October 13, 2009
Constitutional Hypocrisy
Millions of Americans are politically informed, smart, active and angry. They see many wrongs in our political and government system. They are fed up with politics as usual, meaning corrosive corruption of politicians by corporate and other special interests. They see little good in either the Democrat or Republican parties. And they almost always share a common bond: They love and honor the US Constitution, even though they may see some flaws in it. Yet they are also constitutional hypocrites.
Why do I say this? Because Americans are overwhelmingly ignorant or misinformed about the constitutional paths for amending the Constitution. Too many, in fact, seem to miss the profoundly important point that the Founders and Framers knew that they had not created a perfect document and blueprint for the US. That is why they placed two specific paths for amending the Constitution.
But very few Americans know that only one of these amendment mechanisms has been used in the entire history of the country. All the current amendments were proposed by Congress. This should raise this serious question today: Considering the very low regard for Congress by the overwhelming majority of Americans, which is richly deserved, why should we have any confidence that Congress would ever propose amendments that could kill so much of the corruption that plagues our system, especially corruption of members of Congress?
This situation was somehow anticipated by the Framers. They could see that there was a strong possibility that Americans would eventually lose confidence in the federal government. Which is why they put a second path to amending the Constitution into the document. A path that has never been used. This is the provision in Article V for a convention of state delegates that could propose amendments, which like the proposals from Congress would still have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
Being human, the Framers made a mistake. They gave Congress the sole power to call or convene an Article V convention. The single explicit requirement that was supposed to make Congress call a convention was that two-thirds of state legislatures had to request an Article V convention. The Framers did not, apparently, envision a future in which Congress would stubbornly ignore state applications for a convention and get away with it, despite language that demands that Congress “shall” call a convention when one simple requirement is met. How could they envision that Congress would blatantly disobey something so simply stated in the Constitution? How could they anticipate such weak states, unwilling to make Congress respect their constitutional right? The Framers clearly were not cynical enough.
The situation we face today is that all 50 states have submitted over 750 applications for a convention, considerably more than enough to trigger the constitutional mandate that Congress convene an Article V convention. How could Congress get away with this kind of unconstitutional behavior? Apparently, a combination of political corruption and public ignorance has allowed Congress to get away with this. Even among the millions of Americans that proudly declare their loyal allegiance to the Constitution, there is no recognition that unless they demand that Congress obey Article V, they are constitutional hypocrites. Congress has no right to unilaterally decide that it can ignore and disobey a part of the Constitution.
Note that Congress never even created a mechanism where they would collect in a public way the state applications for an Article V convention, which helped create public ignorance of this situation. Add to this that many, many organized vested interests on the left and right like their ability to corrupt Congress to get what they want from it. This is why they have frequently mounted campaigns to make the public fear a convention, because such a convention might actually propose reforms that would remove corruption of Congress by contributing money for campaigns and pursuing lobbying.
Ignorance and fear have combined to thwart public demands that Congress obey the Constitution and convene the first Article V convention. In fact, there is only one national, nonpartisan organization vainly attempting to educate the public so that Congress would be forced to finally give us the first Article V convention. Friends of the Article V Convention at foavc.org is also the only group that has collected state applications for a convention and made them publicly available.
Their efforts may be working. A new online survey asked this: Based on your assessment of American politics, would you support or oppose a call for a Constitutional Convention? Supporters won easily at 65 percent.
It comes down to this, unless you get informed and join the mission to make Congress obey the Constitution, you are a constitutional hypocrite, not what the nation needs.
Wow, I never knew this. This would be unbelievable; something truly paradigm-shattering in modern times. If this got serious support by the people it would have to happen. In a strange way it would bring people from all political backgrounds together. Of course then it would turn into a circus.
Posted by: Mike Falino at October 13, 2009 05:06 PMI’ve been itchy all day, and I couldn’t figure out, but now I’ve got it!
It was past due for Joel to copy-and-paste the same article he’s posted a dozen times before! I didn’t realize how much I was missing all of the replies pointing out his mislogic and his refusal to incorporate the contrary information in his belief.
Oh, it feels so much better to have this redundant article on the site.
Ahhhhhh…..
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 13, 2009 05:12 PMLawnBoy, I’d be interested to know what you are talking about so I don’t start believing something that is wrong. If you have something refuting this—which it sounds like you do—please provide the info.
Posted by: Mike Falino at October 13, 2009 05:40 PMI will second Mike Falino’s request to Lawnboy.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 13, 2009 06:41 PMMikeF, look in the archive in the green column for numerous threads arguing this same thing. . The basic idea is that since IL, for example, wanted a constituti9onal amendment to ban plural marriage 100 years ago, and other states wanted other things over the years, there should be a constitutional convention.
Posted by: ohrealy at October 13, 2009 06:43 PMBut is a constitutional convention something that can happen? If so, who is in charge of making it happen? Is it not another part of redressing of grievances?
Posted by: Mike Falino at October 13, 2009 06:45 PMBut is a constitutional convention something that can happen?
Maybe a convention would happen if 34 applications arrived during a single two year session of Congress. As far as I know, that hasn’t happened. Although the Constitution does not explicitly require this, many people think these are implied.
Instead, advocacy groups cite lists of expired applications over a century old including many obsolete ones. For example, a convention of this nature almost happened a century ago. Proposals to amend the Constitution to allow direct election of Senators had passed the House of Representatives year after year, only to falter in the Senate, where Senators were weary of the thought of standing for election. States began to petition Congress for a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution to allow for the direct election of Senators. They were only a few states away from mandating a convention when the Senate finally buckled under the political pressure and approved what we now call the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Posted by: Warped Reality at October 13, 2009 08:38 PMI’ve been itchy all day, and I couldn’t figure out, but now I’ve got it!
Best line, made me LOL. However, this could be a flea problem, given your attachment to lawns.
Posted by: gergle at October 13, 2009 08:55 PMI support an AVC and it appears about 65% do so according to the poll on “this link. There are about 150 naysayers but I believe they are misguided in their opinions. Most think that opening up to a constitutional convention would be opening up pandora’s box. The requirement that 3/4’s of the states has to ratify a proposal would seem to me to be a great santity check. Frivilous or ill conceived proposals would not get to first base IMO.
Some time ago I posted a copy of Sen. John Warner’s and Eric Cantor’s reply to my request as to whether they supported AVC. Warner, who represented the government in a Supreme Court case re AVC, stated something like - the government has never found AVC to be useful or something like that. Cantor said that the AVC was a method wherby the state could, with 3/4 ratification, submit an amendment to congress. I can drag them out and reprint them if anyone is interested.
While I support AVC and VOID, and am hopeful something will come from those efforts, I think a third party that can put accountability for politicians in the political equation is a more likely candidate for reform.
http://patterico.com/2009/10/07/should-we-have-a-constitutional-convention/
Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 13, 2009 08:55 PMi agree, we’ve regressed as a society to such an infantile level we don’t even deserve the responsibility of such a thing!
Posted by: Mike Falino at October 13, 2009 09:09 PMMike and Flush,
As someone else said, check out Joel’s articles. He wrote the same essential article in May, twice in March, and in February.
And that’s five articles just this year! Amazingly, he’s slowing down. He wrote eight articles on Article V last year as well.
Thirteen articles making the same point with no acknowledgment of the same substantial counterarguments made every single time.
It gets a bit boring.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 13, 2009 09:15 PMI really don’t care. I just wanted to know the long and short of it, and I did.
Posted by: Mike Falino at October 13, 2009 09:19 PMlawnboy, many say the same of health care reform. That issue has been written about in the media for more than half a century. And now, after the topic’s many resurgent discussions since Teddy Roosevelt called for universal health care coverage, it may just come to pass.
Article V is an issue that by its unlawful disregard and active ignoring by Congress, will not go away, until the nation addresses it, same as national health care reform.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 14, 2009 02:41 AMThanks David for pointing out the analogy with historic attempts to get health care reform. In fact, there are more similarities. In both the health care reform and Article V convention issue corruption of the political system, especially Congress prevailed. This corruption has everything to do with money: namely the huge return on investment from money spent by corporate and other special interests on campaign contributions and lobbying. Obviously, the health insurance industry fights real reforms. Similarly, all kinds of special interests fear a constitutional amendment that could remove big money from politics, which would force members of Congress to actually serve the public interest. Congress also fears term limits and other real reforms.
Posted by: Joel Hirschhorn at October 14, 2009 09:23 AMReading material for those interested: http://www.initiativesamendment.org/crs1995durbin.htm
Posted by: ohrealy at October 14, 2009 10:48 AMSo I surmise that because no convention has occured, that Joel should stop pursuing this? That seems to be a very narrow view. Joel, I appreciate your efforts and knowledge regarding the AVC, however I think that you are severely limiting your chances of success posting on WB and sites of this nature. I think that what needs to be done is to get this out to more people that are not particularly politically active. Perhaps a more more easlily identifiable action page on your FOAVC website. Organizing letter writing campaigns, email blasts to your members these things may well heighten awareness of your issue.
Posted by: Jaytea at October 14, 2009 12:31 PMDear Jaytea: I appreciate your comments. In fact, I copublish articles like this on a very broad array of web publications to reach a large audience. But, sadly, it really is very difficult to energize people to take the convention issue seriously. Remember that clever politicians like Obama tap into the public desire for change and reform, though, in my opinion, he is mostly like other politicians and serves the two-party plutocracy and various corporate interests. Our message is that simply voting within this corrupt system will never produce the deep reforms that are sorely needed. Time to use what the Founders and Framers gave us!!! Hope you become a member of FOAVC.
Posted by: Joel Hirschhorn at October 14, 2009 01:38 PMSo what’s the endgame Joel? What grand good are the states going to do with all this power if they had it. I see no upside to people having more say - like organized disciples of Rush, or Sharpton - you may despise the people more than the politicians depending on who they are. The congress is not the problem. The methodical calculated destruction of a free thinking main stream media is the problem.
Posted by: Schwamp at October 14, 2009 03:57 PMJoel: superb exposition. I count myself reasonably well-informed, but this is news to me, I’m embarrassed to say. Thank you for something genuinely new.
Posted by: Jonathan Rice at October 14, 2009 10:00 PMThank you for such a detailed article in explaining our constitutional rights. I am running my campaign on protecting our constitutional rights but was not aware of the detail of Article V. I support a constitutional convention with two objectives; 1) Term limits and 2) Congress can no longer use the Social Security Trust fund as part of general revenue. Any future use of the SS fund will require two-thirds vote of both houses and two-thirds vote of the state governors. I will look up this organization and sign the petition for a constitutional convention as well as make it part of my campaign.
Respectfully,
Andrew “Cas” Castanuela
Candidate for U.S. Senate
Joel,
Why I hope that you keep up you call, I hope that you and others will realize that the best way to deal with the “Idiots in Charge” is to show them that a better mouse trap does exist.
Take healthcare for example; Today, you are suppose to go to the doctor and have them test you to find out what is wrong; however, show the AMA that tomorrows consumer can walk in to the doctor office with the knowledge of what is wrong and the options of treatment available to them and the whole system is turned on its head. For why should a doctor run tests or go through a bunch of defensive medicine procedures just to discover what a Professional should already know.
Doesn’t a broken arm look and feel the same way it did 100 years ago before they had x-rays? Now true the x-ray helps define what type of break it is, but other than giving the doctor a peace of mind. What good does the x-ray do for the patient? Especially since today most doctors let only the patients know how to read an x-ray and it does nothing to promote the healing of the bone.
Just remember “We the People” have an Ignorant Team of Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders for a reason. My Question to All is go you have enough Common Sense and Common Knowledge to understand that Government and Society can and IMHO must do better. For I am still looking for the Expert who can show President Obama, Congress, and the World Leaders how to build a Sustainable Economy and replace Fossil Fuel as the primary resource of Energy.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 15, 2009 12:43 AMAndrew,
You do realize that if a constitutional convention comes to pass, it won’t be targeted to adding a couple of things you want. That is best used by going through an amendment process.
No, a convention will basically scrap the whole constitution and start over from scratch. And the way people are duped into thinking that their rights are given to them by the government, not that they exist unless they allow the government to violate them, I am pretty sure the American ideal of individual freedom would be a thing of the past…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 15, 2009 12:59 AMDoesn’t a broken arm look and feel the same way it did 100 years ago before they had x-rays? Now true the x-ray helps define what type of break it is, but other than giving the doctor a peace of mind. What good does the x-ray do for the patient? Especially since today most doctors let only the patients know how to read an x-ray and it does nothing to promote the healing of the bone.
Err, you realize that the xray is necessary to determine if the bone can be healed by a simple cast or if screws are necessary in order to allow it to heal correctly. To ensure that bone fragments are not broken off and pinching into blood vessels that could later lead to internal bleeding. etc…
I’m sorry, Henry, but I am one of the biggest proponents of self-healing and homeopathy there is, but a broken bone needs someone with some training to look at it to avoid potentially dangerous situations…
It would be like me saying, like in one of my lines of work, any old fool can set up an Active Directory and Exchange environment on a 3-node cluster…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 15, 2009 01:17 AMI think the problem with AVC is that not enough people care. The only reason to get people to care about this issue is to link it with something the majority of people feel should be an amendment. After all, although it was written in our law of the land, the fathers never heavily intended for this to be used. They believed that if it got to this point that chances are it was time to replace the government again, and through out the law of the land.
Posted by: kudos at October 15, 2009 04:09 AMRhinehold,
Long before the x-ray machine Americans and pther citizens bones healed by their doctor being smart enough to figure the problem out through touch. And why I agree that given the use of an x-ray machine even I would take advantage of the information.
Nevertheless, I walk up to you and tell you to fix my arm which I think is broken. Well, according to the standards today I pay you for an office visit, go to the hospital and pay for the x-ray and hospital visit, than wait until the tech reads the x-ray which I have to pay for and return to your office only to pay for another visit to get the results. And still you have done nothing to help fix my broken arm, but instead charge me for putting on the cast. So why is it that the patient has to pay all those bills and not the doctors. Is it due to the lack of education today’s medical staff recieve?
Would you bring your car to me if I told you that you first had to go to the dealership in order to find out what is wrong and than return to me so I can fix it? For when it comes down to the nitty gritty, is the x-ray for the patient or so the doctor does not get sued because he/she cannot tell the difference between a simple break and a compound fraxture. Since I can almost guess what your answer is to bringing your car to me to get repaired.
Posted by: Henry Schlarman at October 15, 2009 08:47 AMI am always amazed at the same delusional or stupid or just plain ignorant responses to my articles trying to inform and inspire Americans to support using the Article V convention option.
As cynical as I am, I still know that there are many millions of smart, honest and informed Americans that could make wonderful delegates to an Article V convention. It is one thing to have a very negative view of politicians and quite another to have no confidence that really intelligent, decent citizens could perform wonderfully as convention delegates.
The anti-convention, pro-corruption forces have always spread the idea that a convention could destroy our present Constitution. This is dead wrong. First, the language in Article V clearly limits convention proposals to amendments. Second, whatever a convention proposes must be ratified by three-quarters of the states - a very high hurdle to clear.
I always remind people to think of the convention option this way: Whatever the risks you see in a convention, compare them to the risks and pain of sticking with the current, corrupt political system that continues to destroy our nation. There is much more to lose in sticking with the current system; I would rather try the convention approach and hope that some important reforms could be proposed. Just imagine the national debate with the very first Article V convention!!!
Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at October 15, 2009 09:07 AMIf I and some friends are any example, there are many millions of smart, honest and informed Americans who oppose an Article V convention, at least until the conditions are met.
Posted by: womanmarine at October 15, 2009 09:27 AMAgree with Joel’s assessment. How many amendments adopted by the various states have been frivilous are worked against the Constitution or were just bad ideas?
I think Congress gets away with more bad law today than AVC ever could. Yesterday, on cspan, an inquisitive congress lady asked who put the words into a bill, covering pensions and other issues, stating that the government would not regulate exec pay within AIG. Answer was, Senator Dodd. Same guy who was caught in a lie regarding financials about six months ago. The Congresslady was flabbergasted, for about a second. Today, we are hearing that bonuses paid out this year will be increased over that paid out last year. Not bad pay considering the economy.
IMO, the Corpocracy would be absolute fools to allow AVC and they aren’t fools.
But, it could be done. People can vote out enough incumbents to weaken the Corpocracy. People could say “I won’t vote for you unless you agree to support AVC”. Unlikely based on the historical re-election rate for incumbents.
Seems we will forever walk around, lost in the forest, each crying out for some niche solution to this or that problem. People are joined in groups to advocate for abolishment of corporate personhood, or tax reform, or term limits, or etc.
IMO, the most acceptable path to broad reform of government is a well planned third party with a different political attitude. Otherwise, we will continue to bump along with flash in the pan efforts like Perot or the next fair haired spokesman for the duopoly.
Sorry Joel, but you are being very nieve here. If a constitutional convention were called, the amendments introduced could overrite and wipe out any existing word, line, phrase, article, etc in the constitution.
For example, I’m pretty sure that there would be support for a national religion, over 70% of the people in the US support that. And you can kiss any pretense to gun rights away. How about the right to privacy that gives us protection from laws regarding abortion? That would be a huge and very ugly fight that might push us to civil war…
But there is a part of this whole thing that I find interesting. You say that there are these smart people who could go to washington on the citizens’ behalf and introduce/vote on these amendments. Why not just elect THEM to congress? Remember, originally the states appointed the senators, they were not elected. So a way of getting direct representation involved may have been a needed thing. But now? What makes you think that the people of a state would elect a good representative in the constitutional convention when they obviously fail to do so in the elections that are held every 2 or 6 years for their existing representatives?
There are so many other things that could be done that make more sense, have more of an impact and mesh with reality much better than trying to force a constitutional convention into being. It just seems a shame to be wasting your time on such an endeavor.
But, again, who am I to say, if none of that logic fails in your mind then by all means, keep up the hard work!
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 15, 2009 12:45 PM“Congress also fears term limits and other real reforms.”
Posted by: Joel Hirschhorn at October 14, 2009 09:23 AM
House Resolution 554 which would require that all “non-emergency” legislation be posted on the Internet for 72 hours before being considered on the house floor currently has 182 signers with 36 more needed to pass.
I believe President Obama argued in favor of such legislation during the campaign.
I need help here from my liberal and Democrat friends to understand why only 6 Dems have so far signed this resolution.
Being a newcomer to Watchblog of only a few months I can only observe over a short period the number of calls for “power to the people” made by dems and liberals which have been numerous. Now, when the opportunity to allow the people to read, in advance, legislation that will affect them, we have only 6 dems in the house putting their signature on this resolution.
It seems to me that dems in congress, as well as those writing on this blog, are unwilling to back up their words with real deeds.
I also wonder why anyone would believe that an Aricle V convention would be populated by representatives any different than we already “enjoy” in congress.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2009 01:16 PMPS…for those interested in finding out where their representative stands on this you can go to:
www.wethepeoplecanread.org.
Here, you will find a state by state listing of every house member and where they currently stand on this resolution HR 554.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2009 01:20 PMDear Royal Flush: I have written a book Delusional Democracy and countless articles making the case against the corrupt two-party plutocracy. Those of us writing on the third party/independent column typically having nothing nice to say about Democrats, especially those in Congress. What you are advocating clearly would undermine the corrupt Congress. Your view that equally repulsive people would be delegates to an Article V convention has no basis and just reveals your cynicism, so let me say again that you should see the choice between staying with the current corrupt, dysfunctional system versus at least trying the convention route, which the Founders/Framers had the good sense to give us.
Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at October 15, 2009 04:32 PMJoel…you are correct, I am a cynic. I have no reason not to be having witnessed over my 68 years a definite dumbing down (and greeding up) of Americans. When I read that nearly one half of American’s pay no income taxes, and many paying no taxes actually receive a refund, how could I be optimistic? Half of our voting population contribute nothing and expect everything. A convention could make things much worse, not better. Common sense doesn’t prevail now, and I refuse to believe it would prevail in an Article V setting.
When a majority of voting American’s once again display some understanding of our Republic and appreciation of our founders wisdom, perhaps then I will change my mind.
Keep in mind the thinking of the writers of some of the posts you read on this blog. Would you want some of these folks selected as representatives in an Article V convention?
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2009 04:48 PMYour view that equally repulsive people would be delegates to an Article V convention has no basis and just reveals your cynicism
Joel,
Sorry but the basis is observable fact and logic. YOUR view that the best and brightest would be delegates to an Article V convention (which would have SO MUCH POWER hanging out there for people, special interests and PACs to attempt to gain hold of) when they aren’t the ones running for either house of representation that we have now is the one that has no basis, no matter how many delusional books books on Delusional Democracy you have written.
Do you have any evidence, logic or observable facts that you can present to back up your assertion? Because I have plenty on my side, every two years…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 15, 2009 10:19 PMRoyal Flush,
You do know that bills are posted on Thomas before being voted upon right?
HR 554 is waste of government money because it duplicates a service that is already being provided by the Library of Congress.
Posted by: Warped Reality at October 15, 2009 11:07 PMThe problem is that the starting point of this discussion is totally wrong. For such a discussion to carry weight, it should start by clearly stating what constitutional changes should be made. Then move on to building public support for those changes. Only after establishing a goal and building a majority consensus for it, should one call for a constitutional convention.
Otherwise it’s like saying that a patient is sick and must be given surgery. If you’re feeling under the weather, you don’t want a doctor to take out his scalpel and just start removing and transplanting organs at random without a clear idea of what the problem is. Such an approach is likely to cause even bigger problems than you started with.
Posted by: Paul at October 15, 2009 11:23 PMI would say the starter is that AVC is a Constitutional right.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 16, 2009 09:58 AMWell Warped…why then have there been repeated calls, even by the president, to put these bills on the internet for at least 72 hours before the vote? Thomas has been around a long time.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2009 03:17 PMIf I remember, Barack Obama’s campaign pledge was not only to post bills online, but to create a discussion forum where voters can provide their input. Voter’s comets would appear right under every single line of every bill. I don’t know why the President has not done anything to implement this. These sorts of transparency promises are what persuaded me and many other voters to vote for him. I still support him, but my patience is wearing thin. By now, Barack Obama should have ended DADT and eliminated Bush’s warrant-less wiretap program. He also should have encouraged Congress to at least debate and study the possibility of a single-payer health insurance program, instead we will be left with at best a watered down public option that will only be available to a portion of the populace, while at the same time vastly expanding private health insurance through personal mandates. I remember personal mandates being one of the few key differences between Obama’s healthful plan and Clinton’s, but apparently that is no longer the case.
Posted by: Warped Reality at October 16, 2009 04:11 PMThe House version of the stimulus required use of e-verify for all employment created by government funds. But in conference with the Senate this week, the requirement disappeared. Just disappeared!
also,
From AP we hear that Raj Rajaratnam, portfolio mgr for Galleon Grp with $7B assets under his management has been accused of insider trading.
According to the Federal Election Commission, he is a generous contributor to Democratic candidates and causes. The FEC said he made over $87,000 in contributions to President Barack Obama’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee and various campaigns on behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer and New Jersey U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez in the past five years. The Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, said he has given a total of $118,000 since 2004 — all but one contribution, for $5,000, to Democrats.
Makes one yearn for AVC, VOID and a third party with a different political attitude.
Roy Ellis
The vary fact that A big time Dem contributer got busted under a Dem administration is a GOOD sign. Bush 2 would have made him an ambassador.
Warped
Thanks for the Thomas link. A lot of people just like to complain. I guess feeling outraged gives them the feeling of being on the moral high ground without having to actually do the work involved in studying issues to come to conclusions.
This administration is certainly the most open we have had for a long time. I am with you on single-payer and hope the final version allows states to pursue it. Congress is at least as much to blame for the lack of debate as the President.
From the NY Times;
“WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday backed away from an order that had prohibited insurance companies from warning Medicare recipients about the possible loss of benefits under pending legislation to overhaul the health care system.”
That was the decent and honorable thing to do.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2009 03:08 PMWho calls a convention? The states. They will be the ones who have to bargain this thing out.
What if most of them don’t really want it? Problem! Problem is immediately solved if you don’t call one until you have all of the actual proportion in agreement at the same time. Then there’s no question, no ambiguity.
The constitution is an agreement between the states, what makes us the United States. This is their charter, their document that talks about how this government over these United States will work.
The high threshold protects the states from minorities and small majorities that would otherwise have the power to revise the constitution, the agreement between the states, to suit their particular interests, rather than the general interests of the country, which is what the Federal government is supposed to take care of.
Now you’re saying, the ratification protects those interests, right? Well, the trouble is, if there isn’t a sunset clause attached to an amendment, it doesn’t. And there’s nothing in the constitution that requires that any of the amendments have one.
We created a Democracy in this country with the notion that the people of today should rule themselves, that our government could change to match the needs of today. To give that the greatest potency and meaning, we must interpret the constitution with a mind towards that sovereignty in immediate time.
At the same time, the constitution plainly lays out that there are certain changes which require greater political unity and consensus than others.
The cumulative standard places greater importance on the will of dead men, defunct legislatures, than on the current stewards of the state governments. This should be seen as plainly wrong, as those are not the states legislatures who would be sending the delegates to today’s conventions. It would be those state legislatures whose opinion the cumulative standard supporters roundly ignore as casting the crucial votes.
As it is they who are now elected to speak for their states, it should be their voices that call the convention, not those of the dead and those no longer in office. If they cannot agree in the proper proportion that it is necessary, then the convention should not be called, in fact must not be called.
It would be a travesty. It would be the disenfranchisement of the current state governments. And why? Because certain advocates do not have the patience to push and advocate the huge consensus required to do this otherwise.
But the whole point of that provision is to make sure that all the proposals and conventions without that level of support never even reach the proposal stage. It’s supposed to be this difficult, and it’s supposed to happen on purpose when it does happen. This is a decision by the states that must be made together for it to have meaning.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2009 07:40 PMAs with so many things, tax policy, healthcare, term limits, immigration, abolishment corporate personhood and money is free speech, it seems a moot point to belabour AVC procedure. Until Congress and the Supreme Court change their position the only possible way for an AVC to happen would be through a third party with a different political attitude. You would first have to load up congress with folks sworn to pursue AVC. Then you would have a fighting chance for AVC. Irony is that with a strong third party with a different political attitude you really wouldn’t need AVC as the party would carry out way more reforms way more quickly than AVC could ever hope to by single threading proposals through a convention process. But, why not put a nickel on both. Every AVC suggestion someone can come up with let’s also include it in a the agenda of a third party with a different attitude. Gofer a twofer, so to speak.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 20, 2009 03:22 PMRoy Ellis-
You know what I think? Let’s see what we can do with statutory changes, first. A lot of these supposed problems people talk about reflect either cultural problems like corruption, which laws, much less constitutional amendments, cannot necessarily solve, or people’s unwillingness to let their rational minds hold sway so they can see that many of their politicians are just stampeding them towards certain ideological positions.
In my opinion, the conservative thing to do is not to change the constitution until the specific need is made clear. Otherwise, you probably have the authority under the constitution to legislate what you need out of Congress.
Too many Amendments folks try to propose are all about hot-button issues where people simply want to slap down the courts about something. Or you have balanced budget Amendments, which are not necessarily a panacea for fiscal problems for financial crises, as many states are discovering now.
Ultimately, we have got to understand the Constitution for what it is: an agreement, not a partisan plaything. It’s what establishes the ground rules for what the powers of the majority are and the rights of the minorities and the individual as well.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2009 09:04 PMcheap ugg boots
Ugg Amelie Suede Sandals
Cheap Ugg boots, They look beautiful on my wifes feet. I bought them in pink, white and black. Ugg boots on sale in this nice ugg store, i got it, i like discount, also free shipping!
Share more uggs boots on sale on http://www.buddyugg.com Posted by: rose at November 10, 2009 07:59 AMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
