see: foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/045_cg_r_07119_1910_HL.JPG)
    • CR 071 Pg 03369 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (see: foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/071_cg_r_03369_1929_HL.JPG)
    • CR 071 Pg 03856 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (see: foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/071_cg_r_03856_1929_HL.JPG)
    • CR 127 Pg 21538 Yr 1981-Summary of Applications (34 Balanced Budget Amendments from 1975-to-1980) (see: foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/CR%20127%20%20%20Pg%2021538%20%20Yr%201981-Summary%20of%20Applications.JPG)
    Hence the question, what part of that Congressional Record from several states do you not understand? Obviously, severeal states appear to adhere to the plain and obvious language of Article V. A mere reading of the plain and obvious language of Article V, the Federalist 85 papers, and court cases explicitly referencing Article V, all make the
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Either everybody else is an idiot, and the States don’t know what they’re doing, or you’re the one who’s wrong. (though not dumb.)
    No. I’m not wrong, and neither the states who have submitted 730+ Article V applications, and it is only a matter of time before at least one state gets fed-up with Congress’ violation of Article V and presses the issue in the Supreme Court, in which case I’m confident that the obvious and unambiguous language of Article V will finally be settled once and for all; finally putting the construction, re-interpreation, contortion, and obfuscation of Article V to rest.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: This was supposed to be an agreement by the states. Is it agreement when such time passes that people’s opinion at any given moment is uncertain? It take a solid agreement of the states with every other provision of Article V to get something done. You can’t stretch that 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress until you get what you want. Why should there be, with no visible difference between the thresholds, any difference between how we treat the political unity required for a congressional proposal of an amendment, and one by the states? I’m simply not going to read a world of difference between two parallel thresholds of identical proportions for the same purpose, without the language actually being there. While there is no language that explicitly provides for a contemporary standard on Article V’s convention clause, there is an implicit limitation of that kind on Congress with the standard amendment clause, and an identical threshold to Congress’s imposed on the state. Given that Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist, speaks of concurrence and unity in terms of this Convention clause, we have good reason to believe that where the constitution says the same thing, it means the same thing.
    What a bunch of gobbledygook and obfuscation.

    Federalist 85 Papers make it very clear that Article V is peremptory:

    • Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 85 Papers: The words of this article [5] 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. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

    Would you now like to debate the meaning of the words: “whenever”, “shall”, “peremptory” , “obligatory” , “mandatory” ?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: So, the question becomes, what can you see in Article V’s convention clause that all the rest of us can’t? Where does it say that any vote, perpetuated and repeated time and again adds up to valid consent?
    No one else? You obviosly have no idea what you are talking about, since several Congressional Records already state:
      Whereas the House of Representatives of Congress of the United States has on four separate occassions passed by a two-thirds vote a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution …
    What part of that do you not understand? So, obviously, it is not only my interpretation now is it?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The only possible way to justify all these calls having come to pass is to act as if the states are screaming something that the Congress is not listening to. But wouldn’t the states eventually tire of it, wouldn’t they just treat the practice as vestigial, the old guys saying “don’t make a convention call, they won’t listen”
    Just because Congress is violating Article V does not mean it is therefore just and correct, which is the repeated, lame, contorted, and twisted logic of your comments. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: These people are making the calls, because they do believe that they will be listened to. But they’re not behaving as if they’ll just magically add up. You wouldn’t make another call again, if you believed your other calls were still valid.
    False. States are obviously submitting (repeatedly) the same Article V applications just in case Congress is continuing to use the excuse of same-subject and/or contemporaneous requirements, despite the fact that there are no such requirements in Article V. Still, even though 38 different states have submitted 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications (all listed above), Congress has still refused to call a peremptory Article V Convention.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The states have had plenty of reason over the last two hundred years to call for a convention. Hell, we had a fricking Civil War, not to mention the turmoil that lead up to it.
    True. It’s good that you finally recognize that the “states have had plenty of reason over the last two hundred years to call for a convention”.

    So why do you then work so hard to defend the indefensible violation of Article V by Congress, whose conflict of interest is as obvious as the nose on your face?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: No Supreme Court case has been levelled by the states regarding that particular clause.
    Not yet, but it will most likely happen eventually, when one or more states finally get tired of Congress’ obstructionism and violation of Article V.

    The only other case was filed by an individual and Congress refused to hear the case, based on “no standing”, as if no individual U.S. citizen has any right to press the issue of the violation of Article V of the U.S. Constitution. It’s basis using Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 433 is also nothing more than an opinion, and has not proven anything. The Supreme Court, in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act to ratify an amendment is a “political question” to be determined by the Congress. However, there are no Supreme Court cases or statements supporting the “contemporaneousness” requirement for proposed amendments; only for the ratification process. That may be possibly due to the word “whenever” in Article V (above), and the other cases in which the Supreme Court has also dealt with cases in interpreting the Constitution (FOAVC.ORG/file.php/1/Articles/FAQ.htm#Q8.4) some which explicitly referred to Article V).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You toss a bunch of them at me, but I know from past debates on these issues that none of those cases you Cite actually have bearing on the critical clause in question.

    More nonsense. The other court cases, whose focus was not about Article V, did make statements about the interpretation of Article V, and therefore is relevant.
    The langauge is very clear and unambiguous. In fact, with regard specifically to Article V:
    • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them.”

    • Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. This article makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states; thus securing deliberation and consideration before any change can be proposed. … The fifth article is a grant of authority by the people to Congress. The determination of the method of ratification is the exercise of a national power specifically granted by the Constitution; that power is conferred upon Congress, and is limited to two methods, by the action of the Legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or conventions in a like number of states. The framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method. Ratification might have been left to a vote of the people, or to some authority of government other than that selected. The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”

    Notice the words above: “article 5”, the “fifth article”, “the article” ?

    What part of that do you not understand?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Every one of them deals with proposal by Congress or ratification. That’s what they’re referring to when they say that Article V must be obeyed.
    True, but those court cases do not recognize any ambiguities in either method of proposing or ratifying amendments. All of those court cases say there is no ambiguity in Article V, which means all of it (not only some part of the single sentence which makes up Article V).
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s not some abstract principle floating out in the breeze. It’s something they invoke in the service of other parts of Article V.
    Article V is only one sentence consisting of 143 words. It’s meaning is clear as evidenced by
  • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: They are not invoking it to make YOUR argument, favoring YOUR interpretation.
    Article V is only one sentence of 143 words. Where did any of those court cases state only part of Article V was not clear?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can’t just patch together the Supreme Court decisions from a dozen different, irrelevant cases on different subjects, and claim that this quilt supports your point. The whole point of citing a decision is to support a substantive part of your argument.
    Again, Article V is only one sentence of 143 words. Where did any of those court cases state only part of Article V was not clear?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: There is no evidence of ANYBODY else taking up your interpretation. Not the states, nor the Supreme Court. Where’s the beef?
    False. You obviously have not read any of the 730+ Article V applications in the Congressional Records (see list of 8 Congressional Records above), which state that the threshold has been met and ignored by Congress.

    Don’t yet ever get tired of your statements being repeatedly proven false?
    It is doing wonders for the credibility of your comments, eh?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You go back and read Alexander Hamilton’s defense of the Article V provisions. You will find words like Concurrence, words like Union. Words that indicate a simultaneous flowing together of opinion.
    False. There is nothing in the Federalist papers indicating any contemporaneous or simultaneous requirement whatsoever. If it existed, you would most certainly quote it. Yet, you hever have, because it does not exist. Such twisting of the facts and intellectual dishonestly is not helping the credibility of your comments. Please show us exactly where within the Federalist 85 papers where it mentions anything about a contemporaneous or simultaneous requirement for Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You think you’re beating the crap out of me, but you’re really just having it out with a strawman, while I stand, with history, the language of the constitution, and the practices of the states for 200 years at my side, puzzled about just what you think you’re doing.
    The weakness and lameness of your own comments are what is beating the crap out of the credibility of your own comments.

    If you want to keep digging that hole deeper and deeper, be my guest.
    Also, the evasion of simple questions is not helping the credibility of your own comments.
    You say there is a contemporaneous requirement in Article V, but refuse to say what that threshold is (years, weeks, days?).
    The evasion to provide the excerpt of a contemporaneous or simultaneous requirement in the Federalist 85 papers is not helping the credibility of your own comments.
    Only a fool can make a fool of one’s self.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: So do this: present historical evidence that ANYBODY at all ever took your position, in the early 1800’s, or late 1700’s. If anybody at all every did so, you’ll have much more of a point, and this will be more than you people just playing semantics with the language of the constitution.
    I just did that above and many times before, but you obviously have not read the Congressional Records from the National Archives and Records Administration in D.C., which also is not helping the credibility of your own comments.

    What do you call those Congressional Records above which clearly state:

      “Whereas the House of Representatives of Congress of the United States has on four separate occassions passed by a two-thirds vote a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution …”

    So, what part of that do you still not understand?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: If anybody at all ever did so, you’ll have much more of a point, and this will be more than you people just playing semantics with the language of the constitution.
    So, do members of Congress and the Congressional Record qualify as “anybody at all” ? Those 8 examples listed above clearly demonstrate that some states and members of Congress believe that the threshold for an Article V Convention has been satisfied 4 times!

    So, how you like them apples, eh?
    I guess now, by your own words, I “have much more of a point” , eh?
    Or will we see yet another pretzel imitation to somehow obfuscate and weasel-out of one’s own conclusion?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Oh, by the way: calling people pretzels, doesn’t make them so. Go ahead and start calling people pretzels out there in the real world. Note how many drop and take the form of salted fried dough goodness. You can’t make a poor argument better by talking trash to your opponent.
    A pretzel imitation is the twisting, contortions, re-interpretations, and obfuscation to prop-up a lame and failing argument.

    Your weak and lame arguements are just that, and therefore perfect examples of a pretzel imitation.
    If that is so frustrating, then perhaps you should reconsider stubborn and perpetual twisting, contortions, re-interpretations, and obfuscation to prop-up a lame and failing argument?
    Again, only a fool can make a fool of one’s self.
    And trying to subsequently blame “lookin’ like a fool” on others only makes one self appear more foolish.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

  • Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2009 10:47 AM
    Comment #279437

    CORRECTION to paragraph 13: Hence the question, what part of that Congressional Record from several states do you not understand? Obviously, severeal states appear to adhere to the plain and obvious language of Article V. A mere reading of the plain and obvious language of Article V, the Federalist 85 papers, and court cases explicitly referencing Article V, all make the [real intention of Article V rather obvious].

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2009 10:52 AM
    Comment #279454
    So you’re back to dig that hole deeper, eh?
    I wasn’t under the impression that I was the one lacking evidence.

    In a literal sense, both our intentions qualify. Hell, in a literal sense, you could argue an indefinite extension and accidental accumulation of the Senate and House votes, too.

    No words there preventing it, right?

    He-he.

    But just try pushing that idea past anybody. Obviously, they would say, you’re supposed to vote all at once, to determine the level of actual support for the proposal of the amendment!

    In the same fashion, though nothing literal binds us to a contemporary standard, there’s a question of whether a long accumulated strand of convention calls, even if you filter out all the non-unique ones, constitutes that kind of support. I mean, isn’t the point of that measure to make sure that the states really supported this convention?

    Your standard fails to guarantee that, fails to honor the spirit of the law: that this nation lives with the constitutional law, and only proposes changing it, much less going through with that change, if an unquestionable majority of the states go with it. This was the compromise struck back in a time when states had considerably more power, and the constitution posed a serious challenge to that power. If you read the Federalist #85, this is the central argument he uses to defend the measure.

    The effect of your interpretation is to make individual actions on the part of the states the possible trigger of what is a collectively focused, collectively binding process of revision. Why the thresholds, then? Why not a flat number?

    If it has to be two thirds all at once, then there’s no ambiguity, and no daylight between the clause that allows the states to call for a convention to propose amendments, and its sibling, which allows its intermediaries in Congress to do the same. It effectively becomes the same act on the part of the states, one with Washington’s approval, one without.

    I’ve got a question: You folks talked about 500 something calls. Now all of a sudden, it’s 730. Where did all these extra calls come from?

    Your argument seems dependent on the skeptics agreeing with you before they even get the first bits of evidence. They must agree on what all the convention calls mean, before we even establish whether the standard you folks use are even useful. Then you try and guilt trip us. But remember: folks like me haven’t even agreed to your interpretation in the first place.

    I have to agree to your conclusion before I agree to be bound by the moral implications of not supporting it. If I think it’s wrong to begin with, or worse a betrayal of the spirit of the law in question, and its moral necessities, why do you think all this moral browbeating is going to do anything but try my patience?

    Quit preaching to me about what a pretzelicious liar I am. Even with the remote possibility of its truth, I would not be prepared to concede such things at this time anyways. And since I don’t believe I’m lying or obfuscating, it’s just a bunch of trash-talking and bluster to me.

    It’s useless. It serves no function. It doesn’t make any argument you make more credible, nor any position you take more sympathetic to me.

    The point of argumentation is to draw your rivals and your audience towards your point of view, not insist that they take it because doing otherwise makes them stupidheads. Critique the message, not the messenger.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 2, 2009 3:04 PM
    Comment #279462
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I wasn’t under the impression that I was the one lacking evidence.
    Well, you are.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: In a literal sense, both our intentions qualify. Hell, in a literal sense, you could argue an indefinite extension and accidental accumulation of the Senate and House votes, too.
    No. Your interpretation requires construction and re-interpretations.

    And you still assert there are thresholds, but you refuse to say what these fictitious thresholds are.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: No words there preventing it, right? He-he. But just try pushing that idea past anybody. Obviously, they would say, you’re supposed to vote all at once, to determine the level of actual support for the proposal of the amendment!
    No. There are no same-subject or contemporaneous requirements in Article V. The language of the single sentence of 143 words are plain and unambiguous.

    But I understand the desparation to salvage a very lame and failing argument with construction, twisting, contorting, and re-interpretations of Article V.
    It’s not fooling anyone.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: In the same fashion, though nothing literal binds us to a contemporary standard, there’s a question of whether a long accumulated strand of convention calls, even if you filter out all the non-unique ones, constitutes that kind of support. I mean, isn’t the point of that measure to make sure that the states really supported this convention?
    Yes. And that is very clear by 730+ Article V applcations from ALL 50 states.

    And even same-subject and/or contemporaneous requirements existed, those thresholds have been met too (see list above of 38 BALANCED-BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your standard fails to guarantee that, fails to honor the spirit of the law: that this nation lives with the constitutional law, and only proposes changing it, much less going through with that change, if an unquestionable majority of the states go with it. This was the compromise struck back in a time when states had considerably more power, and the constitution posed a serious challenge to that power. If you read the Federalist #85, this is the central argument he uses to defend the measure.
    More gobbledygook, obfuscation and nonsense.

    There is nothing in Federalist 85 about same-subject or contemporaneous requirements, and if there were, you would have posted it a long time ago.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The effect of your interpretation is to make individual actions on the part of the states the possible trigger of what is a collectively focused, collectively binding process of revision. Why the thresholds, then? Why not a flat number?
    The threshold for a convention is very simple, and you’ve already acknowledged it: two-thirds of the states (i.e. 50 x (2/3) = 34 states).

    However, ALL 50 states have submitted 730+ Article V applications.
    38 states have submitted 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications.
    If the threshold has not been met, then what is it?
    Why can’t you answer that simple question?
    I know why, because Article V has no same-subject or contemporaneous requiremnets.
    But even if there were, there were 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications, most of which occurred around the 1970s.
    There are Congressional Records stating that Congress has ignored on 4 occassions to call an Article V Convention.
    You asked for ANYBODY, and when provided with Congressional Records, you ignore that proof, and you ignore simple questions, and continue to dig that hole deeper and deeper.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: If it has to be two thirds all at once, then there’s no ambiguity, and no daylight between the clause that allows the states to call for a convention to propose amendments, and its sibling, which allows its intermediaries in Congress to do the same. It effectively becomes the same act on the part of the states, one with Washington’s approval, one without.
    It is pure ridiculousness and shows how desparate you are to win a debate to assert that 2/3 of all states must submit Article V applications simultaneously.

    So, what is this fictitious time period to qualify as “all at once” ?
    What is that threshold ?
    Why can’t you answer that ?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve got a question: You folks talked about 500 something calls. Now all of a sudden, it’s 730. Where did all these extra calls come from?
    I can see that you obviously have not been paying much attention, and obviously don’t know what you are talking about.

    Those 730+ applications are photo-copies from the Congressional Records at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in Washington D.C. We hired professional archivists/researchers to use scanners to photo-copy the Congressional Records. Past research by other attornys and researchers found 567. We have since found 163 more, and we keep finding more. They are nefariously buried in printed (on paper) form only in the Congressional Records stretching back to 1787 (that is, Congress doesn’t want these records to be seen).

    Are you now going to show your ass again and assert that those photo-copies are not genuine?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your argument seems dependent on the skeptics agreeing with you before they even get the first bits of evidence.
    If you had bothered to look at the evidence, your comments wouldn’t now be appearing to be so ignorant.

    The photo-copied proof is indisputable.
    Feel free anytime to try to dispute the authenticity of the photo-copies of the Congressional Records from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: They must agree on what all the convention calls mean, before we even establish whether the standard you folks use are even useful. Then you try and guilt trip us. But remember: folks like me haven’t even agreed to your interpretation in the first place.
    Article V establishes the thresholds. Not us “folks”.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Then you try and guilt trip us. But remember: folks like me haven’t even agreed to your interpretation in the first place.
    More nonsense. Now we’re guilt-tripping? Surely you recognize how utterly nonsensical and desparate that sounds?

    That hole just gets deeper and deeper.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I have to agree to your conclusion before I agree to be bound by the moral implications of not supporting it. If I think it’s wrong to begin with, or worse a betrayal of the spirit of the law in question, and its moral necessities, why do you think all this moral browbeating is going to do anything but try my patience?
    Your patience is of no importance.

    If you patience is wearing thin, you only have yourself to thank for the frustration of trying to prop-up such a weak and lame argument.
    Don’t blame the messenger.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Quit preaching to me about what a pretzelicious liar I am.
    Nonsense. If you feel like a pretzel and frustrated from tryng to prop-up such a weak and lame argument, that’s no my fault.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Even with the remote possibility of its truth, I would not be prepared to concede such things at this time anyways. And since I don’t believe I’m lying or obfuscating, it’s just a bunch of trash-talking and bluster to me.
    Believe whatever you want.

    That’s your choice.
    But it doesn’t make sense to get mad at other people simply because of the frustration of your own weak and lame arguments producing more entertaining pretzel imitations.
    Remember. Only a fool can make a fool out of one’s self.
    You don’t need my help to do that.
    As Forrest Gump said: “Stupid is as stupid does”.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s useless. It serves no function. It doesn’t make any argument you make more credible, nor any position you take more sympathetic to me.
    I’m not the one suffering a lack of credibility.

    But this must all be doing wonders for the credibility of your lame arguments, eh?
    Perhaps that is the true source of frustration, eh?
    You still haven’t told us what those so-called thresholds are.
    You still don’t even seem to be aware that there is evidence of 730 Article V applications from ALL 50 states.
    A person might ought to do a little research before embarrassingly showin’ their ass to everyone?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The point of argumentation is to draw your rivals and your audience towards your point of view, not insist that they take it because doing otherwise makes them stupidheads. Critique the message, not the messenger.
    I don’t care if you agree or not.

    I’m simply enterained by the pretzel imitations, watchin’ that hole get deeper and deeper, and then the blaming of everyone else for that frustration.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2009 4:35 PM
    Comment #279475

    Dan-
    A word on information theory: nothing in the constitution makes sense without external customs and legal traditions.

    My argument is that the interpretation you make implies a radical difference in the way the standards for calling conventions compared with the normal means of proposing amendments in Congress that the text simply shows no evidence of. You can highlight all the “musts” you want to, you still don’t explain how the two thirds threshold operates in a contemporaneous manner in one part, yet with no distinguishing caveat in the other clause, operates entirely different in the other part.

    The sum total of your legal argument on Article V seems to be that Article V needs to be obeyed. We already knew that. Tell us what we don’t know: the premises that support the argument that it must be obeyed according to your interpretation.

    It would be helpful, given the original interpretation and plain meaning argument that you make, to provide evidence that somebody in the framer’s time even made reference to it, much less argued for it. This evidence would establish for the skeptic the originality, or at least the existence of the interpretation in that time. This is important, because jurisprudence in America is not merely built on the constitution, but on precedent and historical custom. If you could offer evidence of that kind, you could shut people up.

    Instead, you insist again and again and again that it should all be obvious and plain. Well, no, not necessarily, especially to folks in colonial times who had a different notion of what words like “several” would mean, for example.

    My experience with literal interpretations is that there’s nothing to stop them from differing from one another, much less from going in absurd directions. It’s not enough to claim that it’s literally there. You have to establish that this is the manner in which somebody of that time and place would read this.

    Instead, you browbeat me with the words, and try to shame me into admitting defeat with words and insults even.

    Well, let me be plain: there seems to me to be no evidence to support your assertion of what was meant by this clause, none to support such a deviation of similarity of function between two clauses so similar in form. You obviously like and believe the argument, but your task here is to get others to believe it.

    I don’t see why they should. I see an original interpretation that nobody can quote an original interpretor to prove its existence by. I see a literal interpretation which can be interpreted any number of ways, given the different meanings and senses and subtexts of the word. I see folks so impatient to use the constitution to bring change that they’re forgetting that the constitution is only one basis for the law, and one that must be interpreted in context.

    I see folks who confuse the principles of political expression with those of political persuasion.

    You can call me a pretzel, but my interpretation has remained very consistent, and the number that I believe matters most: 34. Get 34 states to come together and call a convention, and you’ll have it. Simple. No carrying the numbers, no sorting out which application is active. Just 34 together. Show me the language in the constitution that explicitly forbids that standard. Then show me what historical source shows us why we must complicate it with such a Rube Goldberg approach to calling a convention.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 2, 2009 6:44 PM
    Comment #279479
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- A word on information theory: nothing in the constitution makes sense without external customs and legal traditions.
    More obfuscation to defend twisting, construction and re-interpretations of something that has already been deemed by courts to be “clear in statement and in meaning” , and “The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation”
    • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them.”
    • Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. This article makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states; thus securing deliberation and consideration before any change can be proposed. … The fifth article is a grant of authority by the people to Congress. The determination of the method of ratification is the exercise of a national power specifically granted by the Constitution; that power is conferred upon Congress, and is limited to two methods, by the action of the Legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or conventions in a like number of states. The framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method. Ratification might have been left to a vote of the people, or to some authority of government other than that selected. The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”
    It’s not that complicated, despite the reaching, twisting, and re-interpretations to obscure the obvious intent of Article V, which is only one sentence (and 143 words):
      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.
    You’re wasting your time trying to re-interpret something that is already quite clear. Such construction and re-interpretations violate the rules of interpretation of the U.S. Constitution:
    • U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941): “Where there are several possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that meaning which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose cannot rightly be preferred.”
    • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Words of [the] Constitution are to be taken in natural and obvious sense, and not in sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.”
    • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Where the text of the constitution is “clear and distinct”, no restriction on its plain and obvious import should be admitted unless the inference is irresistible.”
    • Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827): “Where provision in United States Constitution is unambiguous and its meaning is entirely free from doubt, the intention of the framers of the constitution cannot be inquired into, and the supreme court is bound to give the provision full operation, whatever might be the views entertained of its expediency.”
    • Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842): “[The] Court may not construe Constitution so as to defeat its obvious ends when another construction, equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect them.”
    • Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580 (1880): “A constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.”
    • Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. [ … ] The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”
    • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true.
    • U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): “Where intention of words and phrases used in Constitution is clear, there is no room for construction [re-interpretation] and no excuse for interpolation.”
    So, what part of that do you not understand?

    Seriously. Is it mere stubborness, or is it possible for any person to really be that inept?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: My argument is that the interpretation you make implies a radical difference in the way the standards for calling conventions compared with the normal means of proposing amendments in Congress that the text simply shows no evidence of.
    Nonsense. The language of Article V is “clear in statement and in meaning”, and “contains no ambiguity”, and “calls for no resort to rules of construction”.

    No amount of obfuscation and gobbledygook will change the language of Article V, nor the existence of 730+ Article V applications from all 50 states (14.6 on average from every state).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can highlight all the “musts” you want to, you still don’t explain how the two thirds threshold operates in a contemporaneous manner in one part, yet with no distinguishing caveat in the other clause, operates entirely different in the other part.
    There are no same-subject or contermporaneous requirements in Article V.

    But even if there was, those requirements have been met, as evidenced by the list of 151 Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention from 38 different states.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The sum total of your legal argument on Article V seems to be that Article V needs to be obeyed. We already knew that. Tell us what we don’t know: the premises that support the argument that it must be obeyed according to your interpretation.
    It’s not my interpretation. It’s what Article V clearly states.

    What part of that do you not understand?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: It would be helpful, given the original interpretation and plain meaning argument that you make, to provide evidence that somebody in the framer’s time even made reference to it, much less argued for it. This evidence would establish for the skeptic the originality, or at least the existence of the interpretation in that time. This is important, because jurisprudence in America is not merely built on the constitution, but on precedent and historical custom. If you could offer evidence of that kind, you could shut people up.
    All the evidence that is needed already exists.

    Congressional records already contain entries stating that Congress has ignored Article V on four (4) occasions.
    Even if there were same-subject and contemporaneous requirements, they’ve been met.
    There were 151 Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention from 38 different states, and 96 of those were in a relatively short period of time.
    Some congress persons have already (on 8 different occasions) stated in the Congressional record that Congress has ignored Article.

    • CR 042 Pg 00164 Yr 1907-NJ-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 043 Pg 02667 Yr 1909-SD-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 02688): Notice in the Congressional Record where it states as follows:
        “Whereas the House of Representatives of Congress of the United States has on four separate occassions passed by a two-thirds vote a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution …”

    • CR 045 Pg 07117 Yr 1910-NJ-Direct Election of Senators: Notice in the Congressional Record where it states as follows:
        “Whereas the House of Representatives of Congress of the United States has on four separate occassions passed by a two-thirds vote a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution …”

    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 07120) (see: foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/045_cg_r_07119_1910_HL.JPG)

    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-UT-Direct Election of Senators (see: foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/045_cg_r_07119_1910_HL.JPG)

    • CR 071 Pg 03369 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (see: foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/071_cg_r_03369_1929_HL.JPG)

    • CR 071 Pg 03856 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (see: foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/071_cg_r_03856_1929_HL.JPG)

    • CR 127 Pg 21538 Yr 1981-Summary of Applications (34 Balanced Budget Amendments from 1975-to-1980) (see: foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/CR%20127%20%20%20Pg%2021538%20%20Yr%201981-Summary%20of%20Applications.JPG)

    So, what part of that do you not understand?

    If 34 Article V applications submitted between 1975 and 1980 is insufficient, then what is the time limit?
    Why can’t you answer that one simple question?
    Are you afraid it will make your arguments look more ridiculous and lame than they already do?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Instead, you insist again and again and again that it should all be obvious and plain. Well, no, not necessarily, especially to folks in colonial times who had a different notion of what words like “several” would mean, for example.
    Well, logic and common-sense doesn’t work for everyone.

    “Several states” means all of the states, whose number may vary over time. They were smart enough not to hard-code the number 13.
    That is yet another very weak and lame attempt to obfuscate and cloud the issue.
    It’s doing wonders for the credibility of your arguments.
    Personally, I’d be embarrassed to so stubbornly engage in such twisting, construction, re-interpretations, and obfuscation merely to try to win an argument.
    Don’t you care about that?|
    Several people in this thread and others have agreed with my interpretation.
    Who on this web-site has ever agreed with your twisted re-interpretations and obfuscation?
    Not even Congress persons claim there is any contemporaneous requirement in Article V.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: My experience with literal interpretations is that there’s nothing to stop them from differing from one another, much less from going in absurd directions. It’s not enough to claim that it’s literally there. You have to establish that this is the manner in which somebody of that time and place would read this.
    More nonsense and obfuscation, since …
  • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them.”
  • So, what part of “article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity” do you not understand? Now combine that with the court’s rules of interpretation …
  • U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941): “Where there are several possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that meaning which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose cannot rightly be preferred.”
  • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Words of [the] Constitution are to be taken in natural and obvious sense, and not in sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.”
  • So, what part of “natural and obvious sense” do you not understand? You’re just diggin’ that hole deeper and deeper.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Instead, you browbeat me with the words, and try to shame me into admitting defeat with words and insults even.
    Nonsense.

    Only one can make a fool of themself.
    My help is not needed for that.
    If all of these pretzel imitations, contorting, twisting, and obfucation are so frustratining, then why do it merely to win a debate?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Well, let me be plain: there seems to me to be no evidence to support your assertion of what was meant by this clause, none to support such a deviation of similarity of function between two clauses so similar in form.
    False. There evidence is actually overwhelming, and Congress knows it.

    There is no deviation in the two methods of of proposing and ratifying amendments.
    Just because Congress has violated its oath of office to uphold the Constitution by ignoring Article V doesn’t mean continued violation is OK.
    The only deviation is Congress’ violation of Article V, who has an obvios conflict of interest.

    No amount of incessant pretzel imitations, contorting, twisting, and obfucation will change the simple facts.
    It’s not that complicated, despite the incessant pretzel imitations, contorting, twisting, and obfucation of one simple sentence (consisting of 143 words).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You obviously like and believe the argument, but your task here is to get others to believe it.
    I like the truth and believe the Constitution should be obeyed.

    I don’t care if you believe it or not.

    I am simply enterained by the pretzel imitations, watchin’ that hole get deeper and deeper, and then the blaming of everyone else for the frustration from it.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t see why they should. I see an original interpretation that nobody can quote an original interpretor to prove its existence by. I see a literal interpretation which can be interpreted any number of ways, given the different meanings and senses and subtexts of the word. I see folks so impatient to use the constitution to bring change that they’re forgetting that the constitution is only one basis for the law, and one that must be interpreted in context.
    Nonsense and more obfuscation. Again …
    • U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941): “Where there are several possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that meaning which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose cannot rightly be preferred.”
    • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Words of [the] Constitution are to be taken in natural and obvious sense, and not in sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.”
    Why is that so difficult to understand. Your argument relies on construction, re-interpretation, and inventing same-subject and contemporaneous requirements that do not exist, and then you also refuse to state what that contemporaneous time limit is (e.g. 8 years, 4 years, 2 years, 1 week, “all at once in 1 nanosecond”)? I don’t see anyone coming to your defense.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see folks who confuse the principles of political expression with those of political persuasion.
    Gee. Are you standing in a mirror when you saw it? Apparently so.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can call me a pretzel, …
    Like Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.

    If all of these pretzel imitations, contorting, twisting, and obfucation are so frustratining, then why do it merely to win a debate?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: … but my interpretation has remained very consistent, and the number that I believe matters most: 34. Get 34 states to come together and call a convention, and you’ll have it. Simple.
    True. Your interpretation has remained consistently wrong, because it requires construction, re-interpretation that violates the court’s rules of interpretation of the Constitution, ignores 730+ Article V applications from all 50 states, ignores 34 BALANCED BUDGET applications between 1975 and 1980, and ignores 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applcations from 38 different states, and you still refuse to tell us what the magic time period is in which states must apply “all at once”? What is the time-limit? Where is this time limit in Article V? Is it 8 years, 4 years, 1 day, 1 nanosecond? Your refusal to say and the other pretzel imitations are doing wonders for the credibility of your arguments.

    ALL 50 states have already submitted 730+ Article V applications and 38 different states have already submitted 151 Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention in only a period of a few years. Here’s a Congressional Record display 34 BALANCED BUDGET amendment applications between 1975 and 1980 (FOAVC.ORG/file.php/1/Amendments/CR%20127%20%20%20Pg%2021538%20%20Yr%201981-Summary%20of%20Applications.JPG)

    What part of that do you not understand?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: No carrying the numbers, no sorting out which application is active. Just 34 together. Show me the language in the constitution that explicitly forbids that standard. Then show me what historical source shows us why we must complicate it with such a Rube Goldberg approach to calling a convention.
    OK. It’s very simple. One sentence of 143 words. It’s the clear and unambiguous language of Article V of the U.S. Constitution:
      ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.

    What part of that do you not understand?

    What is this “all at once” mysterious time-limit in Article V?
    Where does it state “all at once”
    What part of “whenever two thirds” and “shall call a convention” do you not understand?
    Please tell us.
    Please continue to enterain us with more pretzel imitations, diggin’ that hole deeper and deeper, and then blaming everyone else for frustration from all of it.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 2, 2009 8:15 PM
    Comment #279487

    Dan-

    More obfuscation to defend twisting, construction and re-interpretations of something that has already been deemed by courts to be “clear in statement and in meaning” , and “The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation” …

    I don’t know how I’m Obfuscating if I’m sticking to a simple, direct, plain-language interpretation of the two thirds standard. It’s the one a school kid can understand: 34 states call for a convention together, they can have it. No hidden meanings. Not much interpretation needed.

    So tell me: are any of these cases you list really about the Convention Clause of Article V?

    Or are they about the Congressional Amendment clause? Not one of those cases deals with the convention clause besides mentioning it.

    The reason to cite case law is to find precedent, to find how courts before interpreted and treated the law.

    And yes, they interpret it. That’s inevitable. Law must be applied, not exist in just pristine logical glory. If the legal question is, how do we get to 34 states calling for a convention, none of these cases even remotely deal with that question. The only real reason you cite those cases is for the language that says, more or less, “you must obey Article V and interpret it plainly.”

    However, all of those cases deal with the way that Article V relates to the Congressional method of proposal, and the ratification thereafter. And no, ratification is not the same as proposal. We’ve seen plenty of proposals go down in flame, and the votes on them the first time do not count towards the second vote.

    Without case law telling us how the Convention clause should be interpreted, we are left with two ways to divine the meaning: 1) Historical Practice, 2) Original intent, as expressed by the framers.

    Without legal precedent backing your interpretation, I believe it is legitimate to ask two questions: 1) is there any record in history of how the states dealt with this that supports your contention, either directly or indirectly? 2) is there any record of the framers speaking of this article in your terms?

    To paraphrase Marshall Samuel Gerard from The Fugitive, it’s awful strange when we find original intepretations with no evidence of origins in them to back it up.

    You think its unfair or “pretzel-like” to take that approach. I don’t care. For me, the question here is whether there’s a reliable test for that claim, one that it can pass or fail based on the information at hand.

    Do we have precedent that deals with what the legitimate mechanics of a convention to propose Amendment is? No, it doesn’t seem we do. We have a bunch of cases saying that you must obey Article V, and that it should be interpreted in plain language. You interpret that plain language, pre-eptively, to be your own, but I’d tell you, not so fast: you don’t get to win just by saying so. A case is needed that explains how the calls are gathered, and under what conditions they are valid.

    But we don’t really have that. The cases you list either deal with interpretation of the constitution in a vaguely related way, or to amendments that were proposed and passed via the Congressional proposal method.

    So, historical practice, and original intent, as recorded in histories of the time, are our next choice for the testing ground of your claim.

    You have yet to offer any evidence that anybody acted like this interpretation was in effect, nor any evidence that anybody worried or even thought about the interpretation in question.

    But of course, it could just be a part of the constitution that was neglected in subsequent years. So lets go back to the Constitutional convention and the first years of the Constitutional Republican.

    Do we find Alexander Hamilton or anybody else backing that claim? Not at all. In fact, Hamilton speaks of union, of concurrence, uses other language that indicates that his idea of how this works, is that the states get together to change Washington, when Washington neglects or outright undermines their interests.

    So, Grading my claim, we have a check mark in my column: positive primary source information indicating Hamilton’s vision of state cooperation towards a convention of the states, one that is required when they all get together. I can claim some degree of original intent.

    Second, in my favor, is the positve evidence of years worth of repeated calls for a convention, calls that would never have been made if the states truly believed that those calls, accumulated over time, would be effective. You don’t order a pizza again and again until you get it. You order it once and then wait for what’s coming to you…

    And if you don’t get it? Well, in this case you carry out a lawsuit.

    A lawsuit we have yet to see.

    For such a profoundly important disagreement, we see little evidence. There were many reasons to test this principle, especially in the run-up to the civil war. Nobody even tried.

    But we see plenty of evidence of my interpretation if we take the view that all those calls were attempts which the states considered only attempts.

    My explanation is plain. It’s not complicated: One threshold must be met when the calls are made: 34 together. If that doesn’t happen, neither does the convention. The constitution says two thirds of the states must agree. That’s my opinion, no bull, no twists or turns. I don’t have to do any logical loop-de-loops.

    I don’t have to convince myself that there’s precedent for my beliefs in a bunch of cases that have little bearing on the question at hand. I don’t have to justify as original interpretation a theory that has no real support in the hisorical record. I don’t have to explain how the framers put such high thresholds on other parts of the amendment clause, yet allow one big loophole which would permit just a few states, timed right, to drag the whole country into a new constitutional convention.

    I’ve got less to explain than you do, but I explain myself. You, though, who have all these discrepancies in your theory, explain little, and just make snide personal comments at me hoping perhaps to show to our readers that you’re the big dog.

    I don’t care. I know what my point is, I know what my logic is here, and I consider my interpretation cleaners, simpler and more in line with the surrounding facts and context.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 2, 2009 11:58 PM
    Comment #279492

    Sorry, Stephen D., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention.

    Your not so subtle introduction of the word “together” referring to concurrency of call for convention by 3/4 of the states, is a fabrication which does not exist in the language of the Article.

    And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2009 12:29 AM
    Comment #279494

    “What is this “all at once” mysterious time-limit in Article V?”

    How about two years, the length of time a single congress meets. Remember that a new Congress does not need to respect the bills proposed during a previous Congress, the same aspect should apply to the Article V petitions from the States

    Posted by: Warped Reality at April 3, 2009 2:30 AM
    Comment #279496

    David R. Remer-
    No language exists demanding concurrence of Congress in any of its votes, yet tradition holds that votes, in order to be valid, must take place relatively quickly, with both houses of Congress voting together, deliberately for the proposal. It is the quality of the vote that’s important. So what quality do we seek?

    That the current will of the States be measured. Nothing else matters. We elect republican (small r’s deliberate here) governments for the states according to our constitution, and they are essentially called to represent the will of the people of those states. To deprive a state of its voice by letting a call from a now defunct legislature express its wishes is a betrayal of the voters who decided at the polls in the previous elections that they would organize their state government a certain way, towards certain expressed and unexpressed purposes.

    A simple vote to reaffirm the call would probably pass constitutional muster. But I think the thirty-four state threshold must reflect the current desire of the states for a convention, or it reflects nothing at all.

    There’s nothing twisty or complicated about my interpretation. I simply insist that the measurement doesn’t allow a few states to trigger what is clearly the prerogative of a supermajority of all the states to bring to pass. Don’t you understand? Twistiness is the last things I want. I want a straightforward measurement of where the states are NOW. I don’t want Virginia now to be bound by a call it made ten years ago, with different folks in office. If a state goes Republican, I want that to be potentially reflected in the calls they make. I want Congress not beholden to a history of calls made by defunct legislatures, but to the current officeholders of the states and their consensus on what needs to be done.

    If they reaffirm a previous call, well, that their choice, to, and I’d accept that. But what I want is for the states as they are now to have their voice in calling this, not simply be carried into it unwillingly by a technicality.

    Which is what your proposal does. My making time and current attitudes irrelevant, you’re undermining the spirit of the law. The Convention clause was meant to take effect with the consensus of most of the States, so that this drastic power of rearrangement of the federal government would not be just used willy-nilly, a situation that has resulted in many Past Republics imploding in a storm of revisionism.

    Dan can call me all the names he wants, allege all the twistery he wants. He can compare me to Rold Gold for as long as the day is long, and until he is blue in the face.

    But my interpretation is simple, but it strikes at the central point of that particular clause, the qualitative, not merely quantitative sense of the language in question.

    At its center is a simple point: any counting of the calls for a convention must reflect current sentiment to reflect the will of the states, and the people therein. Anything else merely imposes the legacy of the past on an unwilling public, according to the will of an insufficient number of states.

    We don’t want to begin a constitutional convention with a controversy between the state governments as to whether the listed states calling it actually want the thing to go forward. Why is a desire to avoid this outcome considered complicated? Twisty? It is in fact the simplest possible outcome, with the simplest possible measurement, of the simplest possible means of determining the current will of the states to have the convention at all.

    Get into your standard, and we have any number of scenarios as to how a convention might come to be called, with any number of states reflecting any number of possible levels of will and consensus. The measurement flies apart like broken clock in a cartoon, and it becomes difficult to actually establish whether it’s measuring much of anything at all, besides the submitted calls.

    With my standard, there’s clarity, and nothing in the constitutional language denies it.

    I know some people want profound change in the government, and they see this either as a way to get it quickly, or, if they’ve already bought into the claims made, a way to strike back at an overbearing government. But this clause was never intended to be invoked by a vocal minority, no matter how righteous or right.

    It was never intended to be a means of undermining a powerful federal government, except by means of the consensus of most of the states. If you read the Federalist #85, Hamilton makes the argument that if the states really wanted to guard their interests, they would, in the majority, act to do so with this clause. It was meant to be a means of last resort for dealing with federal intrusion on the state’s rights.

    What I think you should take away from this is that this Constitution was constructed to guard against a minority’s disruption of the majority’s rule. The military was put under civilian control. Congress was given the power to declare war, not the President. The preservation of Democracy and the stability of the Republic are key parts of what the Federalists wanted out of this document. The Bill of Rights was an answer to some of the possible evils that could come of such centralized power. It must not be assumed that the Constitution was only a means of taking power from government. In fact, much of it was devoted to giving and laying out those powers. The subsequent Amendments carved out freedoms from that stronger government, and they must be considered in their own contexts.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 3, 2009 8:25 AM
    Comment #279524
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- I don’t know how I’m Obfuscating if I’m sticking to a simple, direct, plain-language interpretation of the two thirds standard.
    That’s really funny, and doing wonders for the credibility of your arguments.

    The plain-language interpretation (such as “whenever two thirds” and “shall call a convention”) doesn’t have any same-subject or contemporaneous requirements.
    The single sentence (143 words) of Article V does not contain anything that even eludes to a same-subject requirement or a time-limit.

      Article V of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: 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.

    Notice the word “whenever”

    That word, “whenever”, is very clear, and the court’s rules of interpretation of the U.S. Constitution clearly state …

    • (1) U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941): “Where there are several possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that meaning which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose cannot rightly be preferred.”

    • (2)Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Words of [the] Constitution are to be taken in natural and obvious sense, and not in sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.”

    What is the “constitutional purpose” referred to in (1) above?

    It is obvious that it is as stated in Article V, “for proposing amendments” that Congress refuses to, due to several obvious conflicts of interest, and resistance to anything that may even remotely reduce their power, opportunities for self-gain, impose term-limits, impose budget restrictions, or reduce the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.

    And what is the meaning of “natural and obvious sense” mean?

    It is the most straight forward meaning of the language used, without other twisting, reaching, or obfuscation to “defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose”?

    Notice the words in Article V “for proposing amendents”.
    The purpose of an Article V Convention is clearly for “for proposing amendents” that Congress has not proposed.
    This is why 55+ General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 27 states (including 5 additional different states than the states submitting BALANCED BUDGET amendments) qualify. All that is required is for states to request an Article V Convention, and the subject-matter of the amendment is unimportant, since the purpose of the convention is “for proposing amendments”, to hammer-out the final language, and to submit to Congress for ratification. To draw any other conclusions requires reading something else into Article V that does not exist, that requires construction, re-interpretations, and twisting of the “natural and obvious sense”.

    Also, Article V was created in year 1787.
    There were no telephones, telegraphs, or iPhones, or high-speed communications.
    So how are 2/3 of the states supposed to propose amendments “all at once” ?
    What is this mysterious time-limit you speak of (e.g. 8 years, 7 years, 4 years, 1 week, 1 nanosecond)?
    Where is that language in the 143 words of Article V?
    Where is there even the inference of a time-limit?
    Where is there a same-subject requirement (which is irrelevant since 38 different states have already submitted 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention, not to mention 730+ Article V applicaitons from ALL 50 states)?

    That hole you’re diggin’ is just gettin’ deeper and deeper, but please continue. It is quite entertaining.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s the one a school kid can understand: 34 states call for a convention together, they can have it. No hidden meanings. Not much interpretation needed.
    That’s right, and ALL 50 states have submitted 730+ Article V applications.

    38 different states have submitted 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention.

    So, the requirements have been met many times over.
    What part of that is so difficult to understand?
    Seriously? Surely no person can truly be that innept?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: So tell me: are any of these cases you list really about the Convention Clause of Article V?
    Yes. Article V is only one sentence of 143 words, and outlines two methods of amending the Constitution.

    The reference court cases refer to that one sentence. For example, “The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation”

    • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them.”

    • Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. This article makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states; thus securing deliberation and consideration before any change can be proposed. … The fifth article is a grant of authority by the people to Congress. The determination of the method of ratification is the exercise of a national power specifically granted by the Constitution; that power is conferred upon Congress, and is limited to two methods, by the action of the Legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or conventions in a like number of states. The framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method. Ratification might have been left to a vote of the people, or to some authority of government other than that selected. The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”

    Do you have a short term memory defect, or something?
    Perhaps you should print these things out and tape them to your forehead for quick reference?

    Unfortunately, Congress is violating Article V, despite 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Or are they about the Congressional Amendment clause? Not one of those cases deals with the convention clause besides mentioning it.
    Since it doesn’t say, it is safe to assume it applies equally to both. A failure to note the difference would be a severe oversight. However, no oversight exists.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The reason to cite case law is to find precedent, to find how courts before interpreted and treated the law.
    Stare Decisis (the doctrine of precedent) is important.

    And there is no court case anywhere that refutes or trumps Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
    There are several that support the simple, straight-forward language of Article V.
    There is also nothing in the Federalist 85 papers that refutes or trumps Article V.
    If there was, you and others would have presented it a long time ago.
    Failure to do so, and then to insist on construction, twising, contorted re-interpretations is not doing much for the credibility of your arguments.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: And yes, they interpret it. That’s inevitable. Law must be applied, not exist in just pristine logical glory. If the legal question is, how do we get to 34 states calling for a convention, none of these cases even remotely deal with that question. The only real reason you cite those cases is for the language that says, more or less, “you must obey Article V and interpret it plainly.”
    Yes. The Constitution should be obeyed. And ALL 50 states have already submitted 730+ Article V applications.

    I still don’t understand why that is so difficult to understand.
    If it is mere stubborness, it is looking quite foolish, and I would be embarrassed to resort to such obfuscation and dishonesty merely to win a debate.
    Your position appears to be that: Since Article V has been ignored, it must be right.
    Your position appears to be that: Since no state as pressed the violation of Article V in the Supreme Court, it must be right.
    Well, that sort of logic is clearly bassakwards, to say the least.
    It merely demonstrates the desparation to win an arugment at all costs, regardless of how asinine it appears.
    Don’t you care about that?
    Is that the best you can do?
    If not, fine. Be my guest. We will continue to be entertained, as that hole gets deeper and deeper.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: However, all of those cases deal with the way that Article V relates to the Congressional method of proposal, and the ratification thereafter. And no, ratification is not the same as proposal. We’ve seen plenty of proposals go down in flame, and the votes on them the first time do not count towards the second vote.
    It does not matter. Article V is only one sentence. So more desparate reaching, twisting, obfuscation, and pretzel imitations don’t cut it by a long shot, and only serve to dig that hole deeper and deeper.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Without case law telling us how the Convention clause should be interpreted, we are left with two ways to divine the meaning: 1) Historical Practice, 2) Original intent, as expressed by the framers.
    There is case law, and it clearly states explicitly about the one sentence and 143 words of Article V as follows:
    • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them.”
    • Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. This article makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states; thus securing deliberation and consideration before any change can be proposed. … The fifth article is a grant of authority by the people to Congress. The determination of the method of ratification is the exercise of a national power specifically granted by the Constitution; that power is conferred upon Congress, and is limited to two methods, by the action of the Legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or conventions in a like number of states. The framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method. Ratification might have been left to a vote of the people, or to some authority of government other than that selected. The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”
    So, that sort of shoots your theory all to hell.

    If not, please provide us with any court case or law that refutes or trumps Article V.
    If it existed, you would have provided it a long time ago.
    If it existed, I would have found it a long time ago.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Without legal precedent backing your interpretation, I believe it is legitimate to ask two questions: 1) is there any record in history of how the states dealt with this that supports your contention, either directly or indirectly?
    Not yet, but that proves nothing, and Congress won’t be able to violate Article V forever.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: 2) is there any record of the framers speaking of this article in your terms?
    Yes. Federalist 85 Papers make it very clear that Article V is peremptory:
    • Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 85 Papers: The words of this article [5] 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. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.
    Would you now like to debate the meaning of the words: “whenever”, “shall”, “peremptory” , “obligatory” , “mandatory” ?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: To paraphrase Marshall Samuel Gerard from The Fugitive, it’s awful strange when we find original intepretations with no evidence of origins in them to back it up.
    So you are now relying on quotes from actors in fiction movies?

    That’s desparate, and that hole is gettin’ deeper and deeper.
    Wouldn’t it be much more convincing to simply provide the us with any court case or law that refutes or trumps Article V?
    Again, if such proof existed anywhere, you would have provided it a long time ago, no?
    But it doesn’t, so we now see resorting to quotes from movies, among other twisting, construction, obfuscation, re-interpretations, and other pretzel imitations.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You think its unfair or “pretzel-like” to take that approach. I don’t care.
    | Really? Doth protest too much.

    The frusrtation is all too obvious, but don’t blame the messengers.
    Ofcourse, nobody likes to look like a fool, but only one’s self can make of fool of themself.
    So, saying “I don’t care” also rings false, and hints at a nagging frustration with the weakness (if not absurity) of one’s own arguments, and the frustrating embarassment of having resorted to twisting obfuscations, and pretzel imitations to prop-up a weak and failing argument.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: For me, the question here is whether there’s a reliable test for that claim, one that it can pass or fail based on the information at hand.
    Exactly.

    Such as 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states (far in excess of the 34 required).
    Such as 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do we have precedent that deals with what the legitimate mechanics of a convention to propose Amendment is? No, it doesn’t seem we do.
    False.

    The U.S. states have had 679 Constitutional Conventions between 1776 and 1916.
    Iraq had a constitutional convention.
    Afghanistan had a constitutional convention.
    None of those resulted in any failed states.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: We have a bunch of cases saying that you must obey Article V, and that it should be interpreted in plain language. You interpret that plain language, pre-eptively, to be your own, but I’d tell you, not so fast: you don’t get to win just by saying so. A case is needed that explains how the calls are gathered, and under what conditions they are valid.
    Yes, a state may need to file a lawsuit to force the issue, since Congress has an obvious conflict of interest to violate Article V.

    But that does not in any way refute or trump Article V.
    The violation of a law does not justify its violation.
    Two wrongs don’t make a right.
    That appears to be your position: Since Article V has been ignored, it must be right, and since no state as pressed the violation of Article V in the Supreme Court, it must be right.
    Well, that sort of logic is clearly bassakwards, to say the least.
    It merely demonstrates the desparation to win an arugment at all costs, regardless of how asinine it appears.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You have yet to offer any evidence that anybody acted like this interpretation was in effect, nor any evidence that anybody worried or even thought about the interpretation in question.
    False.

    You clearly have not read the Congressional Records, which on 8 different occassions, by different states, clearly stated in the Congressional Record, that Congress has ignored 4 occasions to comply with Article V.

    So, your continued obfuscations are doing wonders for the credibility of your arguments.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: But of course, it could just be a part of the constitution that was neglected in subsequent years. So lets go back to the Constitutional convention and the first years of the Constitutional Republican. Do we find Alexander Hamilton or anybody else backing that claim? Not at all.
    False.

    Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 85 Papers:

    • The words of this article [5] 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. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

    What part of that do you not understand?

    Where is there any evidence, any case, any law, that refutes or trumps Article V?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: In fact, Hamilton speaks of union, of concurrence, uses other language that indicates that his idea of how this works, is that the states get together to change Washington, when Washington neglects or outright undermines their interests.
    False. There is nothing in the Federalist 85 Papers that refutes or trumps Article V, as evidenced by your repeated refusal to provide any exact text to that effect.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: So, Grading my claim, we have a check mark in my column: positive primary source information indicating Hamilton’s vision of state cooperation towards a convention of the states, one that is required when they all get together. I can claim some degree of original intent.
    False. You have not provided any text by Hamilton to support such an obfuscation.

    Yet, I did (see above). How about them apples?
    That hole you’re diggin’ is gettin’ deeper and deeper, but it is most entertaining.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Second, in my favor, is the positve evidence of years worth of repeated calls for a convention, calls that would never have been made if the states truly believed that those calls, accumulated over time, would be effective. You don’t order a pizza again and again until you get it. You order it once and then wait for what’s coming to you…
    Nonsense. States don’t keep track of other states Article V applications, and Congress has cleverly stored Article V applications deep in volumes (books; not electronically) in the Congressional Records (at the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA)). States are now learning about this, and it is only a matter of time before one (or more) states presses the issue in the Supreme Court.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: And if you don’t get it? Well, in this case you carry out a lawsuit.
    Yes. That is almost inevitable.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: A lawsuit we have yet to see.
    False. A lawsuit was filed by a U.S. Citizen, but the court claimed a citizen “has no standing” on the issue of the violation of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

    However, when a state finally does file another lawsuit, it will be more difficult to ignore.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: For such a profoundly important disagreement, we see little evidence. There were many reasons to test this principle, especially in the run-up to the civil war. Nobody even tried.
    False. There were many Article V applications from several (10) of the 36 states (up to year 1965) regarding slavery, leading up to the Civil War, and after.

    CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1860-DE-Slavery; 1
    CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1860-AR-Slavery; 1
    CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1860-TN-Slavery; 1
    CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-KY-Slavery; 1
    CR 036 Pg 00082 Yr 1861-TN-Direct Election of President and other proposals (continued to: Page 00083)
    CR 036 Pg 00114 Yr 1861-KY-Slavery
    CR 036 Pg 00680 Yr 1861-NJ-Slavery
    The Congressional Globe 037 Pg 00773 Yr 1861-KY-Slavery
    CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-NJ-Slavery; 1
    CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-IN-Slavery; 1
    CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-IL-Slavery; 1
    CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-OH-Slavery; 1
    CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1863-DE-Peaceful Resolution to Civil War; 1
    CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1863-KY-Slavery; Reaffirming Application of 1861; 1
    CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1864-OR-Peaceful Resolution to Civil War; 1
    CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1867-NC-Reducing Effects of Emancipation; 1

    But several states sesceded from the union.
    And 10 different states is far short of the two-thirds (i.e. 24 of the 36 states required).
    Also, the south and north were divided, so a two-thirds majority didn’t happen.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: But we see plenty of evidence of my interpretation if we take the view that all those calls were attempts which the states considered only attempts. My explanation is plain. It’s not complicated: One threshold must be met when the calls are made: 34 together. If that doesn’t happen, neither does the convention. The constitution says two thirds of the states must agree. That’s my opinion, no bull, no twists or turns. I don’t have to do any logical loop-de-loops.
    Nonsense. Your opinion requires twisted, convoluted, loop-de-loop, obfuscation, re-interpretations, and pretzel imitations.

    It also requires 730+ Article V applications be ignored.
    It also requires construction and ignoring the plain english language of Article V.
    It also requires a time-limit and/or same-subject requirements where none exist.
    And it is all doing wonders for the credibility of your arguments.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t have to convince myself that there’s precedent for my beliefs in a bunch of cases that have little bearing on the question at hand.
    Doth protest too much, while trying very hard to prop-up a very weak and abusrd argument, as evidenced by the obvious frustration of it.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t have to justify as original interpretation a theory that has no real support in the hisorical record. I don’t have to explain how the framers put such high thresholds on other parts of the amendment clause, yet allow one big loophole which would permit just a few states, timed right, to drag the whole country into a new constitutional convention.
    Nonsense. 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states, and 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states is far from “just a few states”, and it is also far from merely “timed right”, with 34 BALANCED BUDGET amendemnts submitted between 1975 and 1980 (and more since).

    These little facts are most damaging to your twisted obfuscations.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve got less to explain than you do, but I explain myself.
    Obfuscation and pretzel imitations do not substitute for credible explanations.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You, though, who have all these discrepancies in your theory, explain little, and just make snide personal comments at me hoping perhaps to show to our readers that you’re the big dog.
    Wrong.

    Only one’s self can make a fool of one’s self, and you don’t need my help to do that.
    Like Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.
    If that is so distressing, my recommendation would be to refrain from doing stupid things that raise questions about one’s credibility.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t care.
    Yes, you repeatedly write that, which obviously raises questions to the credibility of it.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know what my point is, I know what my logic is here, and I consider my …
    That’s good. At least there is one person somewhere who does.

    But I didn’t see anyone else helping you dig that hole deeper. It must be almost all the way to China by now?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know what my point is, I know what my logic is here, and I consider my interpretation cleaners, simpler and more in line with the surrounding facts and context.
    What facts? Obfuscation, twisted construction, and re-interpretations do not substitute for facts and context.
    David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention.
    Thanks David.
    David R. Remer wrote: Your not so subtle introduction of the word “together” referring to concurrency of call for convention by 3/4 of the states, is a fabrication which does not exist in the language of the Article.
    Yes, 2/3 required to call a convention, and 3/4 to ratify any particular amendment. Thank you again.


    Warped Reality wrote:
    • d.a.n wrote: “What is this “all at once” mysterious time-limit in Article V?”

    How about two years, the length of time a single congress meets. Remember that a new Congress does not need to respect the bills proposed during a previous Congress, the same aspect should apply to the Article V petitions from the States

    If it said two years, that would make perfect sense. But it doesn’t. And remember, there were no telephones, telegraphs, iPhones, or high-speed communications in year 1787.
    Things happened at a much slower pace.
    It also took many years to merely ratify some amendments (as long as 200+ years for the 27th amendment.
    However, I would recommend an amendment to spell it out and make it very clear so that there is no doubt about it in the future.
    But until then, two years seems too short.
    Congress has already put a seven (7) year time limit on ratification of amendments, so I would recommend the same time-limit for proposed amendments.
    But until Article V is amended to specify a time-limit and/or same-subject requirements, there are none, and when this issue is finally pressed in court, the Supreme Court will hopefully side with the 2/3 (i.e. 66.7%) to 100% of the states having submitted 730+ Article V applications.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: David R. Remer- No language exists demanding concurrence of Congress in any of its votes, yet tradition holds that votes, in order to be valid, must take place relatively quickly, with both houses of Congress voting together, deliberately for the proposal. It is the quality of the vote that’s important. So what quality do we seek?
    Yes, and I think the Congress’ seven (7) year time-limit for ratification is a reasonable limit. There are several instances (at least 4; corroborated by Congressional Records) where 34+ different states submitted Article V applications within a 7 year period.

    And in a previous discussion, you [Stephen Daugherty] wrote:

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: In Dylan Vs. Gloss, the court ruled that the seven year time limit put on the amendment’s ratification was perfectly constitutional, so long as it didn’t interfere with Article V.

    So, I’m OK with seven (7) years. That requirement has already been met, and then some to boot.

    So what is this mysterious time limit.
    Is seven (7) years now disqualified conveniently because more than 34 different states submitted Article V Applicaitons in less that a 7 year period?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: That the current will of the States be measured. Nothing else matters. We elect republican (small r’s deliberate here) governments for the states according to our constitution, and they are essentially called to represent the will of the people of those states. To deprive a state of its voice by letting a call from a now defunct legislature express its wishes is a betrayal of the voters who decided at the polls in the previous elections that they would organize their state government a certain way, towards certain expressed and unexpressed purposes.
    Yes, I believe it is a betrayal.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: A simple vote to reaffirm the call would probably pass constitutional muster. But I think the thirty-four state threshold must reflect the current desire of the states for a convention, or it reflects nothing at all.
    Yes, and I think the 8 Congression Records (from the National Archives of the Records Administration) document 4 occasions of 34 states satisfying those requirements:
    • CR 042 Pg 00164 Yr 1907-NJ-Direct Election of Senators
    • CR 043 Pg 02667 Yr 1909-SD-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 02688)
    • CR 045 Pg 07117 Yr 1910-NJ-Direct Election of Senators
    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 07120)
    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-UT-Direct Election of Senators
    • CR 071 Pg 03369 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention
    • CR 071 Pg 03856 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention
    • CR 127 Pg 21538 Yr 1981-Summary of 34 Balanced Budget Applications from 1975-to-1980
    But Article V is no silver bullet.

    It still requires 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendment.
    So, there is still a substantial threshold, despite 3/4 (i.e. 38) states who have already submitted Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET (that is, that does not guarantee 38 states will ratify it). However, the states should have the opportunity to decide, having satisfied the 2/3 requirment (and in a relatively short period of time too).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: There’s nothing twisty or complicated about my interpretation. I simply insist that the measurement doesn’t allow a few states to trigger what is clearly the prerogative of a supermajority of all the states to bring to pass. Don’t you understand? Twistiness is the last things I want. I want a straightforward measurement of where the states are NOW. I don’t want Virginia now to be bound by a call it made ten years ago, with different folks in office. If a state goes Republican, I want that to be potentially reflected in the calls they make. I want Congress not beholden to a history of calls made by defunct legislatures, but to the current officeholders of the states and their consensus on what needs to be done.
    Yes, I agree. That is why I think Article V itself should be amended to set a time-limit.

    Ohio almost become another state on DEC-2008 to submit an Article V application for a BALANCED BUDGET amendment.
    Record deficits and debt are naturally spurring more discussion about spending limits on the federal governmnnt.
    Since the 1950s, there have been 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states.
    I think that satisfies the basic language of Article V.
    I realize the timing is bad, and that Article V is no silver bullet, but the states should be allowed the opportunity to decide.
    If 3/4 (i.e. 38 states) can’t ratify any proposed amendment, then that’s that. It’s over, and all proposed amendments up to the date of the convention are null and void, and the state would have to start over. Hopefully, if nothing else, a time-limit (e.g. 7 years) would come out of an Article V Convention. That will avoid a lawsuit in the Supreme Court that is now almost inevitable since Congress has few (if any) intentions of obeying Article V today.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: If they reaffirm a previous call, well, that [is] their choice, to, and I’d accept that. But what I want is for the states as they are now to have their voice in calling this, not simply be carried into it unwillingly by a technicality.
    Yes, states have to also reaffirm any previous calls, because the convention is only for proposing amendments.

    All Article V Applications are only for triggering an Article V Convention.
    Notice the words in Article V: 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.
    The amendments actually submitted to Congress by the convention must be agreed upon during the convention. If there is no agreement by at least 34 states for any proposed amendment submitted to Congress for ratification, it does not get the opportunity to be submitted for ratification. 2/3 of the states must agree to any proposed amendment coming out of the convention. That’s a steep requirement, and 3/4 to ratify any amendment is an even steeper requirement. I suspect only 1 or 2 amendments would stand a chance of ratification , but the states should have the opportunity to decide.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Which is what your proposal does. By making time and current attitudes irrelevant, you’re undermining the spirit of the law. The Convention clause was meant to take effect with the consensus of most of the States, so that this drastic power of rearrangement of the federal government would not be just used willy-nilly, a situation that has resulted in many Past Republics imploding in a storm of revisionism.
    False. since 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications have been submitted by 38 different states (and in a shorter period of time which you previously stated (see above) was agreeable; i.e. 7 years)?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n can call me all the names he wants, allege all the twistery he wants. He can compare me to Rold Gold for as long as the day is long, and until he is blue in the face.
    Don’t blame me the obvious frustration with trying to prop-up a weak and failing arguments.

    If it is so frusrtating, the perhaps there is something wrong with the logic of your arguments?
    Your arguments are clearly bassackwards, and that is the true root of the frustration.
    I do not need to call you names or engage in character assination.
    Only a fool can make a fool of themself, and my help is not even remotely required in this intanced to accomplish that.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: But my interpretation is simple, but it strikes at the central point of that particular clause, the qualitative, not merely quantitative sense of the language in question.
    No, your interpretation is twisted, and your arguments are so laughably convoluted and obfuscated, that anyone following this can see the stubborness and determination to win an argument, no matter how ridiculous the twisting pretzel imitations become.

    The best way to avoid having logic and arguments be labeled twisted “pretzel logic” is to not engage in it (especially to merely win an argument).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: At its center is a simple point: any counting of the calls for a convention must reflect current sentiment to reflect the will of the states, and the people therein. Anything else merely imposes the legacy of the past on an unwilling public, according to the will of an insufficient number of states.
    Not true. Above, quoted from a previous conversation, you already wrote …
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: In Dylan Vs. Gloss, the court ruled that the seven year time limit put on the amendment’s ratification was perfectly constitutional, so long as it didn’t interfere with Article V.
    And 38 states have already submitted 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications.

    So you are now back-tracking on your own comments.
    That’s what happens.
    Oh what webs we weave when we practice to deceive, eh?
    Again, I’d be ashamed to so persistently engage in such intellectual dishonestly to merely win an argument.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: We don’t want to begin a constitutional convention with a controversy between the state governments as to whether the listed states calling it actually want the thing to go forward. Why is a desire to avoid this outcome considered complicated? Twisty? It is in fact the simplest possible outcome, with the simplest possible measurement, of the simplest possible means of determining the current will of the states to have the convention at all.
    What’s this “we” crap? All 50 states disagree, and that will most likely become all too evident when one (or more) states eventually presses the matter before the Supreme Court.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: With my standard, there’s clarity, and nothing in the constitutional language denies it.
    Wrong. There is no clarity in perpetual twisted, perverted, convoluted, obfuscation and pretzel imitations.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know some people want profound change in the government, and they see this either as a way to get it quickly, or, if they’ve already bought into the claims made, a way to strike back at an overbearing government. But this clause was never intended to be invoked by a vocal minority, no matter how righteous or right.
    Nonsense. No amount of deception (not to mention apparent self-deception), twisted, perverted, convoluted, obfuscation and pretzel logic; no law; nothing from the Federalist papers; and certainly not the 143 words in the one sentence of Article V; can refute or trump Article V.

    Perpetual bfuscation is not making your arguments more credible (to say the least).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: It was never intended to be a means of undermining a powerful federal government, except by means of the consensus of most of the states. If you read the Federalist #85, Hamilton makes the argument that if the states really wanted to guard their interests, they would, in the majority, act to do so with this clause. It was meant to be a means of last resort for dealing with federal intrusion on the state’s rights.
    I’ve read the Federalist papers and there is absolutely nothing in the Federalist papers that refutes or trumps Article V, and if it existed, you have had ample opportunity to post the exact text. Yet you haven’t. That’s because it does not exist. There appears to be no level to which your arguments will stoop to obfuscate and twist the logic to merely win a debate.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: What I think you should take away from this is that this Constitution was constructed to guard against a minority’s disruption of the majority’s rule. The military was put under civilian control. Congress was given the power to declare war, not the President. The preservation of Democracy and the stability of the Republic are key parts of what the Federalists wanted out of this document. The Bill of Rights was an answer to some of the possible evils that could come of such centralized power. It must not be assumed that the Constitution was only a means of taking power from government. In fact, much of it was devoted to giving and laying out those powers. The subsequent Amendments carved out freedoms from that stronger government, and they must be considered in their own contexts.
    More obfuscation.

    Sad. You’re obviously an intelligent person, but your comments lack credibility by trying to twist, obfuscate, and re-interpret the simple single sentence (143 words) that makes up Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
    Despite the entertainment value, do you really want to continue these pretzel imitations while trying to prop-up a weak and failing argument that tries to reinvent and re-interpret the mean of words in the English language, tries to constrruct new meanings that don’t exist, and ignores over-whelming evidence of the true intent of Article V to rein-in abuse of the federal government (whose conflict of interest is all too obvious)?
    You have yet to provide anything (any court case, lawsuit, Congressional Records, Federalist papers, etc.) that refutes or trumps Article V.
    It is actually becoming a bit sad to see comments stoop to practically any level to obfuscate and twist the logic to merely win a debate.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 3, 2009 3:08 PM
    Comment #279525

    CORRECTION to 3rd paragraph: The single sentence (143 words) of Article V does not contain anything that even eludes [alludes] to a same-subject requirement or a time-limit.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 3, 2009 3:10 PM
    Comment #279534

    Dan-
    Dropped into a word document, your response to my comment runs 25 pages. Congratulation, you’ve done six times the work to say the same thing again. Why don’t you just link to your previous arguments, and save your fingers the hurt?

    You cite US vs. Classic, which says that you have to prefer the possible meaning that effects rather than defeats the purpose of the constitutional purpose.

    The purpose of a threshold is to distinguish between failed attempts to call conventions and successful ones. As the calls would accumulate according to your interpretation, which seems not to allow for any separations of one set of calls from another, the power of fewer and fewer states to call a convention would increase, which defeats the purpose of a high threshold.

    Also defeating the purpose of the clause is the nature of the real world situation which would surround this. If we cannot distinguish some kind of separation of different efforts to call a convention, and the numbers are simply allowed to rollover like cellphone minutes, we end up in a situation where the obvious aim of the high thresholds, the difficulty of proposing amendments without overwhelming consensus for it, is defeated.

    With my intepretation, parity is maintained, and the indefinite votes we don’t see in the House and Senate aren’t seen among the States, either.

    It’s what Hamilton wanted. He spoke of uniting “two-thirds or three-fourths” of the state legislatures in your quote. Plain language: Uniting. Not dribbling in gradually, waiting for things to reach a certain level. Uniting. Working together. Concurring, as he says in another part of the same document you cite.

    Positive evidence that this wasn’t meant to be a slacker’s way to amend the constitution, by indifferent legislatures littering the landscape with abandoned calls which the Federal Government is suppose to pick up with a spike and make a convention out of.

    Additional positive evidence: two hundred years of people interpreting the consitution just as I have, limiting the consideration of calls for a convention to a certain time period. The states, applying again and again, when an accumulative standard would allow them to simply lay them on the ground and walk off.

    Which brings me to my paraphrasing of Marshal Gerard. I was trying to have a sense of humor. You remember the scene where he basically says “You know, we’re always curious when we find leg irons with no legs in them!”

    You recall that scene? The whole point is, he’s upsetting that whole rigamarole the guy’s built around being the real hero, around him being the only survivor, beside the man Richard Kimble pushed out the window to safety. And what upsets it?

    A lack of certain evidence, where certain evidence should be: legs in leg irons. Interpreted properly, with an eye to language which indicates HOW the preremptory language is to be intepreted (united, concur, union, etc), we see leg irons, but we don’t see any legs in them.

    Or, put another way, we see a claim of original intepretation without any original source material where it should be.

    I’m not desperate. If you produced evidence of the framers talking about, even arguing about accumulating calls, it might put me on the defensive. But right now, what we have is Hamilton talking about collective, united action by the states- not accidental build up of calls. This is meant to be a deliberate action by the states in their own interests. He’s saying, if the states want a convention badly enough, they’ll get it, and use it to beat back federal encroachment.

    Iraq had a constitutional convention. Afghanistan had a constitutional convention. None of those resulted in any failed states.

    AHEM. As of 2004, the state Department considered Iraq a failed state. Afghanistan is worse than Iraq. do the math.

    The trick is the sharing of power. That is why we don’t have failed states, and aren’t a failed state.

    But whether or not a failed state might come of a constitutional convention, the question remains: is this something that proportion of states are agreeing on? If you stretch things out, the photograph gets blurred as the state’s positions move. In the almost thirty years since Reagan took office, much has changed, and the states now have different positions than they once had. Your interpretation binds them to the positions of a generation ago. Mine leaves the states free to express the will of their citizens now.

    That, I believe, is the crucial distinction, what creates the need to interpret the calls in terms of how and whether they cohere together, and whether they represent the current wishes of the states. Otherwise, it’s all just an arbitrary sloshing around of legislative legacies that ignore the wishes of the voters.

    A constitutional convention is not supposed to be an accident, no more than a Congressionally proposed Amendment would be. It’s supposed to be a deliberate act, a thing done with the unity and concurrence of not merely a majority of the states, but a super-majority. This keeps the revisions the work of a vast majority of Americans, rather than merely the whim of an unending array of temporary majorities.

    The point of these laws is to preserve the unity of our country, even as we face changing circumstances that might require overhauls and revisions of our constitution. Two thirds should be two thirds of this country. Whether they vote all at once, or gather all at once is irrelevant. There must be a point, though, where they gather all together and say yes to the convention all together. Otherwise, what’s the point?

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 3, 2009 5:26 PM
    Comment #279550
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: Comment #279534 (www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006498.html#279534)

    d.a.n- Dropped into a word document, your response to my comment runs 25 pages. Congratulation, you’ve done six times the work to say the same thing again. Why don’t you just link to your previous arguments, and save your fingers the hurt?
    That depends on the font-size and margin widths. I type real fast, so it’s no big-deal for me. Besides, you already admit you don’t read it anyway. I merely do it to see how deep that hole you’re diggin’ will go. It appears to be gettin’ deeper and deeper. Gee, has it not reached China yet? Then what are you gonna do? Make the hole ridiculously wider too?

    It’s also funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they do themselves.

    Perhaps some people should practice what they preach?
    That’s really funny based on the examples of mastery of prolific gobbledygook and obfuscation in your comments above.

    Besides, repeating some things seems necessary for what seems to be a short-term memory loss problem, and/or comprehension problem?

    Stephen Daugerty wrote: You cite US vs. Classic, which says that you have to prefer the possible meaning that effects rather than defeats the purpose of the constitutional purpose.
    Yes. What part of that do you not understand?
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: The purpose of a threshold is to distinguish between failed attempts to call conventions and successful ones. As the calls would accumulate according to your interpretation, which seems not to allow for any separations of one set of calls from another, the power of fewer and fewer states to call a convention would increase, which defeats the purpose of a high threshold.
    How is 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states a mere accumulation?

    How is 34 Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET amendment in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980 a mere accumulation?
    How is 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states a mere accumulation?
    How is 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states a mere accumulation?

    Where in Article V, or in the Federalist papers, or any in law, or in any court case, is this mysterious expiration time-limit that you speak of?
    Where in Article V, or in the Federalist papers, or any in law, or in any court case, is this same-subject requirement that you speak of?

    Why is seven years that you defended in a previous discussion of ratification not good enough now for an expiration of proposed amendments?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: In Dylan Vs. Gloss, the court ruled that the seven year time limit put on the amendment’s ratification was perfectly constitutional, so long as it didn’t interfere with Article V.

    So, I’d be OK with a seven (7) year time-limit on Article V applications, since there have been 154 Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969, and 102 Article V applicaitons by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971.

    However, there is no such 7 year requirement in Article V, no such law anywhere, and no court case that sets any time-limit or same-subject requirements for Article V.
    If there were, you would have posted them a long time ago, instead of resorting to prolific obfuscation and gobbledygook to prop-up such a weak and failing argument.
    And even if there was a 7 year, same-subject requirement, it would still be a moot point, since 38 different states have already submitted 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications.

    Even the fictitious requirements have already been met, and then some to boot.
    There have been 154+ Article V applications by 34 States in 7 years from 1963 to 1969.
    There have been 102+ Article V applications by 35 States in 7 years from 1965 to 1971.
    There have been 730+ Article V applications by all 50 States (14.6 per state, on average).
    So, why has Congress still refused to call an Article V Convention?
    No amount of circular, twisting, perverted, obfuscated logic will explain away Congress’ violation.
    But it is doing wonders for the credibility of your arguments, eh?

    The threshold is 2/3 of the states to merely trigger an Article V convention, and the purpose of the applications is irrelevant, since the purpose of a convention is to hammer-out the language for any amendments proposed and submitted to Congress. Notice the plural use of the word “amendments” in the single sentence of Article V (below)?

      Article V of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: 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.

    The convention is where amendments are proposed and finalized before submission to Congress to present for potential ratification by the required 3/4 (i.e. 38) of the states.

    If a time-limit was intended, why was a time-limit so specifically set for year 1808 for changes to Article 1, but no expiration time-limit on Article V applications?

    And if the lack of a time-limit is so distressing, then why not submit another Article V application to specify an expiration-time-limit and/or same-subject requirement for Article V? OOHHHhhhh yeah … good luck with that, since you say it must be done “all at once” (like uhhmmmmmm, in a nanosecond? Or a picosecond?), and Congress still ignores Article V (regardless), as evidenced by these 8 Congressional Records (from the National Archives of the Records Administration) which document 4 occasions of Congress ignoring 34 states satisfying the requirements of Article V:

    • CR 042 Pg 00164 Yr 1907-NJ-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 043 Pg 02667 Yr 1909-SD-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 02688)

    • CR 045 Pg 07117 Yr 1910-NJ-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 07120)

    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-UT-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 071 Pg 03369 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • CR 071 Pg 03856 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • CR 127 Pg 21538 Yr 1981-Summary of 34 Balanced Budget Applications from 1975-to-1980

    That shoots your arguments fool of holes, since the Congressional Records reflects the very thing that you claim does not exist when you wrote …
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: So do this: present historical evidence that ANYBODY at all ever took your position, in the early 1800’s, or late 1700’s. If anybody at all every did so, you’ll have much more of a point, and this will be more than you people just playing semantics with the language of the constitution.

    HHHMMMMmmmmmm … it seems rather obvious that ALL 50 states who submitted 730+ Article V applications, and the Congress persons documenting 8 times that Congress has ignored Article V at least 4 times would satisfy as “ANYBODY”.

    Once again, no amount of circular, twisting, perverted, obfuscated logic changes the facts, nor helps the credibility of your arguments.

    Stephen Daugerty wrote: Also defeating the purpose of the clause is the nature of the real world situation which would surround this. If we cannot distinguish some kind of separation of different efforts to call a convention, and the numbers are simply allowed to rollover like cellphone minutes, we end up in a situation where the obvious aim of the high thresholds, the difficulty of proposing amendments without overwhelming consensus for it, is defeated.
    More obfuscation.
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: With my intepretation, parity is maintained, and the indefinite votes we don’t see in the House and Senate aren’t seen among the States, either.
    No. Your interpretation relies on circular, twisting, perverted, obfuscated logic.
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: It’s what Hamilton wanted. He spoke of uniting “two-thirds or three-fourths” of the state legislatures in your quote. Plain language: Uniting. Not dribbling in gradually, waiting for things to reach a certain level. Uniting. Working together. Concurring, as he says in another part of the same document you cite.
    False. What Alexander Hamilton wanted was very clearly stated in the Federalist Papers …
    • Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 85 Papers: The words of this article [5] 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. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.
    What part of that do you not understand?

    The part about “encroachments of the national authority” is what the true spirit of the law (Article V) is all about.

    • The severely bloated and wasteful federal government is now the largest employer in the nation.

    • The severely bloated and wasteful federal government now employs more people than all people working in manufacturing (nation-wide).

    • The severely bloated and wasteful federal government starts unnecessary wars.

    • The severely bloated and wasteful federal government creates debt of nightmare proportions, and ignores 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states.

    • The severely bloated and wasteful federal government has been deficit spending for 52 consecutive years.

    • The severely bloated and wasteful federal government has been borrowing money for 52 consecutive years to merely pay the interest on the national debt.

    • The severely bloated and wasteful federal government and the Federal Reserve have caused 52 consecutive years of incessant, economically destabilizing inflation.

    • Congress, whose arrogance knows no bounds, just gave itself its 10th raise in 12 years, while troops risk life and limb, go without armor, adequate medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, 4+ tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

    • And the severely bloated, wasteful, corrupt, FOR-SALE, and incompetent federal government may very likely be headed for very high inflation (or possibly hyperinflation), since no one seems able to answer these simple questions about current and growing debt of nightmare proportions:
      • (a) Is there any historical precedent of any nation so deep into debt ever successfully solving a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?

      • (b) Is there any macro economics model that states that a massive debt-bubble can solved with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?

      • (c) Is there any mathematical rationale that demonstrates how any nation so ridiculously deep into debt (much less the biggest debtor nation on the planet) has ever successfully solved a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?

      • (d) If the current debt is untenable, how is growing it bigger going to help?

      • (e) Where will the money come from when 90%-to-95% of all money in existence in the U.S. exists as debt, because money is created as debt at a steep ratio of 9-to-1 of debt-to-reserves.

      • (f) What is the possibility that high inflation (or hyperinflation) will make the situation worse? After all, 33+ nations (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation) have previously tried to borrow, create new money, and spend their way out of a massive debt-bubble, and it not only did not work, but made things worse.

    You mention “all at once” and “Uniting” 2/3 states to propose amendments and “Uniting” 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendments (“together”).

    How is 151 Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention from 38 different states in a short period of time not “Uniting” “together”?
    How is 34 Article V applications between years 1975 and 1980 for a BALANCED BUDGET amendment not “Uniting” “together”?
    Where in Article V or in the Federalist papers does the words “uniting” and “together” mean same-subject or instantly simultaneous?
    How simultaneous could Article V applications be in year 1787 when Article V was written, when there was no such thing as telephones, telegraphs, iPhones, internet, or high-speed communications of any kind?
    What is this mysterious time limit? 12 years, 8 years, 7 years, 5 years, one week, or one nanosecond?

    The refusal to answer this simple question reveals how weak your twisted, convoluted, obfuscated arguments are.
    You repeatedly speak of requirements, but refuse to say what they are, or what they should be.
    You repeatedly say the states must submit Article V applications “all at once”.

    Yet, in a different discussion, you berated others for wanting something (reforms against government corruption) “all at once”

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I am comfortable with Bootstrapping the process up, election by election, scandal by scandal, entry by entry, pushing the matter persistently, for the long term… . You, though, want everything all at once.

    Oh what webs we weave when we practice to deceive, eh?

    Funny how twisted, convoluted, comical the reasons and pretzel imitations become when they try to defend the indefensible and the ridiculous, at all costs, merely to try to win a debate. Never mind the evidence. Never mind others who recognize the obvious twisting and obfuscation. Never mind logic and reason. Never mind that it must be doing wonders for the credibility of your comments.

    Why is seven years that you defended in a previous discussion of ratification not good enough now for an expiration of proposed amendments?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: In Dylan Vs. Gloss, the court ruled that the seven year time limit put on the amendment’s ratification was perfectly constitutional, so long as it didn’t interfere with Article V.

    So, I’d be OK with a seven (7) year time-limit on Article V applications, since there have been 154 Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969, and 102 Article V applicaitons by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971.

    Has stubborn determination to simply win a debate clouded the ability to see how utterly lame and twisted the logic of your comments have become?
    Doesn’t that matter to you?
    Is it worth making a fool of yourself to merely try to win an argument?
    Do you see anyone else coming to help you dig that hole any deeper?
    Did David R. Remer’s, Roy Ellis’ and other’s comments simply fall on deaf ears?
    Is it possible for anyone to actually be so incapable of logic and reasoning, or is mere stubborness the root of the problem?

    Any way, there is nothing in the Federalist papers that even hints at a time-limit or same-subject requirement, and if it did, you would have posted it a long time ago.
    But since it doesn’t exist, your comments continue to assert a lies, and more twisted, perverted, obfuscations. It must be frustrating, but that is what happens. Oh the webs we weave when we practice to deceive?

    Stephen Daugerty wrote: Positive evidence that this wasn’t meant to be a slacker’s way to amend the constitution, by indifferent legislatures littering the landscape with abandoned calls which the Federal Government is suppose to pick up with a spike and make a convention out of.
    More obfuscation and gobbledygook.
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: Additional positive evidence: two hundred years of people interpreting the consitution just as I have, limiting the consideration of calls for a convention to a certain time period. The states, applying again and again, when an accumulative standard would allow them to simply lay them on the ground and walk off.
    More obfuscation and gobbledygook.
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: Which brings me to my paraphrasing of Marshal Gerard. I was trying to have a sense of humor. You remember the scene where he basically says “You know, we’re always curious when we find leg irons with no legs in them!”
    More obfuscation and gobbledygook, as if a Hollywood movie is evidence. That’s a sure sign of desparation.
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: You recall that scene? The whole point is, he’s upsetting that whole rigamarole the guy’s built around being the real hero, around him being the only survivor, beside the man Richard Kimble pushed out the window to safety. And what upsets it?
    No. Even if I did, it proves nothing, execpt the desparation to twist, contort, pervert, and obfuscate merely to win a debate, regardless of how ridiculous and lame the arguments are (something that has not gone unnoticed by others in this and other threads).
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: A lack of certain evidence, where certain evidence should be: legs in leg irons. Interpreted properly, with an eye to language which indicates HOW the preremptory language is to be intepreted (united, concur, union, etc), we see leg irons, but we don’t see any legs in them.
    How is photo-copies of 730+ (we’re about to post some more applications we’ve found soon) of Article V applications a lack of evidence?

    The lack of evidence appears to only be in your imagination.

    Stephen Daugerty wrote: Or, put another way, we see a claim of original intepretation without any original source material where it should be.
    Gee whiz. Is it really possible for any human being to really be so inept?
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: I’m not desperate.
    Doth protest too much (again).

    It appears such protest may be rooted in a nagging suspicion in the back of someone’s mind that they are indeed very desparate, as evidenced by a plethora of twisty, perverted, contorted, obfuscations and pretzel imitations.

    Stephen Daugerty wrote: If you produced evidence of the framers talking about, even arguing about accumulating calls, it might put me on the defensive. But right now, what we have is Hamilton talking about collective, united action by the states- not accidental build up of calls. This is meant to be a deliberate action by the states in their own interests. He’s saying, if the states want a convention badly enough, they’ll get it, and use it to beat back federal encroachment.
    Again, Hamilton makd it very clear …
    • Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 85 Papers: The words of this article [5] 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. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.
    What part of that do you not understand?
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: Iraq had a constitutional convention. Afghanistan had a constitutional convention. None of those resulted in any failed states. AHEM. As of 2004, the state Department considered Iraq a failed state. Afghanistan is worse than Iraq. do the math.
    The constitutional conventions are not the cause of the failures, and that is yet another desparate attempt to fear-monger, while conveniently ignored 679 Constitutional Conventions by all 50 states between years 1776 and 1916. And there have been others since year 1916 (one recently in year 2007 Massachusetts; source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU71RjMPKdQ).

    None of those states are failed are they?
    Do you really believe people here are so stupid that they can’t see how you so conveniently ignored 679+ Constitutional Conventions?
    And where did any contitutional convention lead to, or be the true cause of any disaster, or any failed state or nation?
    Do you really believe you are making your twisted, convoluted, perverted, obfuscated arguments more credible with more twisty obfuscations?

    Stephen Daugerty wrote: The trick is the sharing of power. That is why we don’t have failed states, and aren’t a failed state.
    Not yet. But you again conveniently ignore 679+ Constitutional Conventions by all 50 states between years 1776 and 1916, and others since year 1916 too.

    Looks to me like that hole you’re digging is just getting deeper and deeper.
    But please continue. It is most entertaining to see how deep that hole will go.

    Stephen Daugerty wrote: But whether or not a failed state might come of a constitutional convention, the question remains: is this something that proportion of states are agreeing on?
    What do you call 34 Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET amendment in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980 a mere accumulation?

    What do you call 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states (14.6 per state on average)?
    What do you call 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states?
    What do you call 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969?
    What do you call 102+ Article V applications by 35 States in 7 years from 1965 to 1971?
    There have been 730+ Amendments by all 50 States (14.6 per state, on average)?
    What part of that do you not understand?
    Do you not see how ridiculously lame your argument is, as evidenced by (a) the circular, twisting, perverted, obfuscated logic; (b) ignoring 679+ state constitutional conventions; (c) ignoring hundreds of Article V applications from over 34 different states in only a few years, and (d), and the fact that not only has no one come to help you dig that hole deeper, but disagreed with your twisty obfuscations.? Do you really beleive any of that is helping the credibility of your arguments? Seriously, I would be embarrassed to engage in such intellectual dishonesty.

    Stephen Daugerty wrote: If you stretch things out, the photograph gets blurred as the state’s positions move. In the almost thirty years since Reagan took office, much has changed, and the states now have different positions than they once had. Your interpretation binds them to the positions of a generation ago. Mine leaves the states free to express the will of their citizens now.
    More obfuscation and gobbledygook.
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: That, I believe, is the crucial distinction, what creates the need to interpret the calls in terms of how and whether they cohere together, and whether they represent the current wishes of the states. Otherwise, it’s all just an arbitrary sloshing around of legislative legacies that ignore the wishes of the voters.
    More obfuscation and gobbledygook.
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: A constitutional convention is not supposed to be an accident, no more than a Congressionally proposed Amendment would be. It’s supposed to be a deliberate act, a thing done with the unity and concurrence of not merely a majority of the states, but a super-majority. This keeps the revisions the work of a vast majority of Americans, rather than merely the whim of an unending array of temporary majorities.
    More obfuscation and gobbledygook.
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: The point of these laws is to preserve the unity of our country, even as we face changing circumstances that might require overhauls and revisions of our constitution.
    True. And just think … perhaps this nation would not now be swimming in debt of nightmare proportions, future inflation (possibly hyperinflation), had Congress obeyed Article V and allowed the states their rightful opportunity to ratify a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, based on …

    370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states.
    154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969.
    102+ Article V applications by 35 states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971.
    34+ Article V applications in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980 (and there have been others befor and since).
    730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states (14.6 per state on average).

    Stephen Daugerty wrote: Two thirds should be two thirds of this country.
    HHMMMmmmmmm … how about 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states (14.6 per state on average).
    Stephen Daugerty wrote: Whether they vote all at once, or gather all at once is irrelevant. There must be a point, though, where they gather all together and say yes to the convention all together. Otherwise, what’s the point?
    More obfuscation and gobbledygook.

    Why are you unable (or unwilling) to simply answer one simple question.
    What is this “all at once” time-limit (8 years, 7 years, 1 year, 1 week, 1 nanosecond)?
    Where is that time-limit in Article V stated?
    Why is 7 years not adequate?
    Why is 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 insufficient?
    How many and how simultaneous do Article V applications have to be submitted?
    What sort of time-limit do you think the framers had in mind in year 1787 when Article V was written (when there were no telephones or high-speed commmunications)?
    The continued evasion of this simple question (among other creative but deceitful obfuscations) simply illustrates how comically lame your position is.
    Why is no one else here helping you dig that hole deeper?

    You know, being able to admit fault is a sign of maturity.
    I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an elaborate and extreme pretzel imitation ever before.
    Such obfuscations, re-interpretations, twisting of facts, and other tactics are not making your comments more credible.
    You speak as if you know what the true intentions of the authors of Article V are, but ignore the true reason for Article V, and quite possibly the results of ignoring Article V (e.g. massive debt that may have been avoided had the states ratified a BALANCED BUDGET amendment).
    You try to twist the words of Alexander Hamilton, and ignore those (such as David R. Remer) who recognized it as convenient re-interpretation …

    David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention.

    You have invented an “all at once” theory with nothing to back it up, and which also defies common-sense, because in year 1787 when Article V was written, the possibility of states to do anything “all at once” is absurd (to say the least), and ignores the true spirit of the law to give the state legislatures the ability to erect barriers against the “encroachments of the national authority”.

    If you want to keep digging that hole deeper, be my guest.
    Who knows, you might even someday reveal the mysteriously secret “all at once” expiration time-limit on Article V applications (clearly, a secret or a moving target by design, eh?), or some court case, or lawsuit, or federalist paper, or some credible logic that makes sense?

    However, until then, the twisted, evasive, perverted, dishonest obfuscation and pretzel imitations demonstrated by your comments are nothing more than a source of entertainment in watching how far someone will go, and how much frurstration they will bring upon themself, merely to stubbornly prop-up a completely lame and failing argument.
    Please continue.
    Like Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 4, 2009 11:34 AM
    Comment #279568

    Dan-
    I just dropped your document into a standard formatted document. But still, my response was only about four pages in length.

    I don’t read most of what you write because it’s not new information, nor is it new argumentation. You’re simply repeating the standard statistics, arguments and insults.

    You could just link to them, and it would serve the same purpose.

    At this point, I’m wondering how many times more you’re going to accuse me of having memory loss or some other mental deficiency. I haven’t gone so far as to insult you yourself.

    Your posts are another matter. The reason I’m typically your only respondent is probably because I’m stubborn enough (especially when people are taking potshots at me) not to back down in the face of such an immensity of unreadable, eye-paining comments.

    I really just don’t want you to get the satisfaction of essentially filibustering a victory out of this argument, because I truly, honestly don’t believe a damn word of your interpretation. I’m not lying if I’m telling you what I think is true. It’s not twisting the truth to offer up what I consider legitimate premises. Do you think I would put up with masses of gobbledygook that comprise the bulk of the comments you write if I were merely a desperate loser trying to defend himself?

    No. I see this as a challenge. I see this as an opportunity to stand up against what I see as one aspect of a broad phenomena of revisionist stupidity that seems to have taken over too much of our politics.

    You know, Republicans will quote the Declaration of Independence to defend a view that America was founded as a Christian nation, but they’ll neglect to say that Jefferson, like Benjamin Franklin, was a deist. They’ll surely neglect to say that he wrote up his own version of the bible that edited out all the miracles! They’ll downplay the shear volume of contributions by individuals who were deists, or paid heed to rationalist traditions that sought to reduce the influence of what they thought was superstition and unreason in society. They won’t mention that today’s fundamentalism and millenialism, which powers much of the Christian Right, was long in the future, and many Christians of that time would have considered their interpretations excessive. And they’ll do their absolute best to ignore that this was one of the first countries founded with a fundamental disconnection between religion and state.

    I see the same things in the attitudes towards foreign policy. When I was a boy, any person submitting a theory that the UN was the pawn of some conspiracy would have been laughed out of the room. Now these people run the Republican Foreign Policy.

    In finance, we get questions about a new “global currency” from a woman with three degrees, and the the highest rated programs that conservatives watch suggest that we tighten our fiscal belt during a deflationary period, that a budget that loses an extra three hundred billion dollars in one year alone is more fiscally sound that one that cuts the deficit in half in five years. We see these people call socialist top tax rates and government program levels that Ronald Reagan was happy to include in his budget. And somehow, despite the clear evidence that an overheated derivatives sector was what made this a global catastrophe, the solution from the right is more deregulation.

    I’m sick of having to suffer foolish ideas gladly. I’ve got no problem with keeping a civil tone towards people, even you with your insults regarding my mental well-being. But if you think I’m putting up with mile-long comments because I’m committed to lying, obfuscating, or otherwise bulls***ing our readers or you, then you credit me with more patience than is humanly possible.

    Let me demonstrate my patience by not blasting you as a liar or a idiot while I calmly point something out to you:

    The words of this article [5] 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. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachmentsof the national authority.

    It doesn’t matter what the encroachments are, if there aren’t enough states that think its no big deal. That’s part of there reason for the high thresholds. The constitution was not going to be changed just to suit special interests, but what a vast majority of Americans, and therefore their states and representatives believed.

    The problems that might cause the call of a convention are irrelevant to the process until they inspire a sufficient number of states to act together.

    You deride the use of time limits and other methods to separate one set of calls from another, but you neglect the important question: how do you determine that two-thirds of the states are actually in on the deal at the moment the convention is called?

    With your methods, we would end up interpreting several sets of four or five calls as a call for a convention, even if 34 states weren’t united on the question at any one time. Over time, the states that made the call might become disinclined. If you’re using the cases I think you’re using, you might end up arguing that the calls are essentially irrevokable, as the votes for ratification are. That would only make your mess worse, by the way.

    That classic case indicated that there could be several different interpretations of the same language. I would argue something no different than that, nor would I disagree with the point that speaks of defeating the purpose of the constitutional law in question.

    So tell me: how does this empower the states? Congratulations, States! You’re beholden to a convention that your legislature no longer wants! And oh, by the way, only a few states have to make calls at the same time to drag everybody else into considering their own special interests!

    The point of this Article is to give the states the power to propose and enact the constitution they are all bound by, but ONLY if their agreement rises above a certain level.

    My intepretation allows a guaging of that level that is unambiguous. There’s no question of whether the number making the calls are the number that actually want the constitutional convention. There is no ambiguity about whether the majority of the states hold the power to call the convention, or just the few that are making the calls this time around.

    I think one problem with the way some folks interpret the constitution, is that they assume it represented the sum totality of what people wanted, rather than a codification of the important or meaningful parts, with knowledge of the background allowing you to fill in the rest.

    This is why we don’t have to revise the Bill of Rights to deal with instantaneous electronic communication, not mentioned in that legal product of the Eighteenth Century.

    What the Framers assume in writing the fifth article is something so ridiculously simple that they didn’t think they needed to write it: that the proportions mentioned would be united, that the calls for convention would be made together by the states, as they were made together calling the Philadelphia Convention. There really is no precedent, no historical example to back the claim that you could just take forever to call the convention.

    What would be the point to such a convention? There would be little urgency behind it, little purpose, little support. Who would even know that this major event in US history, the first constitutional convention since the first one, was almost upon them?

    This makes the whole thing into basically a bureaucratic oversight! That’s pathetic! Whatever fantasies you may have of a new burst of involvement, this would probably puzzle, concern, or even scare people.

    Was that the framer’s intent? I believe the Framers wanted this to be something agreed upon, a consensus binding the states together in a new compact. These were rationalists, folks who believed in “let us reason together”. They weren’t creating something to blindside the public with.

    You have invented an “all at once” theory with nothing to back it up…

    Do me a favor, before you further argue this point. Go to the local election officials, and berate them. Because they surely believe that votes for a measure or a candidate must come in more or less all at once. Maybe not in an instant of nanosecond, but within a reasonable amount of time to ensure that those who are on board and are not have been counted and their wishes made known in a discrete and measureable way.

    More to the point, there are only fifty states, and it will not be an onerous chore to organize some sort of god-blessed conference or meeting between these states to ensure that everybody’s on board. This is what the founding fricking father did: they organized. They didn’t sit around issuing repeated calls for convention with everybody sticking around with their thumbs up their asses.

    You criticize my use of Tommy Lee Jones’ lines from the Fugitive. Pardon me. I was making a metaphorical point about evidence. If you’ll recall, the point of the empty leg chains was that somebody had escaped, rather than ending up as part of the wreckage.

    Now your story is that somehow, for two hundred and twenty something years, Congress has been ignoring so many pleas for a convention by the states, that we could have held at least twenty or more in that time, if the original interpretation, as you put it, were observed.

    You selectively quote from Alexander Hamilton, from court decisions that weren’t deciding anything about that part of Article V. But nobody, it seems, discusses your particular view of the clause as you do, clearly laying out a system where the calls would just snowball until they reached the threshold. Anybody can play semantics and just divine their preferred argument out of the text. Lawyers do that all the time.

    Metaphorically speaking, so there’s no confusion here, this is where the legs seem to disappear out of the leg irons. You insist on speaking of your position as already having won the argument, and use the preremptory language of the clause to insist that it must be plainly interpreted that way, but there’s a big oversight here.

    Namely, that there’s not much of substance from the time of the framers or onwards that discusses your idea in any depth, with any plainness. I looked through Madison’s notes for the constitional convention. Nobody debated this, no court cases directly support or even oppose this interpretation from the time. There’s plenty of noise and cases and discussion about the other part of Article V, which is the subject of most of the lawsuits you cite.

    For an interpretation that’s supposed to be once known and forgotten, it seems like it was forgotten even while it was known, because you offer no examples of it from that period.

    The hundreds of calls argue against this being an intepretation that holds, because no state that subscribed to or understood this interpretation would even have to make another call again until the thirty-fourth call was made and the count reset.

    I keep on setting you this task: show me legislatures discussing alternatives concerning a call for a convention. Show me lawyers for the states arguing to the government, back in the beginnings of our country, that this was the relevant and binding intepretation.

    Show me this damn thing integrated int its context, a part of the legal jurisprudence of its time, and not just a product of your cherrypicked quotes and semantic invention! Show me the legs in the leg irons, the proof that your prisoner hasn’t run off to find the one armed man! (Remember: Metaphor. Not to be taken literally. Meaning, show me that there is substance backing your version of history, and not just fancy arguing)

    Otherwise, I will have to treat this as just an example of revisionist history, bounded with legal reasoning that is amateurish where it isn’t actually just amateur.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 4, 2009 7:39 PM
    Comment #279585

    D.a.n and Stephen,
    Why you both can keep debating Article V with over half of the Americans being Politically Independent good luck getting the Democratic and Repulican Citizens to come together to form a 3/4th majority.

    Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 5, 2009 3:57 AM
    Comment #279597

    Henry Schlatman-
    I keep on telling him that part of the point of the high threshold is to make sure that most of America is on board for these changes before they’re made.

    I think a big question here is whether people are really looking at what they’re doing when they push these political questions, whether they’re succeeding in convincing others of things, or just succeeding in convincing themselves.

    It would be tough work to convince most of the states to go through with this, but that’s the point. If they’ve already done that much convincing successfully, then that filters out most measures aimed at partisan wish fulfillment, measures that could start rancorous, even deadly conflicts we haven’t seen in decades in this country.

    Ultimately, this is our country, the word “our” including people who would disagree with us, as well as those who wouldn’t. Our nation is built so that even as the political games are played, nobody’s a final winner, able to shut out their rivals for good afterwards.

    Too many people, though, are competing in politics as if they could do that, and it is they who often cause the most damage, as they twist the system at all sides to permanently embed their power.

    We put impediments to this final victory in place so that no political faction cnn become beholden merely to itself and its own interests, so that any political group that fails to heed what most people want out of their government does so at its own peril.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 5, 2009 12:20 PM
    Comment #279620
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: (www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006498.html#279568) d.a.n- I just dropped your document into a standard formatted document. But still, my response was only about four pages in length.
    That’s nice. The difference is one makes sense, and the other is circular, twisted, perverted obfuscation and gobbledygook.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t read most of what you write because it’s not new information, nor is it new argumentation. You’re simply repeating the standard statistics, arguments and insults.
    And you aren’t?

    Funny how some people accuse others of the very things they are masters of.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You could just link to them, and it would serve the same purpose.
    You are not the only person reading this thread.

    Perhaps that misconception explaines why you aren’t embarrassed by the circular, twisted, perverted obfuscation and gobbledygook attempting to support a weak (if not totally absurd) position?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: At this point, I’m wondering how many times more you’re going to accuse me of having memory loss or some other mental deficiency. I haven’t gone so far as to insult you yourself.
    I merely asked a question (notice the question mark?).
    d.a.n wrote: Besides, repeating some things seems necessary for what seems to be a short-term memory loss problem, and/or comprehension problem?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your posts are another matter. The reason I’m typically your only respondent is probably because I’m stubborn enough (especially when people are taking potshots at me) not to back down in the face of such an immensity of unreadable, eye-paining comments.
    I thought you said you don’t read it, yet you seem to have identified critiques of your comments that you feel are pot shots at you?

    As I’ve said before, only a fool can make a fool of themself, and you don’t need my help to do that.
    Your own comments alone are doing a fine job of digging that hole ever deeper.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I really just don’t want you to get the satisfaction of essentially filibustering a victory out of this argument, because I truly, honestly don’t believe a damn word of your interpretation.
    Don’t take my word for it. Consider others’ comments about your circular, convoluted, perverted logic and twisted obfuscation and re-interpretations …
    David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention… . And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.

    What part of that did you not understand?
    I don’t see anyone else supporting your [re]interpretation.
    Not even anyone in Congress has ever asserted that any expiration time-limit exists within Article V.
    Most Congress persons’ excuse is that there are not 34 same-subject Article V applications from 34 different states, and that has now been proven to be false.
    Thus, it is now only a matter of time before at least one state presses the issue in the Supreme Court.

    Any way, your stubborness, by your own admission, is quite obvious, and is doing wonders for the credibility of your comments.
    And for what? To merely win a debate?
    Don’t your care how utterly childish and ridiculous it appears?
    If you want to keep diggin’ that hole deeper, be my guest, but you ain’t doin’ yourself any favors.
    No amount if circular, twisted, obfuscation and re-interpretations can substitute for the truth and the facts.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m not lying if I’m telling you what I think is true.
    Not likely. Is seems very unlikely anyone could really be that inept at comprehending the 143 words in Article V?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s not twisting the truth to offer up what I consider legitimate premises.
    Not likely. It’s very unlikely anyone could really be that inept.

    More likely, the problem is self-delusion due to a stubborn determination to win a debate?
    But at what cost?
    Are you not bother that others consider it “intellectual dishonesty”

    Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.

    Seriously, how can anyone read the 143 words of Article V and draw from it there is some expiration time-limit and/or same-subject requirements?
    And all of the weak, twisty, obfuscation, combined with some wallowing in the partisan warfare, doesn’t help make it look any less “intellectual[ly] dishonest”.
    Seriously, I’d be embarrassed to resort to such obfuscation and distortion to merely win a debate.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do you think I would put up with masses of gobbledygook that comprise the bulk of the comments you write if I were merely a desperate loser trying to defend himself?
    Yes.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: No. I see this as a challenge.
    That’s the problem. That hole is only going to get deeper and deeper.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see this as an opportunity to stand up against what I see as one aspect of a broad phenomena of revisionist stupidity that seems to have taken over too much of our politics.
    That’s really funny coming from someone who is inventing new twisted, perverted, and circular obfuscations to support a new re-interpretation of Article V, at all costs, and even admits it above …
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The reason I’m typically your only respondent is probably because I’m stubborn enough …
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You know, Republicans will quote the Declaration of Independence to defend a view that America was founded as a Christian nation, but they’ll neglect to say that Jefferson, like Benjamin Franklin, was a deist. They’ll surely neglect to say that he wrote up his own version of the bible that edited out all the miracles! They’ll downplay the shear volume of contributions by individuals who were deists, or paid heed to rationalist traditions that sought to reduce the influence of what they thought was superstition and unreason in society. They won’t mention that today’s fundamentalism and millenialism, which powers much of the Christian Right, was long in the future, and many Christians of that time would have considered their interpretations excessive. And they’ll do their absolute best to ignore that this was one of the first countries founded with a fundamental disconnection between religion and state. I see the same things in the attitudes towards foreign policy. When I was a boy, any person submitting a theory that the UN was the pawn of some conspiracy would have been laughed out of the room. Now these people run the Republican Foreign Policy.
    Maybe. As an agnostic, I don’t care, and don’t see what such fueling and wallowing in such circular partisan warfare has to do with Article V. Just a bad habit, eh?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: In finance, we get questions about a new “global currency” from a woman with three degrees, and the the highest rated programs that conservatives watch suggest that we tighten our fiscal belt during a deflationary period, that a budget that loses an extra three hundred billion dollars in one year alone is more fiscally sound that one that cuts the deficit in half in five years. We see these people call socialist top tax rates and government program levels that Ronald Reagan was happy to include in his budget. And somehow, despite the clear evidence that an overheated derivatives sector was what made this a global catastrophe, the solution from the right is more deregulation.
    More deregulation is not wise.

    The SEC is a joke (i.e. letting the likes of Bernie Madoff run a $50 Billion Ponzi-scheme for about a decade).
    The federal government seems to become more incompetent the more it grows.

    I try not to view everything through as a partisan issue.
    And the federal debt and total nation-wide debt is not merely a partisan issue.
    This nation has a serious debt problem (both federal and non-federal debt).
    Growing the debt larger may be ill advised if the level of debt is already untenable.
    The total federal debt and total non-federal debt today has never been larger ever in size, as a percentage of GDP, and per-capita.
    This massive debt-bubble today is different than the Great Depression or after World War II.
    The $11.1 Trillion National Debt per-capita (for 310 Million people) is $35,807 , which is 65% higher than the previous record-high national debt per-capita (of $21,719 in 2008 dollars) in year 1945 after World War II.
    And that does not even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching at one of the worst times possible.
    The total current $70.44 Trillion nation-wide debt has grown from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to 508% of GDP as of MAR-2009.

    Therefore, until someone can provide some credible answers for some simple questions, then growing the deficits and debt larger makes no sense.
    If the debt is not out of control now, then what is the answer to the following questions:

    • If the debt is tenable, why do we have 9,000-to-10,000 foreclosures per day?

    • If the debt is tenable, why are there record bankruptcies (see top 10 foreclosure states below; over 3 Million foreclosures in year 2008)?

    • If the debt is tenable, why are the banks worried about the $62 Trillion Credit Default Swap/Derivatives bubble?

    • If the debt is tenable, why has the federal government been deficit spending for 52 consecutive years?

    • If the debt is tenable, why have we had 52 consecutive years of incessant inflaton?

    • If the debt is tenable, why is a 1950 Dollar now worth only 10 cents ?

    • If the debt is tenable, why is the U.S. dollar much lower today against most major currencies than it was 7 years ago (source: One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm)?

    • If the debt is tenable, why has the federal government borrowed and spent $12.8 Trillion from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching?

    • If the debt is tenable, why is the U.S. swimming in $70.44 Trillion ($227,000 per-capita) of current (not future) nation-wide debt (up from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to 508% of GDP as of MAR2009)?

    • If the debt is tenable, why is the $60 Trillion of unfunded liabilities (future debt) for Social Security and Medicare a concern?

    • If the debt is tenable, why does 90%-to-95% of all U.S. dollars in existence in the U.S. exist as debt?

    • If the debt is tenable, why is inflation a concern?

    • If the debt is tenable, why is year-to-year inflation still rising (2002=1.59%, 2003=2.27%, 2004=2.68%, 2005=3.39%, 2006=3.24%, 2007=2.85%, 2008=3.85%, 2009=??.??)?

    • If the debt is tenable, why aren’t people spending? Maybe it’s largely because they are tapped out and already deep into debt, eh?

    • If the debt is tenable, why is the current $11.1 Trillion National Debt the largest National Debt ever in size, and per-capita ($35,807)?

    • If the debt is tenable, where will the money come from to merely pay the interest (over $2.818 Trillion per year at only 4.0% on $70.44 Trillion for 176 years) on so much debt, when that money does not exist?

    • If the debt is tenable, and inflation is not a concern, why not create more money out of thin air?

    • If the debt is tenable, why can’t anyone provide a explanation or excerpt from any economic model that justifies trying to solve massive debt with more debt, money-printing, and spending? Is it possible that the strategies for handling recessions is totally inadequate for a massive debt problem?

    • If the debt is tenable, why is unemployment at a 25 year high (8.1%; 12-to-28 Million unemployed)?

    • If the debt is tenable, why are 10 more years of deficit spending being predicted?

    • If the debt is tenable, why did the Federal Reserve have to pump $3.8-to-$11.6 Trillon into the banks and corporations (source: www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZchK__XUF84)?

    • If the debt is tenable, why was it necessary to save GM, Ford, and Chysler?

    • If the debt is tenable, why was it necessary to save AIG over and over ($180 Billion so far)?

    • If the debt is tenable, why did Ben Bennake and Henry Paulson appear before Congress to beg for emergency funds to prop-up banks without the 10% reserves required by law?

    • If the debt is tenable, why was a $850 Billion Rescue BILL necessary in late 2008?

    • If the debt is tenable, why was a $787 Billion Stimulus BILL necessary in Feb-2009?

    • If the debt is tenable, why was a $410 Billion Budget Exension BILL necessary for fiscal year 2009?

    • If the debt is tenable, why are Americans liquidating, as evidenced by foreign-owned assets which have almost quadrupled from $6 Trillion in year 1997 to $22 Trillion in year 2007?

    • If the debt is tenable, why is the U.S. the biggest debtor nation on the planet (owing many trillions to foreign nations)?

    • If the debt is tenable, why are there so many debt problems as descrilbed above?

    If the debt is tenable, how soon before they simply start giving away massive amounts of money (perhaps air-dropped from helicopters)?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m sick of having to suffer foolish ideas gladly. I’ve got no problem with keeping a civil tone towards people, even you with your insults regarding my mental well-being. But if you think I’m putting up with mile-long comments because I’m committed to lying, obfuscating, or otherwise bulls***ing our readers or you, then you credit me with more patience than is humanly possible.
    Well, we’ll let the readers decide that for themselves.

    I didn’t see anyone else supporting your re-interpretation of Article V.
    Anyway, as Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.
    Again, only a fool can make a fool of one’s self, and that’s the true root of a fool’s frustration.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Let me demonstrate my patience by not blasting you as a liar or a idiot while I calmly point something out to you: … It doesn’t matter what the encroachments are, if there aren’t enough states that think its no big deal. That’s part of there reason for the high thresholds. The constitution was not going to be changed just to suit special interests, but what a vast majority of Americans, and therefore their states and representatives believed.
    Since Congress has so cleverly hidden away 730+ Article V applications in the printed volumes (i.e. not in electronic form) in the Congressional Records in the National Archives and Records and Administration (NARA) in Washington, D.C., many all states and Congress persons are aware that Congress has violated Article V.

    That will change as more people are educated about Article V, and the recent posting of 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states.
    It is only a matter of time before one (or more) states press the issue in the Supreme Court.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The problems that might cause the call of a convention are irrelevant to the process until they inspire a sufficient number of states to act together.
    ALL 50 states have acted together 730+ times (14.6 per state, on average).

    There have been 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states.
    There have been 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969.
    There have been 102+ Article V applications by 35 states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971.
    There have been 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980 (and there have been others before and since).

    And you still refuse to tell us what that mysteriously secret “all at once” expiration time-limit is for Article V applications (clearly, a secret or a moving target by design, eh?), or some court case, or lawsuit, or federalist paper, or some credible logic that makes sense?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You deride the use of time limits and other methods to separate one set of calls from another, but you neglect the important question: how do you determine that two-thirds of the states are actually in on the deal at the moment the convention is called?
    That’s the purpose of the convention. The trigger is the Article V applications (regardless of subject). Notice the words “for proposing Amendments” in Article V:
      ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.
    See? More than 2/3 of the states (ALL 50) have submited Article V applications.

    The convention is where the states decide the exact language and amendments to submit to Congress to be voted on for ratification (ratification requires 3/4 of the states before any amendment becomes law).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: With your methods, we would end up interpreting several sets of four or five calls as a call for a convention, even if 34 states weren’t united on the question at any one time. Over time, the states that made the call might become disinclined. If you’re using the cases I think you’re using, you might end up arguing that the calls are essentially irrevokable, as the votes for ratification are. That would only make your mess worse, by the way.
    Wrong.

    Especially since ALL 50 states have submitted 730+ Article V applications. That threshold has already been met.

    The 2nd threshold is more difficult, and it is a safeguard to ensure only a super-majority can ratify any amendment. And Congress can set a expiration time-limit on the ratification process (e.g. 7 years).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: That classic case indicated that there could be several different interpretations of the same language. I would argue something no different than that, nor would I disagree with the point that speaks of defeating the purpose of the constitutional law in question.
    The purpose of the convention is to hammer-out the language of any proposed amendments to be submitted to Congress.

    Any states that don’t like an amendment as written have the choice to not vote for ratification of that amendment.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: So tell me: how does this empower the states? Congratulations, States! You’re beholden to a convention that your legislature no longer wants! And oh, by the way, only a few states have to make calls at the same time to drag everybody else into considering their own special interests!
    Nonsense.

    Any states that don’t like an amendment as written have the choice to not vote for ratification of that amendment.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The point of this Article is to give the states the power to propose and enact the constitution they are all bound by, but ONLY if their agreement rises above a certain level.
    Right. No amendment becomes law without ratification by 3/4 of the states.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: My intepretation allows a guaging of that level that is unambiguous.
    Nonsense.

    Your interpretation relies on construction and twisted re-interpretation of the simple 143 words in the single sentence in Article V.
    Your interpretation ignores the obvious language of Article V, the word “whenever”, “shall call a convention”, “for proposing amendments” (plural)
    Your interpretation ignores other court cases that explicitly reference Article V.
    Your interpretation requires a non-existent expiration time-limit, and you can’t seem to tell is what that time limit is.
    Your interpretation ignores the word “peremptory” in the Federalist papers.
    Your interpretation ignores the true intent to restrict the “encroachments of the national authority”.
    Your interpretation ignores others rejection and criticisms of your re-interpretation. For example, Roy Ellis wrote …

    Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.

    So calling your own interpretation “unambiguous” is really funny.
    I agree with David R. Remer …

    David R. Remer wrote: And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.

    But please continue, and we will continue to be entertained while watching that hole you’re diggin’ get ever deeper.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: There’s no question of whether the number making the calls are the number that actually want the constitutional convention.
    That’s the purpose of the 3/4 requirement for ratification. That’s the safeguard.

    As for triggering the Article V Convention, ALL 50 states have already submitted 730+ Article V applications (14.6 per state, on average).
    There have been 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states.
    There have been 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969.
    There have been 102+ Article V applications by 35 states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971.
    There have been 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980 (and there have been others before and since).
    For you to continue to ignore the glaring facts, and refuse to disclose the mysterious expiration time-limit, proves how ridiculous and desparate your comments are.
    Does it not bother you how ridiculous that appears?
    Seriously, are you truly incapable of seeing how ridiculously weak (if not totally absurd) your re-interpretation of Article V is?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: There is no ambiguity about whether the majority of the states hold the power to call the convention, or just the few that are making the calls this time around.
    A agree. ALL 50 states have submitted 730+ Article V Applications.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think one problem with the way some folks interpret the constitution, is that they assume it represented the sum totality of what people wanted, rather than a codification of the important or meaningful parts, with knowledge of the background allowing you to fill in the rest.
    More specious obfuscation and gobbledygook still proving nothing and still refusing to disclose the mysterious expiration hidden somewhere in the meaning of Article V.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: This is why we don’t have to revise the Bill of Rights to deal with instantaneous electronic communication, not mentioned in that legal product of the Eighteenth Century.
    More specious obfuscation and gobbledygook still proving nothing and still refusing to disclose the mysterious expiration hidden somewhere in the meaning of Article V.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: What the Framers assume in writing the fifth article is something so ridiculously simple that they didn’t think they needed to write it: that the proportions mentioned would be united, that the calls for convention would be made together by the states, as they were made together calling the Philadelphia Convention. There really is no precedent, no historical example to back the claim that you could just take forever to call the convention.
    More specious obfuscation and gobbledygook still proving nothing and still refusing to disclose the mysterious expiration hidden somewhere in the meaning of Article V.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: What would be the point to such a convention? There would be little urgency behind it, little purpose, little support. Who would even know that this major event in US history, the first constitutional convention since the first one, was almost upon them?
    More specious obfuscation and gobbledygook still proving nothing and still refusing to disclose the mysterious expiration hidden somewhere in the meaning of Article V.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: This makes the whole thing into basically a bureaucratic oversight! That’s pathetic! Whatever fantasies you may have of a new burst of involvement, this would probably puzzle, concern, or even scare people.
    The inability to see your mysterious expiration time-limit in Article V, despite 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states is mere fantasy?

    That’s really funny (and ironic).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Was that the framer’s intent? I believe the Framers wanted this to be something agreed upon, a consensus binding the states together in a new compact. These were rationalists, folks who believed in “let us reason together”. They weren’t creating something to blindside the public with.
    Well, if they were here, I’m sure they would say 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states is rather obvious.

    And if they were here, they would probably be asking us how we managed to screw things up so badly.
    And if they were here, they would probably be telling us we should have ratified a BALANCED BUDGET amendment a long time ago, and then perhaps we would not now be swimming in untenable debt of nightmare proportions (especially since 38 different states submitted 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do me a favor, before you further argue this point. Go to the local election officials, and berate them. Because they surely believe that votes for a measure or a candidate must come in more or less all at once. Maybe not in an instant of nanosecond, but within a reasonable amount of time to ensure that those who are on board and are not have been counted and their wishes made known in a discrete and measureable way.
    More specious obfuscation and gobbledygook still proving nothing and still refusing to disclose the mysterious expiration hidden somewhere in the meaning of Article V.

    What is this mysterious expiration time-limit?
    What about 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980 (and there have been others before and since)?
    What about 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states?
    What about 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969?
    What about 102+ Article V applications by 35 states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971?
    What about 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980 (and there have been others before and since)?
    What about 203 years to ratify the 27th Amendment?
    Also, what about the fact that Article V was written in year 1787, before telephones and high-speed communications and travel?
    How convenient to ignore all of these glaring facts.
    It’s not foolin’ anyone.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: More to the point, there are only fifty states, and it will not be an onerous chore to organize some sort of god-blessed conference or meeting between these states to ensure that everybody’s on board. This is what the founding fricking father did: they organized. They didn’t sit around issuing repeated calls for convention with everybody sticking around with their thumbs up their asses.
    Gee … there appears to be a bit of frustration there.

    I’d be frustrated too, if I’d dug myself so deep into a hole.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You criticize my use of Tommy Lee Jones’ lines from the Fugitive. Pardon me. I was making a metaphorical point about evidence. If you’ll recall, the point of the empty leg chains was that somebody had escaped, rather than ending up as part of the wreckage.
    Right. OHHHHhhhhh … well then, that explains everything.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Now your story is that somehow, for two hundred and twenty something years, Congress has been ignoring so many pleas for a convention by the states, that we could have held at least twenty or more in that time, if the original interpretation, as you put it, were observed.
    My story?

    I’m not the one making up stories, twisting the fact, referencing Hollywood movies, and resorting to other obfuscations and nonsense to prop-up a weak and failing argument.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You selectively quote from Alexander Hamilton, from court decisions that weren’t deciding anything about that part of Article V. But nobody, it seems, discusses your particular view of the clause as you do, clearly laying out a system where the calls would just snowball until they reached the threshold. Anybody can play semantics and just divine their preferred argument out of the text. Lawyers do that all the time.
    There is no selective quote from Alexander Hamilton.

    What is truly selective and ridiculous is your selective extraction of the words “unite” and “together” to help support your mysterious expiration time-limit.
    That’s why Roy Ellis and David R. Remer wrote:

    David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention.
    Your not so subtle introduction of the word “together” referring to concurrency of call for convention by 3/4 of the states, is a fabrication which does not exist in the language of the Article.
    And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.

    Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.

    So accusing others of dishonest and selective quotes is really funny, and it doesn’t seem to be fooling anyone.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Metaphorically speaking, so there’s no confusion here, this is where the legs seem to disappear out of the leg irons. You insist on speaking of your position as already having won the argument, and use the preremptory language of the clause to insist that it must be plainly interpreted that way, but there’s a big oversight here.
    Right. I’m not confused.

    Unfortunately, the same can not be said about your comments, which appear very either very confused, or possibly intentionally obfuscatory, and come off looking very desparate to somehow save face. If you want to salvage the dismal (if not absent) credibility of your failing argument, it would perhaps be wise to simply admit you are wrong. Otherwise, that hole you’re diggin’ will only get deeper and deeper. And this subject will come up again and again. And eventually, one (or more) states will most likely challenge Congress’ ignoring Article V. I am aware of several attorneys in severeal states that support that goal. Congress’ current excuse is not a lack of contemporaneousness. Their excuse is that the Article V applications must be same-subject. Well, that excuse has now been discredited by the proof of 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-For-An-Article-V-Convention Applications from 38 different states. Whichever state (or states) choose to press the issue, they will have ample proof. To boot, Congress doesn’t look very competent or honest by trying to hide the Article V applications in the huge, printed Congressional Record volumes (hard copy only; not in electronic form) at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in Washington, D.C. Needless to say, their conflict of interest is all too obvious, since Congress persons obviously don’t want things like TERM-LIMITS, a BALANCED BUDGET, campaign finance reform, etc.)

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Namely, that there’s not much of substance from the time of the framers or onwards that discusses your idea in any depth, with any plainness. I looked through Madison’s notes for the constitional convention. Nobody debated this, no court cases directly support or even oppose this interpretation from the time. There’s plenty of noise and cases and discussion about the other part of Article V, which is the subject of most of the lawsuits you cite.
    Article V is only one sentence of 143 words.

    It’s not that complicated, despite the persistent, specious, twisting, obfuscation and re-interpretations.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: For an interpretation that’s supposed to be once known and forgotten, it seems like it was forgotten even while it was known, because you offer no examples of it from that period.
    Just because Congress is violating Article V does not mean the interpretation was forgotten.

    One eight (8) occasions, Congress persons have documented the violation of Article V at least four (4) times:

    • CR 042 Pg 00164 Yr 1907-NJ-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 043 Pg 02667 Yr 1909-SD-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 02688)

    • CR 045 Pg 07117 Yr 1910-NJ-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 07120)

    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-UT-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 071 Pg 03369 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • CR 071 Pg 03856 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • CR 127 Pg 21538 Yr 1981-Summary of 34 Balanced Budget Applications from 1975-to-1980

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The hundreds of calls argue against this being an intepretation that holds, because no state that subscribed to or understood this interpretation would even have to make another call again until the thirty-fourth call was made and the count reset.
    Nonsense. Some in Congress from several different states know and have entered it into the Congressional Record (at least 8 times) that Article V has been violated at least four (4) times (see list above). Therefore, your assertion has no credibility. Also, until recently, since many hundreds of Article V applications have been found and documented, many Congress persons and states were not aware how egregious and obvious Congress’ violation of Article V was. We are still finding more Article V applications. The most requested Article V applications (151 Article V applications from 38 different states) is the BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V Convention applications. And most of those came after 1960. Perhaps we wouldn’t have this massive debt problem now had Congress obeyed Article V?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I keep on setting you this task: show me legislatures discussing alternatives concerning a call for a convention. Show me lawyers for the states arguing to the government, back in the beginnings of our country, that this was the relevant and binding intepretation.
    Immediately after year 1787, there were only a few people arguing for an Article V convention:
    • (001) General Annals of Congress 1 (J. Gales Ed.) Pg 00248 Yr 1789-NY-General Call for an Article V Convention
    • (002) General Annals of Congress 1 (J. Gales Ed.) Pg 00257 Yr 1789-VA-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued 259, 261)
    • (003) General Annals of Congress 1 (J. Gales Ed.) Pg 01103 Yr 1790-RI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    People were not immediately thinking of an Article V Convention shortly after ratifying the U.S. Constitution.
    It wasn’t until the U.S. Civil War that many Article V applications started being submitted with regard to the abolishment of Slavery:

  • (009) CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1860-DE-Slavery; 1

  • (010) CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1860-AR-Slavery; 1

  • (011) CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1860-TN-Slavery; 1

  • (012) CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-KY-Slavery; 1

  • (013) CR 036 Pg 00082 Yr 1861-TN-Direct Election of President and other proposals (continued to: Page 00083)

  • (014) CR 036 Pg 00114 Yr 1861-KY-Slavery

  • (015) CR 036 Pg 00680 Yr 1861-NJ-Slavery

  • (016) The Congressional Globe 037 Pg 00773 Yr 1861-KY-Slavery

  • (017) CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-NJ-Slavery; 1

  • (018) CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-IN-Slavery; 1

  • (019) CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-IL-Slavery; 1

  • (020) CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-OH-Slavery; 1

  • (021) CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1863-DE-Peaceful Resolution to Civil War; 1

  • (022) CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1863-KY-Slavery; Reaffirming Application of 1861; 1

  • (023) CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1864-OR-Peaceful Resolution to Civil War; 1

  • (024) CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1867-NC-Reducing Effects of Emancipation; 1
  • Most (536 or more) of the Article V applications have come since 1950.
    Since FOAVC stated posting the photo-copies of the 730+ Article V Applications from ALL 50 states, interest has spiked considerably.
    Many states have been unaware of other states’ Article V Applications.
    Congress has intentionally and/or carelessly failed to keep track of the numbers of Article V applications.
    In fact, it appears as though Congress has been trying to hide the information.
    Especially in this day and age of digital information.
    Anyway, no more.
    FOAVC and supporting organizations are providing public access to photo-copies of all Article V applications (as we find them buried away deep in huge books at the National Archives and Records Administration). It doesn’t reflect positively on Congress, whose conflict of interest is all too obvious.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Show me this damn thing integrated int its context, a part of the legal jurisprudence of its time, and not just a product of your cherrypicked quotes and semantic invention! Show me the legs in the leg irons, the proof that your prisoner hasn’t run off to find the one armed man! (Remember: Metaphor. Not to be taken literally. Meaning, show me that there is substance backing your version of history, and not just fancy arguing)
    I have. But what good would it do anyway, since you say you don’t read any of this anyway.

    Besides, I’ve already showed it to you many times, but logic and common-sense obviously doesn’t work for everyone.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Show me this damn thing … Show me the legs in the leg irons … show me … not just fancy arguing)
    Blah, blah, blah.

    More specious obfuscation and gobbledygook still proving nothing and still refusing to disclose the mysterious expiration hidden somewhere in the meaning of Article V.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Otherwise, I will have to treat this as just an example of revisionist history, bounded with legal reasoning that is amateurish where it isn’t actually just amateur.
    Funny.
    • If it is so ameteurish, then why are you so frustrated and bothered by it?
    • If it is so ameteurish, then why is no one rushing to support your re-interpretations of Article V?
    • If it is so ameteurish, then why did others write …
      David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention. Your not so subtle introduction of the word “together” referring to concurrency of call for convention by 3/4 of the states, is a fabrication which does not exist in the language of the Article. And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.
      Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.
    • If it is so ameteurish, then why do your comments resort to specious, convoluted, re-interpretations and obfuscation?
    • If it is so ameteurish, then why do you spend so much time trying so desparately to explain away 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states?
    • If it is so ameteurish, then why is that hole your diggin’ gettin’ deeper and deeper?
    • If it is so ameteurish, then what are you worried about?
    Henry Schlatman wrote: d.a.n and Stephen, Why you both can keep debating Article V with over half of the Americans being Politically Independent good luck getting the Democratic and Repulican Citizens to come together to form a 3/4th majority.
    That’s a good point.

    However, when things get bad enough, some people will start wondering why it got so bad.
    Then some people will look at the astronomical debt of nightmare proportions, and they look at 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states.
    Then some people will look at 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states, and Congress giving itself a raise every year (10 of the last 12 years) and the increasing “encroachments of the national authority”.
    When things get bad enough, some people will start looking more seriously at the avenues of reform right under their own noses.
    Article V is one way.
    And not repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, irresponsible, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates is another way.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I keep on telling him that part of the point of the high threshold is to make sure that most of America is on board for these changes before they’re made.
    “I keep telling him” …

    So, how is 730+ Article V applications from all 50 states is not “most of America on board”?
    Also, 3/4 of the states required to ratify any amendment.
    The 2/3 of the states requirement has already been met.
    What part of that do you not comprehend?
    Why do you continue to dig that hole deeper and deeper?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think a big question here is whether people are really looking at what they’re doing when they push these political questions, whether they’re succeeding in convincing others of things, or just succeeding in convincing themselves.
    Exactly. Self delusion is a problem.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: It would be tough work to convince most of the states to go through with this, but that’s the point. If they’ve already done that much convincing successfully, then that filters out most measures aimed at partisan wish fulfillment, measures that could start rancorous, even deadly conflicts we haven’t seen in decades in this country.
    That sort of fear-mongering only makes your arguments appear more desparate.

    Are there any limits to how low your comments will sink to merely win a debate?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Ultimately, this is our country, the word “our” including people who would disagree with us, as well as those who wouldn’t. Our nation is built so that even as the political games are played, nobody’s a final winner, able to shut out their rivals for good afterwards.
    Who ever said it was.

    No amount of childish, twisted, and perverted obfuscations change the facts.
    And that is the obvious source of frustration. Not me.
    Oh what webs we weave when we practice to deceive.

    I don’t have to rely on deception and obfuscation.
    I don’t have to resort to intellectual dishonesty.
    I don’t have to twist and pervert the English language.
    I don’t have to avoid questions about mysterious expiration time limits.
    The facts suffice.
    There’s no need for re-interpretations, obfuscation, and pretzel imitations to explain the obvious language of Article V:

      ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.

    Especially based on the following court cases and the court’s rules of interpretation of the U.S. Constitution:

    • U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941): “Where there are several possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that meaning which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose cannot rightly be preferred.”

    • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Words of [the] Constitution are to be taken in natural and obvious sense, and not in sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.”

    • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Where the text of the constitution is “clear and distinct”, no restriction on its plain and obvious import should be admitted unless the inference is irresistible.”

    • Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827): “Where provision in United States Constitution is unambiguous and its meaning is entirely free from doubt, the intention of the framers of the constitution cannot be inquired into, and the supreme court is bound to give the provision full operation, whatever might be the views entertained of its expediency.”

    • Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842): “[The] Court may not construe Constitution so as to defeat its obvious ends when another construction, equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect them.”

    • Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580 (1880): “A constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.”

    • Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. [ … ] The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”

    • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true.

    • U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): “Where intention of words and phrases used in Constitution is clear, there is no room for construction [re-interpretation] and no excuse for interpolation.”

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Too many people, though, are competing in politics as if they could do that, and it is they who often cause the most damage, as they twist the system at all sides to permanently embed their power.
    I agree completely.

    How ironic that you look into the mirror and don’t see yourself.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: We put impediments to this final victory in place so that no political faction cnn become beholden merely to itself and its own interests, so that any political group that fails to heed what most people want out of their government does so at its own peril.
    I agree completely.

    How ironic (and sad) that some people fail to practice what they preach; especially when they are so stubbornly deteremined to win a debate at all costs; even if they have to twist themselves into a pretzel to reshape and obfuscate reality, and even if it makes them look like a hypocrite, possibly obsessive-compulsive, and dishonest. Oh, what webs we weave when we practice to deceive?

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 5, 2009 7:58 PM
    Comment #279627

    Dan-
    It comes down to one question: do the majority of the states want a constitutional convention right now? It’s not a difficult question unless you’re hung up in technicalities about calls not being limited in time or subject by the constitution.

    How about this: Knock on fifty state legislature’s doors, and ask: do you support the calling of a convention? If you get 34 or more state legislatures making those calls, then you got your convention. If not, then you don’t really have a 2/3rds majority in any real sense, and you don’t deserve to get a convention just based on some semantic hairsplitting on the language. The point was to give the states the power to change things when they felt necessary, but only if they were most together on the matter. That way, nobody would think they were simply being constitutionally carjacked.

    With your standard, the “majority” you create is constructed in pieces, and can take any amount of time that you want. But five people advocating a constitutional convention one year, then ten the next, and so on and so forth is not a real majority. It either exists now, or it doesn’t. If it does, constitutional convention, here we come. If it doesn’t, if there isn’t that real support, then it doesn’t happen, regardles of your intention, your fears or hopes.

    Can you, or anybody here establish for me what the point of not discerning whether a clear and present two thirds majority truly exists is?

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 5, 2009 11:30 PM
    Comment #279628

    Dan-

    I have. But what good would it[showing actual evidence of your intepretations employment or discussion at the time of its authorship] do anyway, since you say you don’t read any of this anyway.

    I’m not going to go blind panning through the river muck to find your little nuggets of wisdom. If you were to post a shorter, more concise, more narrative detailing of the history of your interpretation’s application, though, I might read it. But if you insist on building fortress Europe with each post, I’m not going to bother reconnoitering the whole massive base of your argument trying to win. I’ll find the weak point of your argument, and attack that one specific targe rather than force myself to go blind on the rest.

    It might help you if you considered that people’s dislike of your prose might be your fault rather than theirs. I consider everything I write carefully. My backspace and delete buttons get good workouts before you ever see my prose. To me, it is a duty to be readable, even if I’m not writing things as short as I should.

    I handcraft responses. I don’t dump huge bundles of statistics I can just link to in an argument, unless I have immediate use for them.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 5, 2009 11:53 PM
    Comment #279636

    Stephen,
    You asked D.a.n “Can you, or anybody here establish for me what the point of not discerning whether a clear and present two thirds majority truly exists is?”

    Well, lets see;

    The Majority of Society would agree that they need food and water to survive.

    The Majority of Society would agree that they need electricity and other essentail services provided by Civilization. A bathroom being one.

    The majority of Society would agree to Energy Independence provided the terms were properly expressed in writting.

    Yes, “We the People” may disagree about a whole host of issues; however, if both the Left and Right care to look as Individuals, a Nation, and a Society the Majority in America know that a Better World can be built by the Children of the 21st Century. The question for the extremist is how does one go about becoming Self-Sufficient as an Individual, a Nation, and a Society.

    Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 6, 2009 1:37 AM
    Comment #279638

    (www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006498.html#279627)

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n-
    It comes down to one question: do the majority of the states want a constitutional convention right now?

    Yes, based on:
    • 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980.

    • 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states.

    • 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states (8.6 application per state on average).

    • 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average).

    • 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971.

    • 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s not a difficult question unless you’re hung up in technicalities about calls not being limited in time or subject by the constitution.
    That’s right. See list above.

    There are no expiration time-limits or same-subject requirements.
    Even if such requirements existed, both have been already satisfired, unless the expiration time limit is less than 5 years.
    Obviously, you don’t believe 5 years is sufficient.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: How about this: Knock on fifty state legislature’s doors, and ask: do you support the calling of a convention? If you get 34 or more state legislatures making those calls, then you got your convention. If not, then you don’t really have a 2/3rds majority in any real sense, and you don’t deserve to get a convention just based on some semantic hairsplitting on the language.
    ALL 50 states have already submitted 730+ Article V applications.

    Should we ask them “pretty please” too?
    Should we also tell them about the movie “The Fugitive”?
    And why aren’t 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states. sufficient?
    And why aren’t 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states sufficient?
    And do these 34 states need to all answer “yes” simultaneously within a 34 nanosecond interval (1 nanosecond per state)?
    What is this mysterious time limit?
    How long will it take to go knock on the doors of all 50 state legislatures?
    Would it be OK if a telephone call is substituted for an actual visit to knock on their door?
    And what other new conditions have your invented to make it impossible?
    Does every one have to also stand on their left leg and whistle Dixie while answering “yes” to an Article V Convention?
    Or does it also depend on the price of rice in China on Tuesdays?
    What was the intended expiration time-limit (if any) when Article V was written in year 1787?
    That was before they had trains and automobiles, so going to all of states and knocking on all of the state legislatures’ doors could take quite a while, eh?
    What other nonsense are you going to dream up?
    ALL 50 states have already submitted 730+ Article V applications (370 by 43 different states since 1960).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The point was to give the states the power to change things when they felt necessary, but only if they were most together on the matter. That way, nobody would think they were simply being constitutionally carjacked.
    They are together.

    What do you call 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states.
    What do you call 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states.
    What do you call 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average).
    What do you call 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971.
    Why do none of those qualify?
    What is this mysterious expiration time-limit?
    Why can’t you say?
    Is it because what ever you say it is, it may then be satisfied?
    Or is this mysterious expiration time-limit something ridiculous, such as 1 minute, so that it is impossible to ever satisfy?
    How deep are you willing to dig that hole to prop-up a weak and failing argument to merely win a debate?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: With your standard, the “majority” you create is constructed in pieces, and can take any amount of time that you want.
    False.

    How is the following not a majority?:

    • 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980.

    • 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states.

    • 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states (8.6 application per state on average).

    • 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average).

    • 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971.

    • 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: But five people advocating a constitutional convention one year, then ten the next, and so on and so forth is not a real majority.
    How about?:
    • 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980.
    • 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states.
    • 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states (8.6 application per state on average).
    • 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average).
    • 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971.
    • 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states.
    Is that not sufficient?

    If not, what is this mysterious expiration time-limit?
    Your refusal to reveal this mysterious expirationi time-limit demonstrates how weak your position is.
    You know it is ridiculous, which is why you consistently evade the question.
    Not to mention, there’s nothing in Article V about any expiration time-limits or same-subject requirements.
    You’re comments are merely looking more and more ridiculous as you desparately search for more excuses, avoid questions, and refuse to declare what the mysterious expiration time limit is.
    OOOHHHhhhhhh … I get it.
    The mysterious expiration time-limit is a secret, eh?
    Because if it were ever know, the states would then have a solid target.
    It’s best to keep it a moving target, eh?
    And you don’t understand why Roy Ellis and David R. Remer wrote …

    David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention.
    Your not so subtle introduction of the word “together” referring to concurrency of call for convention by 3/4 of the states, is a fabrication which does not exist in the language of the Article.
    And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.

    Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: It either exists now, or it doesn’t.
    What is now?

    1 nanosecond?
    1 minute?
    What was the intended expiration time-limit when Article V was written in year 1787?
    Have all of the 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states already expired?
    Gee. It should we be nice to know what this mysterious expiration time-limit is.
    But I guess that would make too much sense, eh?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: If it does, constitutional convention, here we come. If it doesn’t, if there isn’t that real support, then it doesn’t happen, regardles of your intention, your fears or hopes.
    The conditions have already been met.

    If you don’t think states really want any amendments, then what are you worried about?
    If you are right, a sufficient 3/4 of the states won’t succeed in ratifying any amendment.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Can you, or anybody here establish for me what the point of not discerning whether a clear and present two thirds majority truly exists is?
    A majority exists.

    What do you call:

    • 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980.

    • 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states.

    • 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states (8.6 application per state on average).

    • 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average).

    • 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971.

    • 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states.

    Surely no person can really be so inept that they are unable to recognize ALL 50 states as a majority (e.g. 100%)?
    What part of that do you not understand?
    Are you so determined to win a debate that you will make a complete fool of yourself in the process?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m not going to go blind panning through the river muck to find your little nuggets of wisdom.
    Funny.

    Yet, you keep comin’ back to dig that hole deeper, while tryin’ to prop-up a pitifully weak and failing arguement.
    Is that possibly because your weak and failing arguments are so frustrating, and the thought of being wrong about something is too much to bear?
    The frustration appears to grow as a plethora of obfuscations are recognized for the nonsense they really are
    And you don’t understand why Roy Ellis and David R. Remer wrote …

    David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention.
    Your not so subtle introduction of the word “together” referring to concurrency of call for convention by 3/4 of the states, is a fabrication which does not exist in the language of the Article.
    And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.

    Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.


    Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you were to post a shorter, more concise, more narrative detailing of the history of your interpretation’s application, though, I might read it.

    Yet another excuse.

    If you’re really interested, just visit FOAVC.ORG.
    Odd that you were not even aware, and seemed disturbed that 730+ Article V applications from all 50 states existed …

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve got a question: You folks talked about 500 something calls. Now all of a sudden, it’s 730. Where did all these extra calls come from?

    And if you don’t believe that, you can always go the the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in Washington, D.C. and see the originals for yourself.

    You keep tryin’ to find some new obfuscation, but it only makes your comments appear more desparate and ridiculous.
    How deep are you going to dig that hole?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: But if you insist on building fortress Europe with each post, I’m not going to bother reconnoitering the whole massive base of your argument trying to win. I’ll find the weak point of your argument, and attack that one specific targe rather than force myself to go blind on the rest.
    Suit yourself.

    Are you finally getting tired of your comments looking so ridiculous, so you’re now looking for a new excuse for an exit strategy?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: It might help you if you considered that people’s dislike of your prose might be your fault rather than theirs.
    That’s really funny based on the following …
    David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention. Your not so subtle introduction of the word “together” referring to concurrency of call for convention by 3/4 of the states, is a fabrication which does not exist in the language of the Article. And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.
    Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.
    … and some of your own glowing prose such as this …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, … You had better be prepared …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you want to badmouth us …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You had better come at us with good evidence …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, … we’ve told you no, we aren’t satisfied with facts you‘ve provided.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: For me, that means putting opinions like yours to the test …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: you‘re trying to win in front of me and everybody else …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stop flinging rhetoric at me and calling it facts.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can get all patronizing about that, …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Facts, Dan. Facts. Not your opinions, not your conclusions, not your claims, facts. …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Get out of pundit mode, and start treating this …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You‘re flinging an ad hominem argument at me …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , You‘re wasting your time.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You just want people to bow down to your case, as if they should obligated to think in your terms.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: To be frank with you, you‘re no better than the people you criticize.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Jeez man, if that’s respect, I’d hate to get on your bad side!
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your attacks on the fact that I do have some party association, have done little to convince me that I should abandon them.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , First, you don’t respect people’s right to have other opinions… .
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve tried to do you the respect of not merely flatly contradicting you
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , Now you‘re trying my patience …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: To be brutally honest, you‘re not telling me much about modern politicians I don’t already know.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I consider everything I write carefully. My backspace and delete buttons get good workouts before you ever see my prose.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I chose to be like this. However, I don’t like doing things in a way that I know is arbitrary. It offends me. My comments about third parties are valid.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I have a broader definition of what voter education means, I mean just straight forward learning and being told about what the people in congress are doing… . My bias is obvious.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: It might help you if you considered that people’s dislike of your prose might be your fault rather than theirs.
    Funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they are doing themselves.

    Funny how some people don’t practice what they preach, eh?

    The obvious frustration is not my prose.
    It is your own weak and failing arguments, and a long trail of embarrassing excuses and obfuscations.
    Oh what webs we weave when we practice to deceive?
    The fact is, it’s not my fault.
    Only one self can make a fool of one’s self.
    My help is not needed for that.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I consider everything I write carefully.
    Really?

    Like that list of your comments above? : )

    Were those carefully written too?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: My backspace and delete buttons get good workouts before you ever see my prose.
    Really? Geeee … I shudder to think what we’d see if that were not the case?

    That hole just gets deeper and deeper, eh?

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 6, 2009 2:28 AM
    Comment #279650

    Dan-
    I write conversationally. That’s why I say “you”. It’s not rudeness, it’s informality.

    I don’t like burdening the reader with a catalog of information. They can get that on their own, check out things for themselves, if they’re so inclined. I try to write at more or less journalistic quality, so the people who read my comments can follow them easily, but still be informed.

    Dan, you’re still stuck on the idea that this is merely a count. The question is not whether 34 states make convention calls during that time. What you could have is three different efforts, not related to each other, and therefore not constituting a real majority.

    The question is whether they make them as part of one effort. When elections and different sessions of congress intervene, there’s legitimate reason to doubt that they are part of the same effort, unless the calls themselves are reiterated each time, and the unity on the subject is made plain.

    The point of the word “together” should be plain. Do you have a majority when people do not agree together?

    Let’s say we had 54 votes in the Senate for an Amendment on One vote, and then ten senators changed their minds and fourteen different ones replaced them. That would be 68 total votes, according to you, a two thirds majority, if your interpretation holds. But in terms of real majorities, it would only be 58 total, insufficient to propose the Amendment.

    That’s the ambiguity in your interpretation: a majority without a majority. If you count every call, lump all the efforts together without regard for what effort they’re a part of, then you have no way of guaranteeing that the constitutionally mandated majority actually exists.

    Which means Congress is obligated to do absolutely nothing. The majority must exist together, and must be current, or otherwise, it measures something that might no longer exist.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 6, 2009 2:22 PM
    Comment #279655
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- I write conversationally. That’s why I say “you”. It’s not rudeness, it’s informality.
    Really? For example …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , You‘re wasting your time.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , First, you don’t respect people’s right to have other opinions… .
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, … You had better be prepared …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve tried to do you the respect of not merely flatly contradicting you
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you want to badmouth us …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You had better come at us with good evidence …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, … we’ve told you no, we aren’t satisfied with facts you‘ve provided.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: For me, that means putting opinions like yours to the test …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: you‘re trying to win in front of me and everybody else …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stop flinging rhetoric at me and calling it facts.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can get all patronizing about that, …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Facts, Dan. Facts. Not your opinions, not your conclusions, not your claims, facts. …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You‘re flinging an ad hominem argument at me …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You just want people to bow down to your case, as if they should obligated to think in your terms.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: To be frank with you, you‘re no better than the people you criticize.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Jeez man, if that’s respect, I’d hate to get on your bad side!
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your attacks on the fact that I do have some party association, have done little to convince me that I should abandon them.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , Now you‘re trying my patience …
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: To be brutally honest, you‘re not telling me much about modern politicians I don’t already know.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I consider everything I write carefully. My backspace and delete buttons get good workouts before you ever see my prose.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I chose to be like this. However, I don’t like doing things in a way that I know is arbitrary. It offends me. My comments about third parties are valid.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I have a broader definition of what voter education means, I mean just straight forward learning and being told about what the people in congress are doing… . My bias is obvious.
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: It might help you if you considered that people’s dislike of your prose might be your fault rather than theirs.
    Is the above meant to be mere informality?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t like burdening the reader with a catalog of information.
    Right. Gobbledygook and prolific, convoluted, obfuscation and pretzel logic is much better.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I try to write at more or less journalistic quality, so the people who read my comments can follow them easily, but still be informed.
    Since when was gobbledygook and prolific, convoluted, obfuscation and pretzel logic informational?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, you’re still stuck on the idea that this is merely a count.
    Exactly, since 2/3 x 50 = 34.

    That is what the single sentence (143 words) of Article V state.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The question is not whether 34 states make convention calls during that time.
    What is “that time”?

    What do you call:

    • 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980?

    • 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states?

    • 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states (8.6 application per state on average)?

    • 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average)?

    • 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971?

    • 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states?
    Exactly why is none of that sufficiently contemporaneous?

    Where is this mysterious expiration time-limit?
    Where is it written in Article V?
    How can anyone know what deadline to meet if the deadline is a mystery?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: What you could have is three different efforts, not related to each other, and therefore not constituting a real majority.
    Nonsense.

    Even if a same-subject requirement existed, one obvious single effort is the 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states.
    So your comment is false.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The question is whether they make them as part of one effort.
    All 50 states already did that altogehter.

    What do you call:

    • 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980?

    • 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states?

    • 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states (8.6 application per state on average)?

    • 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average)?

    • 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971?

    • 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states?

    Exactly why don’t any of those qualify?
    What is the expiration time-limit?
    And were in Article V is there any mention of any expiration time-limit or same-subject requirement.
    You’re argument has no credibility unless you can somehow explain exactly why 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states is insufficient.
    Your refusal to reveal the so-called expiration time-limit and/or same-subject requirement proves that it does not exist, and proves your argument and comments to be nothing more than prolific, convoluted, gobbledygook, obfuscation, and pretzel logic.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: When elections and different sessions of congress intervene, there’s legitimate reason to doubt that they are part of the same effort, unless the calls themselves are reiterated each time, and the unity on the subject is made plain.
    There are no same-subject or contemporaneous requirements in Article V, but even if they existed, what do you call:
    • 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980?
    • 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states?
    • 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states (8.6 application per state on average)?
    • 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average)?
    • 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971?
    • 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states?
    Exactly why don’t any of those qualify?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The point of the word “together” should be plain. Do you have a majority when people do not agree together?
    Where in Article V does it state “together” ?

    And since when was 2/3 not a majority?

    Perhaps you should re-read Article V, since you clearly don’t understand it:

      ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Let’s say we had 54 votes in the Senate for an Amendment on One vote, and then ten senators changed their minds and fourteen different ones replaced them. That would be 68 total votes, according to you, a two thirds majority, if your interpretation holds. But in terms of real majorities, it would only be 58 total, insufficient to propose the Amendment.
    That’s why a final 3/4 vote is required to ratify any amendment submitted to Congress for ratification.

    These circular, twisted, perverted, obfuscations and pretzel logic are making your comments look more and more ridiculous.
    Are you willing to continue to undermine your own credibility merely to win an argument?
    You have credible arguments, and they look more and more ridiculous when you repeatedly evade the same simple question:
    QUESTION: Exactly what is the expiration time-limit you continually refer to as “all at once” and all “together”?
    What is the expiration time-limit?
    12 years, 8 years, 7 years, 4 years, 1 year, 1 day, 1 hour, 1 nanosecond?
    Why can’t you answer that?
    Your evasion of that question is not improving the credibility of your weak and failing arguments.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s the ambiguity in your interpretation: a majority without a majority.
    More dishonest obfuscation and nonsense, since ALL 50 states have submitted 730+ Article V applications.

    What do you call:

    • 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980?

    • 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states?

    • 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states (8.6 application per state on average)?

    • 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average)?

    • 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971?

    • 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states?

    Exactly why don’t any of those qualify?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you count every call, lump all the efforts together without regard for what effort they’re a part of, then you have no way of guaranteeing that the constitutionally mandated majority actually exists.
    More dishonest obfuscation and nonsense, since 38 different states have submitted 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications.

    Just because it didn’t happen within 34 nanoseconds (or whatever mysterious expiration time-limit you’ve dreamed up and keep a secret) doesn’t prove anything, since there is no such langauge in Article V, and any such short time periods make no sense at all, since in year 1787, there were no high-speed communications or transportation systems. It took years for many amendments to be ratified (203 years for the 27th amendment to be ratified). Congress and some court case(s) has stated Congress can set a time-limit (e.g. 7 years) on the ratification process. Why is 7 years insufficent for the proposal process? OOOHhhhhhh … right, because over 34 different states have already submitted a same-subject BALANCED-BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications. OOOoooopppppssss. No wonder you don’t want to reveal the mysterious expiration time-limit. Then you would have to resort to more obfuscation and pretzel imitations to explain how 7 years is OK for ratification, but not proposals.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Which means Congress is obligated to do absolutely nothing. The majority must exist together, and must be current, or otherwise, it measures something that might no longer exist.
    Nonsense.

    A majority does exist already as evidenced by:

    • 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980.

    • 151 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states.

    • 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states (8.6 application per state on average).

    • 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average).

    • 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971.

    • 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states?

    Exactly why don’t any of those qualify?
    Is it because they didn’t happen within a short enough period of time?
    Exactly what is that period of time?
    And where in Article V, or any court case, or any law, does it define the mysterious time-limit and/or same-subject requirement?

    Eventually, one (or more) states will press Congress’ violation of Article V in the Supreme Court.
    Then we may find out what that mysterious time-limit is, eh?
    You’re refusal to reveal the time-limit, and resorting to other obfuscation and nonsense is why others wrote …

    David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention.
    Your not so subtle introduction of the word “together” referring to concurrency of call for convention by 3/4 of the states, is a fabrication which does not exist in the language of the Article.
    And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.

    Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.

    Yet, you continue to dig that hole deeper and deeper, which is doing wonder for the credibility of your comments.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 6, 2009 3:50 PM
    Comment #279843

    Dan-
    You can’t piecemeal your way to a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate to propose an amendment to the constitution. Why then piecemeal your way to a two-thirds majority of the states?

    I don’t think Constitutional Conventions were meant to be automatically cyclical, any more than amendments were meant to be cyclical. I think these were meant to be extraordinary events, undertaken in an emergency or in the face of common needs or desires that enjoyed the same consensus concern as the issues that brought about the constitution.

    Or put another way, the obvious conclusion to draw from the construction of Article V is that future revisions and state initiated conventions to revise would recapitulate the example of the unity of the first convention, the common response.

    Unfortunately, that is a purpose which your interpretation defeats.

    The first way it defeats it is by separating the will of the states as it currently stands from the count of the calls to have the convention. Is the purpose not to determine whether the states want a convention?

    What rationale binds the states to the calls of the past, substitutes that judgment for the will of the state legislatures, and by extension the voters of today?

    Your interpretation gives momentum to the calling of a convention whether or not public sentiment echoes that momentum. In doing so, it defeats the purpose of a provision which is obviously constructed to get in the way of all but the most decidedly agreed-upon changes to the national charter we share.

    This is supposed to be something brought out when this country decides together that urgent change is needed, not a moveable feast powered by the arbitrary gathering of convention calls brought across history.

    If the interpretation you use doesn’t measure what the states really want, it measures nothing at all, and does not qualify as a legitimate interpretation of the constitution.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 8, 2009 9:33 PM
    Comment #279887

    (www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006498.html#279843)

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n-
    You can’t piecemeal your way to a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate to propose an amendment to the constitution. Why then piecemeal your way to a two-thirds majority of the states?

    UHHMMMMMmmmmmmm … you are once again overlooking the obvious non-piecemeal nature of 758+ Article V applications from all 50 states.
    On eight (8) occasions, Congress persons have documented the violation of Article V at least four (4) times:
    • CR 042 Pg 00164 Yr 1907-NJ-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 043 Pg 02667 Yr 1909-SD-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 02688)

    • CR 045 Pg 07117 Yr 1910-NJ-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 07120)

    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-UT-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 071 Pg 03369 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • CR 071 Pg 03856 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • CR 127 Pg 21538 Yr 1981-Summary of 34 Balanced Budget Applications from 1975-to-1980

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t think Constitutional Conventions were meant to be automatically cyclical, any more than amendments were meant to be cyclical.
    What you think doesn’t mean much when it lacks any logic, court cases, or laws that trump Article V and the Congressional Records that already show that Article V has already been violated.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think these were meant to be extraordinary events, undertaken in an emergency or in the face of common needs or desires that enjoyed the same consensus concern as the issues that brought about the constitution.
    OOOHHHHHhhhhhhh … so there are now some new requirements, eh?

    So now, an emergency of some sort is required to satisfy the requirements of Article V?
    Where is that stated in Article V (below) about any requirement for an emergency or extraordinary events?

      ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.

    What are these extraordinary events?

    Or is that supposed to be as mysterious or secret as the expiration time-limit on Article V applications?

    Is that the best you can do?
    That hole you’re diggin’ is gettin’ deeper and deeper.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Or put another way, the obvious conclusion to draw from the construction of Article V is that future revisions and state initiated conventions to revise would recapitulate the example of the unity of the first convention, the common response.
    What do you call:
    • 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980?
    • 150 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states?
    • 370+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43 different states (8.6 application per state on average)?
    • 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average)?
    • 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971?
    • 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states?
    Exactly why don’t any of those qualify?

    What are these mysterious requirements that have not been met, and where is it stated in Article V, and/or where is any court case or law that trumps Article V?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Unfortunately, that is a purpose which your interpretation defeats.
    Nonsense. Simply saying my interpretation is defeated proves how utterly desparate your comments are to obfuscate and re-interpret Article V.

    The purpose is clearly stated in Article V and in the Federalist papers.
    The Federalist 85 Papers make it very clear that Article V is peremptory:

    • Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 85 Papers: The words of this article [5] 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. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

    Would you now like to now debate the meaning of the words: “whenever”, “shall”, “peremptory” , “obligatory” , “mandatory” ?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The first way it defeats it is by separating the will of the states as it currently stands from the count of the calls to have the convention. Is the purpose not to determine whether the states want a convention?
    Nonsense. All 50 states have submitted 758+ Article V applications. The count is enormous, and satisfies the requirements of Article V, and if you had any credible proof to the contrary, you would have posted it a long, long time ago. Instead, your comments resort to twisted, obfuscation and ridiculous perversions of the English language and the true meaning of Article V. What part of the following do you not understand?
    • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: What rationale binds the states to the calls of the past, substitutes that judgment for the will of the state legislatures, and by extension the voters of today?
    How about:
    • 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980?
    • 150 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states?
    • 498+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43+ different states (8.6 application per state on average)?
    • 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average)?
    • 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971?
    • 730+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states?
    What part of that does not satisfy any rationale of contemporaneousness?

    What are these mysterious requirements that have not been met, and where is it stated in Article V, and/or where is any court case or law that trumps Article V?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your interpretation gives momentum to the calling of a convention whether or not public sentiment echoes that momentum. In doing so, it defeats the purpose of a provision which is obviously constructed to get in the way of all but the most decidedly agreed-upon changes to the national charter we share.
    More twisted, perverted, desparate obfuscation and nebulousness.

    What are these mysterious requirements that have not been met, and where is it stated in Article V, and/or where is any court case or law that trumps Article V?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: This is supposed to be something brought out when this country decides together that urgent change is needed, not a moveable feast powered by the arbitrary gathering of convention calls brought across history.
    More twisted, perverted, desparate obfuscation and nebulousness.

    What are these mysterious requirements that have not been met, new requirements for certain events, and where is it stated in Article V, and/or where is any court case or law that trumps Article V?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: If the interpretation you use doesn’t measure what the states really want, it measures nothing at all, and does not qualify as a legitimate interpretation of the constitution.
    Article V defines the measurement and that measurement has been met 4+ times, as evidenced by the following Congressional Records, which state on eight (8) occasions, Congress persons have documented the violation of Article V at least four (4) times:
    • CR 042 Pg 00164 Yr 1907-NJ-Direct Election of Senators
    • CR 043 Pg 02667 Yr 1909-SD-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 02688)
    • CR 045 Pg 07117 Yr 1910-NJ-Direct Election of Senators
    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 07120)
    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-UT-Direct Election of Senators
    • CR 071 Pg 03369 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention
    • CR 071 Pg 03856 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention
    • CR 127 Pg 21538 Yr 1981-Summary of 34 Balanced Budget Applications from 1975-to-1980

    Why do you suppose no one here supports your twisted interpretation of Article V, and write things like …

    David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention.
    Your not so subtle introduction of the word “together” referring to concurrency of call for convention by 3/4 of the states, is a fabrication which does not exist in the language of the Article.
    And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.

    Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.

    What is so difficult to understand about that?

    Why continue to dig that hole deeper?
    Where is the proof to support your opinion?
    None of your arguments make any sense, and rely on twisted and perverted interpretations of Article V, and rely on tactics that violate the Supreme Court’s rules of interpretation of the Constitution (as evidenced by numerous Supreme Court cases).
    You’re entitled to your opinion, for what it is worth, but that isn’t proof, and doesn’t explain away 758+ Article V applications from all 50 states (15.16 on average per state, 498 from 42 different states since year 1960, and hundreds of Article V applications from over 34 different states in a 5-to-7 year period).

    Your refusal (or inability) to identify these mysterious requirements that have not been met, and/or new requirements for certain events, and/and identify exactly where is it stated in the 143 words of the single sentence of Article V, and/or where there is any court case or law that trumps Article V, simply reveals how desparate your comments are to merely win a debate, no matter how ridiculous and twisted your comments are. I don’t understand why you would want to document such tactics for all to see, but if you want to continue to entertain us and keep diggin’ that hole deeper and deeper, with more twisted, pretzel logic, then be my guest.

    Seriously, what are you up to?
    No one can really be so inept, can they?
    Why do you dig that hole deeper and deeper, when there is nothing to support your weak (if not totally absurd) interpretation without silly, twisted, obfuscations and pretzel logic?
    Why damage the credibility of your comments further?
    Why do you refuse to answer simple questions and refuse to provide proof of your interpretation?
    Your interpretation is simply not credible (to say the least).

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 9, 2009 1:36 PM
    Comment #279908
    UHHMMMMMmmmmmmm … you are once again overlooking the obvious non-piecemeal nature of 758+ Article V applications from all 50 states.

    So they came in all at once? Geez, the states must have REALLY wanted that convention.

    Piecemeal. Like here and there. not all together. A few calls this year, a few calls the next, none of them coming together in numbers that indicates that all 34 states are agreeing to this at once.

    Isn’t that the point? Doesn’t the constitution directly ask for the agreement of 2/3rds of the several states before this happens?

    Your method could meet any standard one set, even one that required all fifty states to agree. But would that mean that all fifty states agree? No. That would defeat the point of that.

    I mean, I took a gander at your 750 or so convention calls. All but a hundred of them are older than I am, and I was alive before Reagan came to office.

    But that’s not the worst thing. Look at 723 and 758.

    Did I get the specific numbers of these calls right? Maybe I didn’t. But it wouldn’t matter. They’re the same convention call. So are #601 and number #602. So are #603 and #604. Numbers 605 and 606 are the same. #502 and #503 are two different pages of the same call.

    But do you know what I haven’t seen? The kind of unamity I was talking about. 1979 was close in this respect. By my count, thirty individual states called for a balanced budget amendment.

    I think you’re desperate to be right. But desperate to be right, and right are two different things. I think it could be argue that the Congress has a right to expect that the states calling the convention be together on the subject, before they make that call, and that the opinions be those of the states governments now in charge, rather than those which are long gone.

    Counting backwards from the top of the list thirty four listed calls, I found a call from 1989. You would argue that a call made the year the Berlin wall fell, which has been around since before both WTC attacks, which has seen the fall of the Democratic Party’s majority and its rise, two presidents named Bush, and approximately twenty years of American history should be honored as if it were made yesterday. Now if today’s state legislature reaffirmed that call, I would have no trouble with it. After all, they would be demonstrating their agreement, and through that their own opinion.

    But we’re not seeing that. Calls since 1979 seem to be much more rare.

    These calls are supposed to represent something, empowering the state governments here and now to call what they see as a needed constitutional convention, to remake the agreement made long ago by the states.

    If that is replaced by a system which essentially forces each state to be represented by the opinion of one session of the state legislature, no matter how far in time and opinion they separate from one another, then you’ve defeated the purpose of the article, and taken power from the state governments of today.

    You can tell me I’m inept, but what’s so fricking apt and write about double counting calls?

    If you’re such a great arguer, why is the some total of most of your responses simply you describing my argument in negative terms, rather than critiquing the individual points?

    And what is so ****ing mysterious about my explanation? It’s ridiculously simple: What the states believe today goes. If 34 states believe today that they want a convention, that gets it. If, in 1979, they had gotten 34 votes or more for a constitutional convention on a balanced budget amendment, that would have been that.

    If you can only get 29 today, five take it back tomorrow, and six new states make applications, no convention. If only one takes it back, though, you have your convention.

    That bloody simple. Ten this year, ten the next, ten the next? No convention. Ten in the first months, Fourteen the next,and six months later ten more, and they all get together and reaffirm that together? Convention.

    Forget how many convention calls have been made over time. How many are there now? Are the states together? If they are, if they concur, if they are in union, and if they have the right number, it’s bloody simple.

    The count doesn’t matter unless it expresses common intent. Amending the constitution is not done by technicality, but by the gathered will of the states or their elected representatives.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 9, 2009 5:46 PM
    Comment #279968
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: So they came in all at once? Geez, the states must have REALLY wanted that convention.
    Yes, I would most certainly say the following satisfies any contemporaneous and/or same-subject requirements (even if any such requirements even existed):
    • 34+ Article V applications for a BALANCED BUDGET in the 5 years between 1975 and 1980
    • 150 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications from 38 different states between year 1961 and 1980.
    • 498+ Article V applications since year 1960 from 43+ different states (11.6 application per state on average)?
    • 154+ Article V applications by 34 different states in 7 years from 1963 to 1969 (22 application per year on average)?
    • 102+ Article V applications by 35 different states in 7 years from 1965 to 1971?
    • 754+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states?
    So, where is this “all at once” requirement in the 143 words of Article V, in the Federalist papers, in any law, or any court case?

    Until you can provide any evidence, nothing trumps Article V?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Piecemeal. Like here and there. not all together. A few calls this year, a few calls the next, none of them coming together in numbers that indicates that all 34 states are agreeing to this at once.
    There is no same-subject or contemporaneous requirements in Article V.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Isn’t that the point? Doesn’t the constitution directly ask for the agreement of 2/3rds of the several states before this happens?
    No. But even if it were, that condition has been met too.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your method could meet any standard one set, even one that required all fifty states to agree. But would that mean that all fifty states agree? No. That would defeat the point of that.
    False. All 50 states are not required to agree. Only 2/3 to call a convention, and 3/4 to ratify any amendment.

    More twisted, perverted, desparate obfuscation and nebulousness.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I mean, I took a gander at your 750 or so convention calls. All but a hundred of them are older than I am, and I was alive before Reagan came to office.
    That does not matter since there is no same-subject or contemporaneous requirements in Article V beyond.

    Besides, there have been 92 Balanced Budget/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications since 1979.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: But that’s not the worst thing. Look at 723 and 758. Did I get the specific numbers of these calls right? Maybe I didn’t. But it wouldn’t matter. They’re the same convention call.
    Thanks for catching that error. It has been fixed. That still doesn’t explain away the other 754+ Article V applications.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: So are #601 and number #602.
    False. One application is for Tennessee and one application is for Texas, and both are highlighted on different parts of the same page. That still doesn’t explain away the other 754+ Article V applications.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: So are #603 and #604. #502 and #503 are two different pages of the same call.
    Thanks for catching that error. It has been fixed. That still doesn’t explain away the other 754+ Article V applications.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: But do you know what I haven’t seen? The kind of unamity I was talking about. 1979 was close in this respect. By my count, thirty individual states called for a balanced budget amendment.
    False. 33 different states have submitted 94 Balanced Budget applications, and 5 different states have submitted General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention (no subject), which totals 38 different states. Those applications were submitted between years 1961 and 1980 by 38 different states. There have been other instances too of 34+ different states submitting applications for different subjects (taxation, apportionment, etc.).

    But, as stated before, there are no same-subjects and/or contemporaneous requirements in Article V, the Federalist papers, any court case, or law.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think you’re desperate to be right. But desperate to be right, and right are two different things. I think it could be argue that the Congress has a right to expect that the states calling the convention be together on the subject, before they make that call, and that the opinions be those of the states governments now in charge, rather than those which are long gone.
    The only desparation I see is the twisted re-interpretation of Article V, and no evidence, no court case, nothing in the federalist papers, and no law that supports your interpretation of any same-subject or mysterious expiration time-limits.

    That’s why people say things such as …

    David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention.
    Your not so subtle introduction of the word “together” referring to concurrency of call for convention by 3/4 of the states, is a fabrication which does not exist in the language of the Article.
    And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.

    Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.

    So, whose desparate?

    Until you show us some evidence of a same-subject and/or expiration time-limit in Article V, or any court case, or any law, then your twisted re-interpretations of Article V prove nothing.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Counting backwards from the top of the list thirty four listed calls, I found a call from 1989. You would argue that a call made the year the Berlin wall fell, which has been around since before both WTC attacks, which has seen the fall of the Democratic Party’s majority and its rise, two presidents named Bush, and approximately twenty years of American history should be honored as if it were made yesterday. Now if today’s state legislature reaffirmed that call, I would have no trouble with it. After all, they would be demonstrating their agreement, and through that their own opinion. But we’re not seeing that. Calls since 1979 seem to be much more rare.
    False. There have been 92 Balanced Budget/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention applications since 1979.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: These calls are supposed to represent something, empowering the state governments here and now to call what they see as a needed constitutional convention, to remake the agreement made long ago by the states.
    Besides, there are no same-subjects and/or contemporaneous requirements in Article V, the Federalist papers, any court case, or law.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: If that is replaced by a system which essentially forces each state to be represented by the opinion of one session of the state legislature, no matter how far in time and opinion they separate from one another, then you’ve defeated the purpose of the article, and taken power from the state governments of today.
    False. No amendment becomes law without being ratified by 3/4 of the states.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can tell me I’m inept, but what’s so fricking apt and write about double counting calls?
    No need to get so upset.

    There was no intentional attempt to double post some applications, and those few that were posted twice was an honest error, and there are still 754+ Article V applications from all 50 states. But I understand the need and desparation to try to find any little nit-picky thing to cling to, but it still does not explain away 754+ Article V applications from all 50 states. By the way, please let us know if you find any other minor errors.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you’re such a great arguer, why is the some total of most of your responses simply you describing my argument in negative terms, rather than critiquing the individual points?
    All of your points have been critiqued. Sorry if that is so upsetting, but only a fool can make a fool of one’s self, and my help isn’t needed for that.

    Also, I don’t have to be a good debator.
    The weakness (if not total absurdness) of your own arguments, and desparate, twisted re-interpretations of the meaning of English words and Article V is quite sufficient to bury your own lame arguments. But don’t take my word for it. See the following …

    David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention.
    Your not so subtle introduction of the word “together” referring to concurrency of call for convention by 3/4 of the states, is a fabrication which does not exist in the language of the Article.
    And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.

    Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: And what is so ****ing mysterious about my explanation?
    AAHHHhhhhh … temper, temper?

    Calm down, and read carefully.
    What is mysterious is the claim of same-subject and/or expiration time-limit requirements, but the refusal to say what that time-limit is, and the failure to provide any evidence, any court case, or any law that supports any same-subject and/or expiration time-limit requirements in Article V.
    So, why can’t you answer that question and/or provide the evidence?
    I see Article V, and the 143 words of that single sentence of Article V seem very simple to me (and others):

      ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.
    Where in those 143 words, or where in any court case, or where in any law does it support the theory of any same-subject and/or expiration time-limit requirements? Your opinion alone isn’t proof.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s ridiculously simple: What the states believe today goes. If 34 states believe today that they want a convention, that gets it. If, in 1979, they had gotten 34 votes or more for a constitutional convention on a balanced budget amendment, that would have been that.
    Wrong. There are no same-subjects and/or contemporaneous requirements in Article V, the Federalist papers, any court case, or law.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you can only get 29 today, five take it back tomorrow, and six new states make applications, no convention. If only one takes it back, though, you have your convention.
    But there are over 754+ from all 50 states.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: That bloody simple.
    Only in the mind of a pretzel.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Ten this year, ten the next, ten the next? No convention. Ten in the first months, Fourteen the next,and six months later ten more, and they all get together and reaffirm that together? Convention.
    There are no same-subjects and/or contemporaneous requirements in Article V, the Federalist papers, any court case, or law.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Forget how many convention calls have been made over time. How many are there now? Are the states together? If they are, if they concur, if they are in union, and if they have the right number, it’s bloody simple.
    There are no same-subjects and/or contemporaneous requirements in Article V, the Federalist papers, any court case, or law.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The count doesn’t matter unless it expresses common intent. Amending the constitution is not done by technicality, but by the gathered will of the states or their elected representatives.
    There are no same-subjects and/or contemporaneous requirements in Article V, the Federalist papers, any court case, or law.

    Until you can provide any evidence, nothing trumps Article V?
    If you don’t like the language of Article V, then get it amended.
    OHHHhhhhh … right. But Congress won’t allow it, since Congress is already ignoring 754+ Article V applications from all 50 states.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 10, 2009 3:21 PM
    Comment #280032

    Dan-
    It isn’t a matter of trumping Article V. It’s a matter of fulfilling it.

    You’re off having this argument off to the side with a strawman who believes the same things you do, but won’t admit it. The problem is, that’s not my opinion. That’s just you taking an unfortunate ad hominem approach to this, and getting so wrapped up in it that you don’t see my real point.

    If we can’t tell whether two thirds of the states really want the convention according to an interpretation, that interpretation is useless or worse. Applying such an intepretation would not fulfill the constitution, but undermine it.

    If it isn’t 34 states at once, then what is it? How long does the question have to remain open? And what’s the point of using a measure of this critical threshold which will inevitably grant success to every effort, given enough time?

    That’s not democratic! No vote held like that is granted much legitimacy in an election. The point is to distill what the will of the people at a given point in time is. Or, in this case, what the will of the states is, not merely as individuals, but as The UNITED States of America.

    That’s what requires these calls to be made together: that they affect the charter that was agreed to by united states. The point is that there is some symmetry between how the Charter was agreed to, and how it is revised.

    My intepretation simplifies the matter: Thirty four states are needed to call it today, tomorrow, any day, any year, anytime in the future. If they aren’t altogether, it doesn’t happen. There’s no need to consider calls that are the product of defunct state legislatures; we’re asking the ones in authority right now what they think.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 11, 2009 4:32 PM
    Comment #280107
    Stephen Daugherty wrote:d.a.n- It isn’t a matter of trumping Article V. It’s a matter of fulfilling it.
    Stephen, your twisted, perverted, and convoluted re-interpretations and obfuscations are attempting to trump Article V.

    However, there is nothing that trumps Article V, because there is nothing in the 143 Words of Article V itself, there is nothing in the Federalist papers, there is no court case, and there is no law that trumps Article V.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote:You’re off having this argument off to the side with a strawman who believes the same things you do, but won’t admit it.
    The only strawman argument I’ve seen is your own twisted, perverted, and convoluted obfuscations and re-interpretations of Article V, which may be why others wrote the following
    David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty]., but your comments fail to reference Article V’s language stipulating concurrent call for convention, which of course, was impossible when the Constitution was drafted. And concurrency being impossible at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, mandates an understanding of the Article as having NO concurrency requirement for calling forth an Article V convention. Your not so subtle introduction of the word “together” referring to concurrency of call for convention by 3/4 of the states, is a fabrication which does not exist in the language of the Article. And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.
    Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The problem is, that’s not my opinion. That’s just you taking an unfortunate ad hominem approach to this, and getting so wrapped up in it that you don’t see my real point.
    False. All I have to do is read the obvious and unambiguous 143 words of the single sentence in Article V, and look for any other court cases or laws that trump Article V. There are none. If there were, you (and others) would have posted them a long time ago. The source of your frustration is having to resort to construction which violate the courts’ rules of interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, having to resort to ridiculusly childing re-interpretations of the English language (e.g. word such as “whenver”, “shall”, “), and having to resort to other (laughable actually) twisted, perverted, and convoluted obfuscations.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: If we can’t tell whether two thirds of the states really want the convention according to an interpretation, that interpretation is useless or worse. Applying such an intepretation would not fulfill the constitution, but undermine it. If it isn’t 34 states at once, then what is it? How long does the question have to remain open? And what’s the point of using a measure of this critical threshold which will inevitably grant success to every effort, given enough time?
    More than two thirds have already requested it, since ALL 50 states have submitted 754 Article V applications.

    There is nothing in Article V, the Federalist papers, any court case, or any law that supports an “all at once” interpretation, nor any sort of contemporaneous or same-subject requirements. If it did, you’d have a case, but since it doesn’t, your opinion proves nothing.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s not democratic! No vote held like that is granted much legitimacy in an election. The point is to distill what the will of the people at a given point in time is. Or, in this case, what the will of the states is, not merely as individuals, but as The UNITED States of America.
    Nonsense. What isn’t democratic (and is actually a felony based on the violation of oath of office) is Congress’ refusal to obey Article V, and Congress’ continued ignoring Article V, despite 754+ Article V applications from ALL 50 states.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s what requires these calls to be made together: that they affect the charter that was agreed to by united states. The point is that there is some symmetry between how the Charter was agreed to, and how it is revised.
    Nonsense. What is required is 2/3 of the states to submit Article V applications, and that has already occurred many times over.

    Even if a same-subject requirement existed, that condition has been met too.
    Even if a contemporaneous requirement existed, that condition has been met too.
    Even the Congressional Record states 8 times that the requirements were met at least four (4) times:

    • CR 042 Pg 00164 Yr 1907-NJ-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 043 Pg 02667 Yr 1909-SD-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 02688)

    • CR 045 Pg 07117 Yr 1910-NJ-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 07120)

    • CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-UT-Direct Election of Senators

    • CR 071 Pg 03369 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • CR 071 Pg 03856 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention

    • CR 127 Pg 21538 Yr 1981-Summary of 34 Balanced Budget Applications from 1975-to-1980

    The condition was also met when there were only 48 states (in which 2/3 of the 48 states is only 32 states required for Article V).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: My intepretation simplifies the matter: Thirty four states are needed to call it today, tomorrow, any day, any year, anytime in the future. If they aren’t altogether, it doesn’t happen. There’s no need to consider calls that are the product of defunct state legislatures; we’re asking the ones in authority right now what they think.
    No, your comments and interpretation amplifies the twisted, convoluted, pretzel imitations to new levels of ridiculousness.

    Article V is very simple …

      ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.
    … and no amount of twisted, perverted, and convoluted re-interpretations and obfuscations will change it.

    Your comments look absolutely ridiculous, because the language of Article V is very straight forward, and several Supreme Court cases acknowledge that. For example:

    • U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941): “Where there are several possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that meaning which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose cannot rightly be preferred.”

    • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Words of [the] Constitution are to be taken in natural and obvious sense, and not in sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.”

    • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Where the text of the constitution is “clear and distinct”, no restriction on its plain and obvious import should be admitted unless the inference is irresistible.”

    • Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827): “Where provision in United States Constitution is unambiguous and its meaning is entirely free from doubt, the intention of the framers of the constitution cannot be inquired into, and the supreme court is bound to give the provision full operation, whatever might be the views entertained of its expediency.”

    • Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842): “[The] Court may not construe Constitution so as to defeat its obvious ends when another construction, equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect them.”

    • Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580 (1880): “A constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.”

    • Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. [ … ] The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”

    • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true.

    • U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): “Where intention of words and phrases used in Constitution is clear, there is no room for construction [re-interpretation] and no excuse for interpolation.”
    Notice the words in United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931):
    • article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction.”

    Notice the words (above) “The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation”.

    What part of that do you not understand?

    Until you can find:

    • (1) something in the 143 Words of the single sentence of Article V itself,

    • (2) or something in the Federalist papers refuting the plain and obvious interpretation,

    • (3) or some court case(s) refuting the plain and obvious interpretation,

    • (4) or some law that trumps Article V,
    … then your interpretation has no credibility at all.

    But, if you want to refine those pretzel-imitation skills and dig that hole deeper, be my guest.
    All that gobbledygook and none of the four (4) items listed above is doing wonders for the credibility of your arguments.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 13, 2009 8:10 PM
    Comment #280116
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: My intepretation simplifies the matter: Thirty four states are needed to call it today, tomorrow, any day, any year, anytime in the future. If they aren’t altogether, it doesn’t happen. There’s no need to consider calls that are the product of defunct state legislatures; we’re asking the ones in authority right now what they think.
    Here’s an observation.

    You are trying very hard to read things into Article V that do not exist.
    You can not provide:

    • (1) something in the 143 Words of the single sentence of Article V itself,

    • (2) or something in the Federalist papers refuting the plain and obvious interpretation,

    • (3) or some court case(s) refuting the plain and obvious interpretation,

    • (4) or some law anywhere
    … that trumps Article V.

    Allow me to re-interpret Article V the way you do (while bearing in mind that Article V was written in year 1787).

    ORIGINAL INTERPRETATION:

      ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.

    Stephen Daugherty’s INTERPRETATION:

      ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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 [all together within a 34 nanoseconds], shall call a convention for proposing [same-subject] 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.

    d.a.n’s INTERPRETATION:

      ARTICLE V of the U.S. Constitution states: 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.
    HHHHMMMmmmmmmmmmmm … strange. d.a.n’s INTERPRETATION matches the ORIGINAL VERSION.

    Your interpretation requires construction (i.e. twisted, perverted, and convoluted re-interpretations and obfuscations).

    So, where did it say anywhere in Article V, or the Federalist papers, or any court case, or any law that supports your ridiculous “all at once” interpretation?
    And where did it say anywhere in Article V, or the Federalist papers, or any court case, or any law that supports your ridiculous “same-subject” interpretation?

    The Supreme Court has rules against such construction, and previous court cases specificly refer to the 143 words in the single sentence in Article V:

    • Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842): “[The] Court may not construe Constitution so as to defeat its obvious ends when another construction, equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect them.”

    • Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580 (1880): “A constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.”

    • Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. [ … ] The language of the article [5] is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”

    • United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true.

    • U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): “Where intention of words and phrases used in Constitution is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation.”

    Notice the words and statements above that reject “construction” ?

    But again, if you want to refine those pretzel-imitation skills and dig that hole deeper, be my guest.
    Your refusal (or inability) to provide even one of the four (4) items listed above fails to prove any “same-subject” or “all at once” requirements.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 13, 2009 9:24 PM
    Post a comment