Congress, you are standing on our Constitution, we are taking it back. We will not accept “no” for an answer this time. As my 7 year old boy would say, “Congress, we are the boss of you.” We are not going to get distracted by your partys’ legislative gamesmanship or the meaningless drivel produced by your corporate campaigns. The jig is up and now you know it.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, … it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,” This concept is expressed in the Convention clause of Article V of the Constitution.
On July 9, 2012, the Congressional Research Service released a report entitled The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress by Thomas H. Neale, Specialist in American National Government that foreshadowed the uprising to come. (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42589.pdf )
“Their swift rise, combined with widespread publicity, and a certain degree of success, suggest the possibility that a contemporary campaign, using the communications strategies and tools of the age, could arguably move the issue of an Article V Convention to the forefront of public awareness on a shorter cycle than was possible for previous campaigns.
The emergence of Internet and social media-driven public policy and issue campaigns has combined with renewed interest in specific constitutional amendments, and the Article V Convention procedure in general, as a means of bypassing perceived policy deadlock at the federal level. The Tea Party Movement, MoveOn.org, and Occupy Wall Street are cited as technology-driven issue advocacy groups that could provide a model for convention advocates. The Article V Convention concept enjoys support from several advocacy groups, and has been the subject of a recent academic conference and a range of “op-ed” articles publicizing the once-obscure alternative.
Advances in communications technology and the examples of such phenomena as the Tea Party Occupy Wall Street movements could provide a model for present-day advocates of the Article V Convention alternative”
Congress is not laughing at the bongos of Occupy Wall Street or the misspelled signs of the Tea Party this time. This is a process they are unable to avoid once the American public is aware of the power we possess. Alexander Hamilton wrote about this in The Federalist Papers No. 85:
The words of this article (V) are peremptory. The Congress ”shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. … We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”
The awareness of the American public is the ingredient that has been missing so far. We know the Constitution begins with “We the People” yet we forgot that it belongs to us. When our government becomes an out of control nightmare of overreaching power we are supposed to use the Constitution to get our nation back on course. The Constitution was written for us, not the powerful or the enlightened elites or the highly educated. It belongs to all of us. It was written by revolutionaries who stood up to the power of an apathetic king. We forgot, but we are waking up again.
One glaring example of our reduced position is the fairly recent Citizen’s United ruling. We know that corporations are not people. This is not hard for the average person to understand but the Supreme Court twisted decades of court rulings to arrive at the conclusion that these legal entities are just like us. Yet the court overlooked a very basic principle from the Emancipation Proclamation, we don’t get to own, buy, or sell people. Everyone who owns stock, give it up and free the corporations in bondage … absurd. The court had an objective to their ruling and found bits and pieces to support this idea which minimizes the voice of the people or eliminates it completely. Now this ruling has expanded application to all the states when they overruled the Montana Supreme Court’s attempts to remove corruption and collusion from their state government.
The Supreme Court is not elected, it is not democratic. Recently they almost threw out the entire Health Care plan because of the individual mandate. Never mind that two houses of Congress and President passed this, the Supreme Court believes they can lord over the other branches of government as a king. This in not how our forefathers wanted it to work.
Woodrow Wilson wrote, “A constitutional government is one whose powers have adapted to the interests of the people and the maintenance of individual liberty.” It is obvious that our present government with legal, institutionalized corruption would not pass the Wilson sniff test.
An effective system of constitutional law also depends on the government’s commitment to play by the constitutional rules. When the convention clause requirements are met, we expect Congress to comply. They took an oath of office to obey the Constitution and they are not allowed to have mental reservations regarding their actions.
In a response to the Congressional Research Service, Bill Walker of Friends of Article V Convention who was mentioned in the report, included the following:
“… you fail to discuss the fact that the attorney of record for Congress in open public court admitted that sufficient applications exist to cause a convention call, that the convention call is based on a simple numeric count of applying states and most importantly, the call is peremptory. Again this is a matter of public record and as the statement was made in the name of Congress by its legal representative you fail to explain, or even address, how such an official concession squares with your interpretation that applications must be on the “same subject.”
We know Congress is looking in to their options and their vulnerability is revealed to them and the world. It is now explained to them in black and white that the modern tools of communications that we have at our fingertips are going to bring about the awareness required to force this issue. They have dodged the convention applications like a deadbeat dad dodges a process server.
We have a staggering number of applications discovered from the Congressional Record. Friends of Article V Convention found over 700 applications from all 50 states (http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments). To make it easier to grasp, ArticleV.org boiled it down to 41 indisputable state applications when only 34 states are required. http://articlev.org/indisputable-state-applications-for-convention/
Congress cannot dance around this anymore. There is a tsunami of public outrage that is evolving in to one clear demand for an Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments. We do not need to use our blood and fortune to restore our voice and liberties. The genius of our forefathers provided a peaceful, constitutional path for legal change for us to follow.
Do not fear this opportunity because the other side of the aisle may show up. It takes a two-thirds majority to pass anything in a convention and 75% of the states (38) to ratify any amendment proposal. No one can pass anything without the agreement of a significant number on the other end of the political spectrum. We need them as much as they need us. We must eagerly begin to find the middle ground and solve the problems of today as well as the decades of the past. We have a great deal of deferred maintenance of our liberties that has accumulated. Now we have little privacy, or rights to free speech or public assembly, due process, etc. We have little to lose and much to gain.
Embrace this chance to save ourselves and stop asking what is possible and ask what needs to be done to fix our nation and planet and work backwards from there. We have the chance to re-shape who we are as a nation for the next 200 years again if we just wake up and seize the day.



18 Comments

Thank you for this informative piece! Way, way back I was suggesting there must be some way to set up a parallel government, and this was there all the time within the Constitution itself. It so makes sense, especially in light of everything that is moribund and stagnant within the electoral process, within the Congress itself, within the judicial process.
I very much like the idea of bringing all the many petitions for amendments together in this manner (watch the video through to the final one for the simple explanation of this, folk.)
Recommended!
The south did it in 1860 and called it the Confederacy named after the pre- 1790 Constitution form of the US Gov’t. AKA The articles of Confederation. We all saw how that worked out.
This is a meeting to propose amendments, not secession or formation of a new and separate government. This is a method of proposing amendments prescribed in Article V.
A democratically elected Supreme Court would be a disaster. There is nothing more corrupt than an elected judiciary.
And do you have anything yet to prevent the elites, to whom this will seem a gift from Mammon, from using their pocket change to purchase the convention outright with pocket change?
You’ve been asked this several times and so far all you’ve been able to come up with is paw-waving and oblique references to the occupy movement. You have offered no method to keep the <1% from buying the convention outright via their usual tools of propaganda, cash and corruption.
If you still have nothing better than wishful thinking to deter the elites then it'll be a simple case of goodbye to the last tottering remnants of America and hello to Neo Somalia On Steroids.
I fail to see how this would be the case, zapkitty, when one of the most important issues is the amendment that would keep money out of politics. Maybe I am missing something, and I apologize if this seems stupid, but what is to stop the moneybags from buying Occupy in your opinion, or any other people movement? I fail to see how the elites would see as a gift to Mammon the coming together of people concerned to fix the multitude of ailments that currently afflict our government.
I also apologize if my enthusiasm pointed some towards succession from the union. That did come up embedded in the video and indeed startled me as well – I don’t believe that segment represented the thrust of the post as I see it, though there may be a few folk aiming in that direction. Far from that, it seems to me, would be the majority’s reliance on Constitutional remedies for the state of affairs in which we find ourselves today in which popular support for issues ‘off the table’ is given voice.
And in answer to codeine, nobody is suggesting the Supreme Court be democratically elected, nor that any other balance of powers statute within the Constitution be drastically changed. Just that we get to deal with issues of corporate dominance that are crippling our ability to move in the right direction.
Do you really think that people will be bought off when it comes to survival and having a sane and functioning democracy to pass on to our children?
Yes.
And for evidence we have the simple fact that the people have already been bought off re: survival and having a sane and functioning democracy…
… several times over.
What I’m not hearing is a coherent plan to keep our owners from totally corrupting and derailing the process from the start.
Listen to the very title of the article: “Congress Braces for the Approaching Tsunami”
Just hyperbole or simply severe detachment from reality? Either way there is no indication that Congress is bracing for anything but the end-of-the-year sellout of the >99% to the <1%.
… and no actual plan is or has been presented for keeping the elites from corrupting the convention process before it even begins.
Zapkitty, instead of denigrating it with slurs of “… and no actual plan is or has been presented for keeping the elites from corrupting the convention process before it even begins.” How about actively participating in seeing that it doesn’t happen…? And, yes, there is a plan of attack for keeping the elites out of the process, do you want to participate in it, or continue to snipe at it…?
I agree, they are appointed, but the court is democratic.
The paragraph continues:
I also don’t agree with this and its not exactly what happened.
If congress passes unconstitutional laws then people petition the court for review or redress. The way this is written, no laws could be overturned by the court. The real problem is that congress has turned its power over to the Administrative branch.
Other that that, I agree with this diary. It’s a good start.
We have an unrepresentative government that has been captured. I’d love to see power devolved.
codeine, you are correct, i meant to say democratically elected.
Proposed amendments are put on individual state’s ballot as measures, where they are ratified, then moved to the congress.
We don’t need congress to discuss proposing amendments.
ALEC is basically doing this, but with legislation.
Correct?
CTuttle or Daniel Marks can you shed any further light on this. Daniel and I have had a few exchanges on this topic, but due to the time difference we’re not usually here at the same time, and I don’t think we’re communicating.
How to keep the delegate election/selection process from being co-opted by the same interests that co-opt elected officials and electoral processes now? I don’t see that we yet have the broad based grassroots social movement that would be necessary before we can talk about changing the Constitution, but if you have ideas about how to protect the process from pre-emption, I would still like to understand it. Thank you.
… watching the videos now.
thanks for this diary, Daniel Marks.
Ok, if THIS is what Article V is all about, then I want to know just how in hayall anyone thinks the states will even THINK about this . . .
I’m not sure I GET this diary or it’s point . . . what IS the point?
The states are not gonna call an Art. 5 convention, and certainly NOT for addressing Citizens v United, The States and their legislatures are fully bought, owned and operated by the same corporate fascists who bought, own and operate the WH, Congress, Judiciary, military, and every facet of our lives.
In this regard zapkitty is all OVER the reality at hand, aside from the simple fact that there will BE no Art. 5 conventions called by the states . . . they are in on the scam of the elites full as the national govt is. Folly to think otherwise.
This diary is distracting, misleading, and vague as could be.
Either that or I’m an idjit and know NOTHING . . . much hoopla about nada AFAIC.
Harumph.
No More State Applications for Convention are required
The States have satisfied the required two-thirds numerical threshold to call for an Article V Convention under Article V of the US Constitution and Congress should call an Article V Convention to order.
We offer the attached data to support this.
http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments
please bear witness to the record of over 700 applications to Congress by 49 states)
The only difference in the process is is the origin of the idea since it would pass through congress and still require the ratification of 75% of the states before it is added to our constitution. What is the potential for danger in that process that makes you uncomfortable with that method of amendment? Any amendment will require substantial unanimity and support on both sides of aisle.
“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.” George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
I apologize for not being able to delve into this more fully, Daniel. I wrote a post about this Harvard Forum on a Constitutional Convention just as, or just before, it was being held back in November.
I can’t did out the post as I can’t remember the title, and my tags must not have been adequate. As I remember it, there were many comments concerned that Tea People would be there, and take over any convention. ;o)
That Lessig and many other reps of different political stripe were there (see the People) tab, it seemed a great forum may have ensued. There are videos, but I never followed up on it, and have no idea if the group pursued any of it. Perhaps you know. Good luck with the idea; somethings gotta give.
I have far more questions about what you’ve asserted to be true, both in the post and in your comments, but no time. Next time your post about it, I’d think you’d want your title to reflect more about the subject than the ‘Tsunami’ hyperbole, which other comments have addressed. (It caused me not to click in until now, srsly.) ;o)
Is that the plan….striking just the right balance between the elite-owned corporatist, pro-war, anti-environment, authoritarian R side of the aisle, and the elite-owned corporatist, pro-war, anti-environment, authoritarian D side? That would probably work out about as well for most of us as, for example, Article IV did for the slaves and the indigenous people.
When the founders entrusted this to “We the People” they were probably assuming people like themselves – elite, educated, men of means, some of whom were slaveholders. Just be cautious that you have a real plan, not just assumptions, to ensure that you don’t follow too closely in those particular footsteps.
Maybe I’m missing something, but it would seem to me the idea is to have a concrete aim – a Constitutional convention – rather than influence upon this or that political party. With that aim, many ideas on the various proposed amendments would draw ordinary citizens into a democratic process having a variety of Constitutional amendments to consider. Plenty of dialogue ongoing as to any attempts to infiltrate and promote old guard ideas, just as Occupy does now.
This is a ‘big tent’ concept which will model itself upon, though not be, the Occupy movement if it is to succeed. Occupy welcomed the 1% for dialogue; it was and is ‘big tent’ except for being superconscious of the danger of co-option, and there is nothing to say this movement cannot be the same.
I agree with Wendy that the title of the diary was badly chosen and hope very much that more discussion and more diaries on the subject will clarify what can and cannot be done. Even at best it couldn’t be built in a day, and of course there are obstacles. Look at how hard it is and has been for Occupy.
But there may be need for another movement such as this supporting Occupy, in parallel to it, having these particular concrete demands on government, and in it for the long haul. Why not? If the PTB are determined to divide and conquer, let’s make that an asset. It might make for one of those beautiful partnerships that come at the end of the best movies. And it might even suggest a triumvirate – with a further one addressing the remodelling of finance for those out there with the smarts to do it. The more the merrier, I say. Organize!
The positive aspect to me is that we already know many of the ‘amend’ issues raised on FDL are popular with the public. They just need a place to make that concrete. A Constitutional convention would do that.
The negative aspect to me is talk about ‘the other side of the aisle’. This to me has political overtones we should eschew. There were no political parties at the original Constitutional Convention, and should not be with respect to delegates to a new one. I would want to see folk involved who don’t hold any present political office, for instance, a convention of citizens in the manner of jury selection, representing people not oligarchs. Surely we can separate the wheat from the chaff by now!
It’s admittedly roughhewn so far; so was Occupy to start out – very roughhewn – but does it not have possibilities?