Third Party & Independents Archives

Another War On The Horizon

The primary mission of the Republic Sentry Party is to work for the abolishment of Corporate Personhood. We believe that before we can proceed as nation we must right some wrongs. Few would argue that we are now governed by ‘Corpocracy’, by the best government money can buy. Corporate Personhood has rendered our congress and courts irrelevant to the citizenry.

Please read this article thoroughly, debate the issue here and with friends, post it on blogsites and help in the effort to make the public aware of the coming battle to abolish Corporate Personhood law. In that endeavor we believe there are two possible paths to overturning this law. It will require the congress acquiese to Article V Convention whereby ratification by the states of a proposal to abolish Corporate Personhood would amend the Constitution to do so. Another path is through a strong third-party movement that could gain influence in congress and press the Supreme Court to abolish Corporate Personhood.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve….

Posted by Roy Ellis at July 27, 2010 1:31 PM
Comments
Comment #304635


Another progressive fighting the cause and if you google william myers corporate personhood it will lead to a whole gagle of other progressive sights that are fighting against corporate personhood.

Posted by: jlw at July 27, 2010 3:12 PM
Comment #304637

jlw, did you read the part where unions have shied away from the Courts re Corporate Personhood?

Referring to the article; for example: money exchange houses in Mexico have been determined to be laundering drug money through Wachovia banks. Investigators broke the case by following the trail of money used to purchase jet planes for druggie use. Several banks have previously been caught, fined, and told not to do it again. None have been prosecuted as that would require the FED to revoke their CHARTER. So, Wachovia and other banks are sort of included in the ‘too big to fail’ category.
I hope none are so naïve to think that the FED doesn’t know how and where the drug money is flowing. The Corpocracy, aware of the thousands of killings, heads rolling around, shooting up anything that moves, is so greedy they can’t close the border and give up the $100B/yearly fueling the drug trade. Also, they can’t reneg on WTO agreements on open borders and binding regulations against impeding the movement of workers around the world.
Are you aware of any Charters being revoked lately? Do you believe the Corpocracy, your government, is in the drug business?

Otherwise - - —

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 27, 2010 4:24 PM
Comment #304640

34 states. Your intentions might be good, your cause may be just, but the constitution says that 2/3rds of the states must apply for it, and the Federalist papers indicate that the Framers meant this to be done altogether.

But for a single amendment? 2/3rds, both houses. Same proportion, same result, same effect on ratification.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 27, 2010 4:34 PM
Comment #304655


Yup, screwed the AVC part up pretty well. Here is a url and excerpt that does a better job explaining the process.

AVC.http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm\

“First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date.

Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention’s proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.”

A 3rd party approach would seem to be more expedient. And, no reason a parallel effort couldn’t be launched, first horse to the finish line wins, etc.


Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 27, 2010 7:28 PM
Comment #304682

Ok, another contentious debate here. Tomorrow, I’m going to take up a more serious issue having international interest, an article on Ladie GoGo.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 28, 2010 10:04 AM
Comment #304689

Roy, unless you want others to squeeze your article off the top of the front page within hours of posting it, I recommend you move your second paragraph to the “Continue Reading”…extended section box.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 28, 2010 12:21 PM
Comment #304691

Roy said: “A 3rd party approach would seem to be more expedient.”

That is naive. A 3rd Party, even if they could get a majority in Congress, could not overturn Supreme Court rulings, Roy. The Constitutional Convention or Amendment process are the only avenues in this regard.

I frankly don’t see any third party with the resources exceeding those of Ross Perot or the Libertarian or Green Party to assert themselves into the seats of our Congress. And Ross Perot, the Lib. and Green Parties, are an exercise in political futility as far as gaining influence and control in Congress, are concerned. Third parties are marginally effective in raising public awareness of political issues, not in taking power away from the duopoly Party which controls the election apparatus and prevents third parties from ever being competitors.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 28, 2010 12:29 PM
Comment #304694

one other option could be all the third party officials getting together and forming a single voting block as is done in other countries such as Australia and Germany…parliamentary systems but the idea is the same…similar interests and similar goals could possibly make a substantial voting block since independents are the fastest growing political block

Posted by: john in napa at July 28, 2010 1:06 PM
Comment #304700

john in napa, I tried exactly that kind of cooperation and coordination amongst third parties a couple years ago. They all agreed the idea had merit, but, none were willing to spend any time at all on such an effort. They are, after all, political parties which are by definition, self-serving.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 28, 2010 3:20 PM
Comment #304718

john in napa, seem an idea worth trying. I agree with David that trying to get 3rd parties to merge their resources is futile. But, pulling them together for a block vote on a hob button issue like Corporate Personhood might have some merit.

But, that would mean candidates from these parties would have to run and be elected to congress in numbers sufficient to challenge the courts on corporate personhood.

Nader is the only party with any clout with an agenda to abolish corporate personhood. His party could be the flag bearer.

As I’ve tried to make the case, to achieve reform and KEEP it we have to have a unique 3rd party. Allow members to serve as oversight for their elected offficials and established in rules to prevent the party from being co=opted by special interest, and an internal voting process whereby elected/appointed members who do not support the party’s agenda can be voted out, rejected from the party.

I’ll try to contact Nader or his party and feel them out.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 28, 2010 6:48 PM
Comment #304721

I am of the view that the rallyiing point for third parties is the use of a mix of winner-take-all and winner-doesn’t-take-all elections in state legislative elections or city council elections.

This is what I call, “Strategic election reform”. It relies on “American Proportional Representation”: the simplest form of PR that helps 3rd parties and works just like most US political elections. See:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/n/ankotp/2010/07/god-bless-american-proportiona.php?ref=reccafe

It’s political jujitsu that advances third parties, while retaining effective two party rule, but neither party will dominate a state’s politics and the political center will be moved considerably by 3rd parties and $peech will get blunted considerably on many fronts.

We can blunt corporate rule indirectly via strategic election reform that will expedite all sorts of other much needed reforms.
dlw

Posted by: dlw at July 28, 2010 7:12 PM
Comment #304744

dlw, I spent about half an hour on Proportional Representation and I came away without a clear view.

Beyond that, the duopoly might make a fringe change relative to the elective process but nothing major. Also, if something is proposed that the people don’t undestand well they are not likely to give support.

Briefly looked at Nader’s site and down about number 100 in a list of ‘to do’s’ he has this bullet on Corporate Personhood.
“Whether we think in terms of justice under law or equal protection of the laws, it is untenable that artificial entities called corporations are given most of the constitutional rights of real humans while aggregating powers, privileges, and immunities that individuals, no matter how wealthy, could never come close to attaining The primacy of civic values, rooted in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, must become our common objective for the common good.”

IMO the list is way way to long and contains numerous hot button social issues. Something for everybody to be against.

Like the ‘great recesssion’, Corporate Personhood is at the frontal lobe of everybody’s brain and ready to spill off the tongue at the least provocation. IMO, if broached on the subject, most people could believe that Corporate Personhood was wrongly passed into law and is the linchpin of the Corpocracy, special interst, money influence and all that.

It would seem that if we present a centrist party with the abolishment of Corporate Personhood as the main mission, leaving out the hot button social issues, that would appeal to folks. A party designed to work toward the abolishment of Corporate Personhood. People must realize that until Corporate Personhood is abolished we are stuck with the Corpocracy, best gov’t money can buy, status quo congress, fake elections and the like. We can never hope to see REAL campaign finance reform or anything more than fringe change.

A 3rd Party is the only path to reform unless congress and the courts cave in Article V Convention.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 28, 2010 10:14 PM
Comment #304747

Many local governments have passed laws against corporate personhood. Laws that deny the corporation the ability to go into court and challenge local ordinances that restrict the corporation in question. Perhaps they recognize that corporate personhood is a figment of this country’s imagination. No law has been passed granting corporations citizenship. The supreme court has been using the word of a clerk in it’s decisions with regards to corporate personhood. Perhaps we should educate the public on our ability to impeach supreme court justices.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 28, 2010 11:04 PM
Comment #304787

Weary Willie, yes, the information on Reclaim Democracy relates how the opposition to Corporate Personhood is growing. I’ve watched as their organization has grown bigtime over the last couple of years. On it’s face, it’s just amazing that our entire government, the Republic has been brought under the control of the elites based solely on some penned words on the edge of a paper by a clerk of the court. Yet, here we are, people walking up and down the street, driving around, like nothing to be bothered about. What would the Founder’s think of that? If I could just find one or two people two go with me I’d be in the streets every day. I’ve not been able to get over that feeling of being out there, waving signs like abolish this or that by myself. We voters, we caretakers of the Republic, should be ashamed, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 29, 2010 11:23 AM
Comment #304842
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your intentions might be good, your cause may be just, but the constitution says that 2/3rds of the states must apply for it, and the Federalist papers indicate that the Framers meant this to be done altogether.
That’s a blatant lie, and no amount of circular, prolific gobbledygook will change that, because there is nothing about same-issue requirements or expiration time-limits on Article V applications anywhere in the Federalist papers, or Article V, or any law, or any court case.

If there is, then please show it to us.
Please show us exactly what pages and words support a same-subject requirement, or expiration time-limits on Article V applications? Good luck!

And please don’t submit more circular, nebulous, prolific gobbledygook, and another silly pretzel immitation to somehow try to obscure the facts, cloud the issues, and try to salvage a failing argument. Ain’t that hole dug deep enough already?

The 143 words of the single sentence of Article are very clear:

    Article V of the U.S. Constitution: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight 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 the Article V, or the federalist papers, or anywhere, are there any same subject, or simultaneous requirements?

All 50 states have already submitted hundreds of Article V applications.

At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress for perpetuating these 10 abuses with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2010 10:37 PM
Comment #304849


Go to ReclaimDemocracy.org.

Scroll down to taking action.

Click on Move to Amend.

Scroll down to list of organizations involved, Steering Committed, Key Partners, Endorsers.

Do you see any centrist or conservative groups listed?

I am sure the progressives (the left) that have been carrying this fight for years would welcome the centrist, that have helped create the corpocracy, to switch sides and join us as friends and partners, but not as usurpers.

Human rights VS individual rights is the game plan of the corpocracy to again end this anti-corpocracy, anti-corporate personhood, anti-corporation nonsense.

A broad interpretation of individual rights equals human rights.

A narrow interpretation of individual rights equals rule by wealth.

If centrists join forces with progressive on the issue of corporate personhood, we can be successful without a third party and I suspect we can then find common ground on other issues. Of course, the right wants the centrists to continue to support them as they have been doing since Reagan.

Posted by: jlw at July 30, 2010 12:49 AM
Comment #304858

d.a.n, you are quite right in to denounce Stephen Daugherty’s comment: “Federalist papers indicate that the Framers meant this to be done altogether.”

The Federalist papers ARE NOT The Law of the Land. We are a nation of laws, and what is stated in the law is what must guide our nation’s actions. There is NO provision in the Constitution or court precedent stipulating that the State’s petitions for an Article V convention must be concurrent. NONE! NADA! That is the truth and fact as you correctly point out.

If Stephen wants to try to argue the Federalist papers should be a substitute for the Constitution and law, it is an argument without currency. Federalist 1 argues for an EFFICIENT government, reflecting and incredible bias and prejudice in direct opposition to what the Constitution set forth, which was an INEFFICIENT government in all matters save for War. Actually the Anti-Federalist papers argued for the more efficient, and despotic form of government.

The greatest argument against the Federalist papers substituting for the U.S. Constitution they called forth however, are the lesser known Anti_Federalist Papers. The Constitution ended forever the debate between the authors of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, with adoption of the Constitution which favored the Federalist Papers prescriptions predominantly, but, by no means, entirely. The historical fact remains, that neither the Federalist nor Anti-Federalist papers were adopted as written as the law of the land. The Constitution was, reflecting agreements and compromises which would achieve sufficient Convention votes to be accepted and ratified by the States, and that Constitution DOES NOT call for concurrency of state petitions for Article V invocation.

In fact, travel time and communication inefficiencies combined with all manner of differences in scheduling of State Legislature party time sessions, some occurring only every 2 years, and staggered amongst the various States, PRECLUDED concurrency of State petitions. Concurrency was not even POSSIBLE in their day.

Stephen D. has been told all this before, but, he refuses to discard his Sgt. Schultz blinders (Hogan’s Hero’s), apparently.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 30, 2010 6:55 AM
Comment #304859

On the topic of this article, I just signed a Public Citizen petition calling for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in the “Citizens United” case. In my petition I wrote:

“People cannot live by corporations alone and hope to retain any sense of individual liberty and autonomy. The marriage of corporations and government is the very definition of fascism. We defeated the fascists more than 60 years ago. We must not allow 5 unelected justices to resurrect fascism in America.”

I encourage others to sign the petition.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 30, 2010 7:17 AM
Comment #304862


The wording of the Constitution does seem to support those who want a Article 5 convention. I will admit that it scares me but, it may be the only path available to the people in the effort to reassert democratic representative government and break the bonds that have been forged between our government and the aristocracy. This is especially relevant in light of the reality that party partisans are willing to allow themselves to be used by the aristocracy in support of their corpocracy rule.

An Article 5 convention could have negative consequences if it is divided between red and blue states and the partisans.

Posted by: jlw at July 30, 2010 7:57 AM
Comment #304865

jlw, if red and blue states are divided on an issue one would assume that the issue would not reach ratification by 38 states. Can you share your reasoning regarding the negative consequences?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 30, 2010 9:26 AM
Comment #304866

jlw wrote: “If centrists join forces with progressive on the issue of corporate personhood, we can be successful without a third party”

Relative to AVC, would not that same analogy apply? Some people from the left and right might want to vote for an AVC to have Corporate Personhood abolished but retain their party/partisanship on all other issues.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 30, 2010 9:33 AM
Comment #304871

“Please show us exactly what pages and words support a same-subject requirement, or expiration time-limits on Article V applications? Good luck!”

D.
The Constitution does not go into great detail on many subjects, it seems. Why do you believe it was the intent of the founding fathers to have no time limits or subject matter restrictions? I mean Article V doesn’t specifically state there will be no time limits or subject matter restrictions, it just seems to give a basic procedural outline. It would seem to me that after what you are saying is over 700 calls from different states for an article V convention and no convention called the States would have been all over this issue if they thought the original intent was no time or subject matter restrictions.

As I review you link I wonder why in many cases the same state has their request inputted into the congressional record 2,3 or more times in a single year? Perhaps 2/3rds of the states should request an amendment to article V that would tighten up the procedure/laws to allow a convention to move forward as the argument of no time restrictions seem tenuous at best and is apparently not working.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 30, 2010 2:14 PM
Comment #304886
It would seem to me that after what you are saying is over 700 calls from different states for an article V convention and no convention called the States would have been all over this issue if they thought the original intent was no time or subject matter restrictions.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 30, 2010 02:14 PM

Most state government officials probably don’t have a clue of what their responsibility concerning Article V is. I asked my state rep her position on a call for an article V convention and she responded by saying that if it had anything to do with lowering property taxes she’s all for it.

My state senator said it was under the federal congress’ jurisdiction.

Both show an obvious ignorance of what the second clause of article v means.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 30, 2010 5:42 PM
Comment #304895


Progressives will have no problem joining with others, even those who label them enemies of America, on corporate personhood. Abolishing corporate personhood will, by itself, have little effect on the corpocracy. Public financing of elections will have a far greater impact. Demand for a return to democratic representative government by the voters will have the greatest impact.

Here it is 2010, and a huge majority of Americans agree on abolishing corporate personhood. Where are the states on this issue? Why hasn’t even one state stepped up to call for a A5 convention to abolish corporate personhood this year?

The state legislatures are just as much a part of the corpocracy as the federal government. If 2/3 of the state legislatures were controlled by progressives rather than liberals or conservatives, we would be talking about a done deal on corporate personhood and public financing.

Posted by: jlw at July 30, 2010 6:00 PM
Comment #304912

Total agreement here, jlw. The governors, State dept’s of xportation, etc, ARE the corpocracy as much as the FED.

No Dem, Rep, or State gov’t has requested abolishment of Corporate Personhood as I am aware. Abolishment CP is not in the agenda/mission for any political party other than Nader and the Republic Sentry soon to be Party. Ralph can’t get a rise as he has about 200 issues on his agenda, giving everybody something to dislike. Republic Sentry has several, with the caveat that CP is the main bang, other stuff to follow.

And, we can’t expect REAL campaign finance reform until CP is abolished. Abolish CP and Money Is Free Speech becomes null and void therafter.

I’ll try to raise Nader or his rep and see how they feel on joining to thwart CP.

Have to say, I see only 2 paths to repealing CP: AVC or a 3rd party with a different political attitude.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 30, 2010 7:51 PM
Comment #304930

David R. Remer, Thanks. You’re right. The federalist papers are NOT the U.S. Constitution. And, yes, that fact, and Stephen Daugherty’s other circular gobbledygook doesn’t change the facts. Simply saying something is so, and proving something is so are two different things. But I suppose that doesn’t matter to some people who prefer to remain delusional and blindly partisan, regardless of how silly their circular pretzel imitations become while desperately trying to salvage a weak (if not absurd) argument.

j2t2, Many state politicians fancy winning a seat on the ultimate gravy-train (a seat in the federal Congress), where annual raises are automatic, no one is accountable, and even if ever convicted of a crime, a pardon lets them out of jail and they continue to receive their cu$hy retirement for the rest of their life.

So, why would state politicians commit political suicide, and thwart their chances to win a seat on the gravy-train, by alienating the incumbent members of the gravy-train (i.e. Congress)?

As for the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, please read these statements by the courts with regard to the U.S. Constitution, and in some cases, explicitly with regard to Article V.

For example:

  • Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855): “The departments of the government are legislative, executive and judicial. They are coordinate in degree to the extent of the powers delegated to each of them. Each, in the exercise of its powers, is independent of the other, but all, right-fully done by either, is binding upon the others. The constitution is supreme over all of them, because the people who ratified it have made it so; consequently, any thing which may be done unauthorized by it is unlawful. … It is supreme over the people of the United States, aggregately and in their separate sovereignties, because they have excluded themselves from any direct or immediate agency in making amendments to it, and have directed that amendments should be made representatively for them, by the congress of the United States, when two thirds of both houses shall propose them; or where the legislatures of two thirds of the several States shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, be-come valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three fourths of them, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by congress.”

  • Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921), the Court reaffirmed its previous interpretations of Article V saying: “An examination of article 5 discloses that it is intended to invest Congress with a wide range of power in proposing amendments. Passing a provision long since it expired subjects this power to only two restrictions: one that the proposal shall have the approval of two-thirds of both houses, and the other excluding any amendment which will deprive any state, without its consent, of its equal suffrage in the senate. A further mode of proposal—as yet never invoked—is provided, which is, that on the application of two thirds of the states Congress shall call a convention for the purpose.”

  • 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.”

Requiring a same-subject requirement, or contemporaneous requirement requires “construction”, which is against the court’s own rules of interpretation.

And wherever there is ambiguity, the court states:

  • 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.”

  • 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.”

  • 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.”

But some day, perhaps in the not too distant future, some honest state legislator will likely re-file this law suit, and the Supreme Court will have great difficulty in claiming a member of a state legislature has “no standing”.

At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress for perpetuating these abuses with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 30, 2010 11:25 PM
Comment #304931
Roy wrote: And, we can’t expect REAL campaign finance reform until CP is abolished.
And the voters can’t abolish corporate personhood (i.e. the Kleptocratic Corpocracy) until enough voters stop repeatedly rewarding the puppeteers’ puppets within Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress for perpetuating these 10 abuses with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 30, 2010 11:30 PM
Comment #304978

D. It seems to me that with no time limits nor subject matter restrictions we would have to be discussing slavery, and a peaceful resolution to the civil war as well as rescission, flag desecration and line item veto as they would be tacked onto an Article V convention for a balanced budget which seems to have garnered the most support from the states over a few years time.

From your link it appears that at one time or another and for one reason or another all fifty states have requested an article V convention. However at no time has 2/3rds of the states asked for an article V convention on any one issue within a 2 decade span of time.

While you seem to make the case for no time limits nor restrictions on the reason for the convention it just doesn’t seem logical to me to think that one is due simply by a cumulative affect of issues over the life of the country. Why not lead the charge for an Article V convention based upon selected issues and a few years time frame?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 31, 2010 5:55 PM
Comment #304993
j2t2 wrote: D. It seems to me that with no time limits nor subject matter restrictions we would have to be discussing slavery, and a peaceful resolution to the civil war …
False. Those were already settled.
j2t2 wrote: as well as … rescissions
I’m OK with recognizing rescissions, even though there’s nothing in Article about recognizing rescissions. Even if rescissions are excluded, there are still more than 2/3 of the states that have filed Article V applications.
j2t2 wrote: … flag desecration and line item veto as they would be tacked onto an Article V convention …
Again, some of these things have already been settled (e.g. line item veto ; per judgement by the Supreme Court).
j2t2 wrote: … for a balanced budget which seems to have garnered the most support from the states over a few years time.
That’s right. But don’t forget “General Calls for an Article V Convention”, which is merely a call for a convention to propose amendments.
j2t2 wrote: From your link it appears that at one time or another and for one reason or another all fifty states have requested an article V convention. However at no time has 2/3rds of the states asked for an article V convention on any one issue within a 2 decade span of time.
Again, there is in Article V, or any law, or any court case that supports any same-subject or expiration time-limits. None.

Also, there have been 171 Balanced Budget/General Amendments by 34 (or more) different States in the last 30 years.
Perhaps if a Balanced Budget had been passed a long time ago, we would now have a staggering $13.3 Trillion national debt of nightmare proportions?

So, where in Article V, or any law, or any court case, are these same-issue and expiration time limits?

j2t2 wrote: While you seem to make the case for no time limits nor restrictions on the reason for the convention it just doesn’t seem logical to me to think that one is due simply by a cumulative affect of issues over the life of the country. Why not lead the charge for an Article V convention based upon selected issues and a few years time frame?
Because that requires construction to re-interpret the meaning of Article V.

It defeats the mischief that Article V was aimed at curtailing.
Besides, most of the Article V amendments have occurred in the last 4 decades.

  • 171 Balanced Budget/General Amendments by 39 Different States.

  • 167 Amendments by 36 Different States (sorted by State) in 7 years from 1963 to 1969

  • 122 Amendments by 38 Different States (sorted by State) in 7 years from 1965 to 1971
  • But hey, if you like things the way they are, then fine.
    You should be happy that Congress conveniently interpreted Article V the same as you.
    It’s no skin off my nose, because I’ll be fine, and I’ll most likely still be wealthy, when the majority of voters are bankrupt, jobless, homeless, and hungry.
    I am increasingly of the mind that the majority of voters have exactly what they deserve.

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress for perpetuating these abuses with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at July 31, 2010 8:10 PM
    Comment #304998

    j2t2 said: “While you seem to make the case for no time limits nor restrictions on the reason for the convention it just doesn’t seem logical to me to think that one is due simply by a cumulative affect of issues over the life of the country. Why not lead the charge for an Article V convention based upon selected issues and a few years time frame?”

    j2t2, the War on Drugs is entirely illogical from every social and economic standpoint. Yet, it continues to drive our nation into deficit spending along with numerous other programs that, over the decades have utterly failed to achieve their stated purposes. There is no requirement in the Constitution that a call by the States or the Congress for an Article V convention, has to appear logical, let alone be logical. The Constitution says what it says. And the court interpretations and precedents added, the law is very clear on the matter.

    That said, you raise an arguably defensible recommendation that Art. V proponents seize upon a couple of key issues which 3/4 of the States are likely to agree with, and push forward for the Convention based on those shared amendment proposals. Politically, the concept would no doubt be less threatening and more promising for vastly more people and State Legislatures. A commendable idea, though like all commendable ideas, enormous elbow grease must be placed behind them to bring them into reality.

    Who is willing to do that heavy lifting and foot that enormous bill to implement your idea?

    Posted by: David R. Remer at July 31, 2010 9:02 PM
    Comment #305023

    “But hey, if you like things the way they are, then fine.
    You should be happy that Congress conveniently interpreted Article V the same as you.”

    D. I don’t necessarily like things the way they are but I can understand how Congress came up with the same interpretation. It seems to me that by picking an issue or two and having the states governors pick up the ball, as they have regular meetings amongst themselves, would give those favoring an Article V convention a better chance of seeing one than by trying to get a convention based upon 30+ year old request on many issues.

    I am not against an Article V convention with specific issues but a general issues convention scares me. We have to assume the state legislatures are somehow more intelligent and ethical than many appear to be. To open the door to constitutional amendments to some of them is asking for trouble.

    “Who is willing to do that heavy lifting and foot that enormous bill to implement your idea?”

    David,I would suggest those that want an Article V convention but have been unable to get one due to the unwillingness of Congress to call for one based upon subject matter and time frame. It seems not to have worked as of yet and perhaps by changing strategy the call for a convention could have the same effect as it did on the voting for Senators issue in 1913. Many states have tried to get a 2/3rds majority in the past so it seems there are those in each state that can get the message out.

    Posted by: j2t2 at August 1, 2010 8:52 AM
    Comment #305039

    Why should one think that somehow a ‘rogue’ proposal is going to make it to amendment of the Constitution? At the same time, one would think that a well thought out, widely debated isssue might find favor with sufficient states for ratification and amendment. I can see amendments through Article V as certainly being no less in statue than amendments pushed through congresses.

    A proposal would have some affinity with a piece of red meat thrown to the lions, but hopefully, with a better outcome.

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 1, 2010 1:48 PM
    Comment #305040

    What doesn’t get said in a proposal is perhaps as important, if not moreso, than than the wording. For example: relative to a balanced budget amendment. The wording would have to cover several issues such as a war clause, and what if’s to cover every possible bad side effect a balanced budget might encouter.

    Otherwise, when the first flaw in the wording is revealed the proposal would be daid meat from there, IMO.

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 1, 2010 2:00 PM
    Comment #305084

    Roy,

    Strategic Election Reform is not like most approaches to advocacy for Proportional Representation. It focuses on changes at the state level, which are much easier than changes at the nat’l level….

    And American Proportional Representation is the simplest form of PR that still helps third parties. It works just like most US elections: one candidate per party and voters vote for the candidate they like best. The main diff is that there are 3 seats and typically the top 3 candidates will win one seat each, but if the diff between the top and 3rd place candidate is more than 1/3rd of the total number of votes then the top candidate would get to pick a team-mate to come with her or him. (and if the diff between the top and 2nd place candidate were more than 2/3rds of the vote then the top candidate would get to pick two team-mates to come with her or him).

    So that’s what I believe wd be a more potentially feasible rallying point for progressives and centrists that would only require changes in state constitutions. It’s not wise to try and change the US constitution when the odds are stacked that high against us. This change would redistribute influence more so than power… It could garner a lot of support from third parties and the major party that is out of power (perhaps indefinitely).

    dlw

    Posted by: dlw at August 2, 2010 3:18 PM
    Comment #305111
    j2t2 wrote: I am not against an Article V convention with specific issues …
    But you are, because you are resorting to “construction” to conveniently re-interpret Article V, which violates the rules of interpretation of the Constitution, and defeats the “mischief” that Article V was aimed at:
    • 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.”
    • 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.”
    j2t2 wrote: I am not against an Article V convention with specific issues but a general issues convention scares me.
    Again, where in Aritcle V, or any law, or any court case, does it say anything about same-issue and simultaneous-submission requirements?
    • The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

    Notice the words above: “shall propose amendments to this Constitution”.
    The word “amendments” is plural.
    Does that mean only one issue, as you say?
    And do you really believe that the founders meant that 2/3 of the states must file those applications simultaneously?
    Unless BOTH of those things can be proven, then the requirements have already been met (even if rescissions are recognized).

    Is it OK to violate Article V, or any part of the Constitution, merely because it scares some people? So, it’s OK to selectively enforce and/or ignore the parts some people like/dislike?

    Besides, it requires 3/4 of the states to ratify any proposed amendments, so what are you afraid of?

    Nothing can be changed in the U.S. Constitution without 3/4 of the states ratifying any proposed amendment.

    But, what does it matter today, since some people choose to ignore the parts they don’t like. And what happens when Congress ignores the parts you do like. What then?!?

    The fact is, what you should be afraid of is already here; today.
    Your government is FOR-SALE, as evidence by 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters being vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.
    But good luck getting TERM-LIMTS or CAMPAIGN-FINANCE amendments, since voters won’t force Congress to obey Article V and other parts of the constitution.

    In my opinion, those that oppose Article V, also oppose the U.S. Constitution.
    It’s very disappointing.
    It’s sad.
    The founders gave the majority of voters ways to help themselves, but that majority is too lazy, selfish, and ignorant to make use of them.
    So, the majority of voters that allow Congress to blatantly violate the Constitution, and also repeatedly reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, have what they deserve. Especially when the majority of voters have no-brainer, common-sense solutions right under their very own noses, to help bring about real reforms.

    Those that abuse vast wealth to buy and control government will continue these abuses as long as the majority of voters repeatedly rewards Congress for perpetuating those abuses, and blatantly violating the Constitution. It’s only going to continue to get worse, as long as the majority of voters allow it.

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 2, 2010 10:14 PM
    Comment #306476

    I don’t like the 14th amendment that automatically makes U.S. citizens of babies born by illegal aliens.

    However, it is the law.

    And until the law is changed and ratified by 3/4 of the states, it is the law.

    It’s a slippery slope when we start selectively enforcing and ignoring the Constitution, because it then becomes meaningless.

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 20, 2010 3:07 PM
    Comment #309359

    Gaining broad based public support for the abolishment of corporate personhood will require assurances that it will not result in an increase in the power of the central government’s beaurocratic control. To use the example of OSHA, many workers would rather keep the ban on surprise inspections, since they know the rules of working safely and have dealt inspectors who have made their jobs more difficult with no increase in safety. When progressives can convince the electorate that reducing the power of big business will not automatically increase the power of big government they will gain real popular support.

    Posted by: jim at September 28, 2010 12:31 PM
    Post a comment