Are Governors Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Jan Brewer, John Kasich, Rick Perry, Rick Snyder, Nikki Haley and others conspiring to hijack our Constitution on July 4th, 2013? The conservative think-tank, Goldwater Institute, is moving lobbyists into position to mobilize legislatures throughout our nation with a Compact for America devised by their lead attorney Nick Dranias.
The Compact for America has set a timetable to convene a single issue constitutional convention this summer using Article V of the US Constitution to railroad the revised Balanced Budget Amendment in to the Constitution.
Article V of the Constitution allows states to assemble and propose amendments. It takes 34 states to request an Article V convention. The proposals that pass are then sent through Congress for a majority support. Then the amendment or amendments are sent out to the states for ratification. If 38 states agree, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
The Compact for America guarantees that the process will exclude the input of the other states and restricts the delegates to the Balanced Budget Amendment discussion under threat of pre-written instructions to state Attorney Generals.
The Compact for America defines that the states will choose the governor of that state as the only delegate to the convention. The number of red states gives the Goldwater Institute a much easier path to victory. There is no election or presidential action that will stop this effort. The campaign relies on the cooperation of state legislatures and governors, not popular support. Popular opposition will have little effect as well. There is no way to stop the governors and other delegates from passing the amendment. The Compact for America makes sure they collectively use their power to impose their will on the Constitution without debate of any other issue or consideration of any language changes in the amendment itself. It is all rigged in advance.
Now let us assume all that the money backing this effort and the design are successful. Imagine each of those governors standing before the nation’s first Article V convention telling us how they are doing this to us for our own good and saving us from what they will consider the worst burden on society, an unbalanced budget. We will hear how Jan Brewer thinks the federal budget is a higher priority than medicare, or how proud Scott Walker is to save freedom by balancing the budget, and on and on for 24 hours. Each governor will want their share of the historical spotlight in a tangible exercise of “tyranny of the majority”.
Meanwhile, there is a very large crowd gathering outside the Dallas convention center screaming for their chance to debate other amendments. Rick Scott shames the freeloaders who drain our budget with their health care and encourages people to seek out companies like his HMO. The chair then recognizes a Democrat Governor Delegate from the state of Missouri. He tries to introduce an amendment to deal with Citizens United and take money out of politics, but before he can finish his motion he is swiftly arrested by the Attorney General of Missouri and removed from the convention for introducing another amendment. Emotions are charged inside and outside the convention center.
At what point does the obvious removal of democratic process from the constitutional convention become so outrageous that the people react? This seems to be a scenario which could be the last straw. We could be teetering at the brink of civil revolt.
As one Scott Walker recall supporter in Wisconsin stated after the results were announced, “Democracy died here today.” The irony is that these governors who oppose collective bargaining will end up conspiring to strong arm our Constitution. The outrageous authoritarian actions taken in each state in recent years to pass a right wing agenda are about to happen at the federal level. Democrats are not prepared for this. There is no ground game that can match what the Goldwater Institute has put together with the Compact for America. If Congress tries to deny a convention with 38 states demanding it, that would also be grounds for revolution.
If this does not seem fair, consider that the U.S. Constitution belongs to the people, not the Government. It is written in plain English, not legalese. This group of people wishes to fundamentally change how our government functions with a democratic process that has been exorcised of democratic input. You are the risk they have eliminated. The Compact for America perverts the sanctity of the Convention Clause in the Constitution by restricting the convention to the abomination of an amendment they have agreed to pass in advance.
George Washington explains, “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, ’til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
The method of a convention to propose amendments is great and we should use it to debate many amendments, but there needs to be open and free debate. As a progressive, our worse convention nightmare is that the right wingers will come in and hijack the convention for their own goals. The Compact for America guarantees that our worst nightmare comes true. What are we going to do about it?
—————————————
THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT from Compact for America:
Section 1. Balanced Budget Requirement. Total outlays of the government of the United States shall not exceed total receipts of the government of the United States at any point in time unless the excess of outlays over receipts is financed by public debt issued in strict conformity with this article.
Section 2. Debt Limit. Outstanding public debt shall not exceed authorized public debt, which initially shall be an amount equal to 105 percent of the outstanding public debt on the effective date of this article. Authorized public debt may be reduced and thereafter increased up to its aforesaid initial amount as provided by law; however, authorized public debt shall not be increased above its aforesaid initial amount unless such increase is first approved by the legislatures of the several states as provided in Section 3.
Section 3. State Approval Requirement. From time to time, Congress may increase authorized public debt to an amount in excess of its initial amount set by Section 2 only if it first publicly refers to the legislatures of the several states an unconditional, single subject measure proposing the amount of such increase, in such form as provided by law, and the measure is thereafter publicly and unconditionally approved by a simple majority of the legislatures of the several states, in such form as provided respectively by state law; provided that no inducement requiring an expenditure or tax levy shall be demanded, offered or accepted as a quid pro quo for such approval. If such approval is not obtained within sixty (60) calendar days after referral then the measure shall be deemed disapproved and the authorized public debt shall thereby remain unchanged.
Section 4. Required Impoundment. Whenever the outstanding public debt exceeds 98 percent of the debt limit set by Section 2, and if appropriated expenditures will likely necessitate borrowing in excess of said limit, the President shall enforce said limit by publicly designating specific expenditures for impoundment in an amount sufficient to ensure outstanding public debt shall not exceed the authorized public debt. Said impoundment shall become effective thirty (30) days thereafter, unless Congress first designates an alternate impoundment of the same amount by concurrent resolution, which shall become immediately effective. The failure of the President to designate or enforce the required impoundment is an impeachable misdemeanor.
Section 5. Fair Share Tax. No bill that provides for a new or increased general revenue tax shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress. However, this requirement shall not apply to any bill that provides for a new end user sales tax which would completely replace every existing income tax levied by the government of the United States; or for the reduction or elimination of an exemption, deduction, or credit allowed under an existing general revenue tax.
Section 6. Definitions. For purposes of this article, “public debt” means any obligation backed by the full faith and credit of the government of the United States; “outstanding public debt” means all public debt held in government accounts or by the public at any single point in time; “authorized public debt” means the total amount of public debt that may be lawfully issued and outstanding at any single point in time under this article; “total outlays of the government of the United States” means all expenditures of the government of the United States from any source; “total receipts of the government of the United States” means all tax receipts and other income of the government of the United States, excluding proceeds from its issuance or incurrence of any type of debt or liability; and “general revenue tax” means any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States.
Section 7. Self-enforcement. This article is immediately operative upon ratification, self-enforcing, and Congress may enact conforming legislation to facilitate enforcement.
FULL INTERVIEW:



34 Comments

Mahalo, Dan…! A great job…! *g*
THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT from Compact for America:
Section 1. Balanced Budget Requirement. Total outlays of the government of the United States shall not exceed total receipts of the government of the United States at any point in time unless the excess of outlays over receipts is financed by public debt issued in strict conformity with this article.
Section 2. Debt Limit. Outstanding public debt shall not exceed authorized public debt, which initially shall be an amount equal to 105 percent of the outstanding public debt on the effective date of this article. Authorized public debt may be reduced and thereafter increased up to its aforesaid initial amount as provided by law; however, authorized public debt shall not be increased above its aforesaid initial amount unless such increase is first approved by the legislatures of the several states as provided in Section 3.
Section 3. State Approval Requirement. From time to time, Congress may increase authorized public debt to an amount in excess of its initial amount set by Section 2 only if it first publicly refers to the legislatures of the several states an unconditional, single subject measure proposing the amount of such increase, in such form as provided by law, and the measure is thereafter publicly and unconditionally approved by a simple majority of the legislatures of the several states, in such form as provided respectively by state law; provided that no inducement requiring an expenditure or tax levy shall be demanded, offered or accepted as a quid pro quo for such approval. If such approval is not obtained within sixty (60) calendar days after referral then the measure shall be deemed disapproved and the authorized public debt shall thereby remain unchanged.
Section 4. Required Impoundment. Whenever the outstanding public debt exceeds 98 percent of the debt limit set by Section 2, and if appropriated expenditures will likely necessitate borrowing in excess of said limit, the President shall enforce said limit by publicly designating specific expenditures for impoundment in an amount sufficient to ensure outstanding public debt shall not exceed the authorized public debt. Said impoundment shall become effective thirty (30) days thereafter, unless Congress first designates an alternate impoundment of the same amount by concurrent resolution, which shall become immediately effective. The failure of the President to designate or enforce the required impoundment is an impeachable misdemeanor.
Section 5. Fair Share Tax. No bill that provides for a new or increased general revenue tax shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress. However, this requirement shall not apply to any bill that provides for a new end user sales tax which would completely replace every existing income tax levied by the government of the United States; or for the reduction or elimination of an exemption, deduction, or credit allowed under an existing general revenue tax.
Section 6. Definitions. For purposes of this article, “public debt” means any obligation backed by the full faith and credit of the government of the United States; “outstanding public debt” means all public debt held in government accounts or by the public at any single point in time; “authorized public debt” means the total amount of public debt that may be lawfully issued and outstanding at any single point in time under this article; “total outlays of the government of the United States” means all expenditures of the government of the United States from any source; “total receipts of the government of the United States” means all tax receipts and other income of the government of the United States, excluding proceeds from its issuance or incurrence of any type of debt or liability; and “general revenue tax” means any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States.
Section 7. Self-enforcement. This article is immediately operative upon ratification, self-enforcing, and Congress may enact conforming legislation to facilitate enforcement.
Interesting. So in principle, progressive state governors and legislatures (wait, where are those?) could call a rump Constitutional Convention stripping corporations of personhood and money of its protections as speech.
Someone needs to point out that that’s gonna put a big crimp in military spending after they fininsh impoverishing us.
Thanks for the heads up, Dan. This Constitutional Convention and amendment have been kicking around for a couple of decades now, but the use of the Tea Party governors and legislatures (add Pat McCrory and NC to that list) is a new twist. Has anyone done the math to see what states taken together they would have to make it stick and which states those would likely be? I bet there are some states that are less committed and that they still will have to work on.
It’s a lobbyist-driven coup is what it is.
Maybe NC isn’t on the list. The governor and legislature are dominated by these types, but the attorney general is a moderate Democrat. Which states are in a similar situation in which the attorney general could be a firewall against such action.
Just when I think it can’t get much worse, you prove me wrong. I truly despair for our country and the steady erosion of our rights.
Why do they even pretend to honor the Constitution any more? The men who wrote it would hardly recognize it as it is represented today.
Nick Dranias,the Goldwater Institute, and ALEC are well aware of this list of 39 states that have applied for an Article V convention in the past. They have established relationships in place. ALEC wrote the Article V Convention Handbook. They will ink the deal at the Tulsa ALEC conference in May when they have all the governors assembled. Maybe they won’t get Oregon again, it still leaves 38 states to get.
http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm#Table03
A democracy is predicated upon all sides possessing some sense of honor. Those lacking a shred of common decency are the types who would much rather be lords of the manor, not mere participants in a society of equals (If one overlooks matters of wealth, status, health, and power). As in the movie, the World is not enough for the Brothers Koch, the Walton siblings, etal.
I hesitate even asking this, in light of the Supremes we currently have, but is there even court redress to this, should it go through?
No court can stand in the way of a political action of congress, separation of powers, the executive branch too.
Daniel, if these actions are in direct conflict with the way the Constitution is written, It would appear there would be grounds for a challenge; “till changed by an explicit act
by the whole people”, etc. No?
They would make it part of the Constitution, the court may only interpret the Constitution as it is written.
Or re-written, I’m sure Scalia would be a staunch supporter…! 8-(
Thanks for this. Although i live in Florida, i will TRY to spread the word. The people here are being destroyed by the sociopaths in power. I believe they will be ready for action. It will NOT BE PRETTY.
Wow. Thanks for the heads-up.
Historically balanced budgets have been an economic disaster for this country. Per Stephanie Kelton, Chair of the Department of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City (the hub of Modern Money Theory), in an LA Times op-ed two weeks ago (12/21/12):
She goes on to explain the theory as to why this is so.
Enjoyed the education here, recc’d. Thank you very much
Dan, Compact for America wants your support and that of the principled left. I cannot imagine that the principled left supports the status quo of limitless debt spending. I cannot imagine that the principled left conceives of only one route to constitutional reform–that of a wide open convention–when obviously the principled left uses ballot measures all the time to reform state constitutions. The Compact will not displace the “plain vanilla” wide open convention process under Article V that you prefer; that route will always remain open to you. But I think you are cutting of your nose to spite your face in opposing the use of the Compact vehicle because this country will never take the giant leap of a wide open Article V convention without a more incremental and controlled approach first. But you know this from our interview. And for that reason, your article smacks of partisanship and ideological tribalism, not thoughtful critique, which is disappointing because I do not believe that is your nature. For example, there is no truth to your various assertions about some sort of cabal between CFA and ALEC or conservative governors. In fact, we’ve been trying for nine months to engage and enlist the support of center-left think tanks and thinkers (like Third Wave, Concord Coalition, Brookings, and YOU). Our balanced budget proposal reflects policy proposals that are policy neutral from a left-right perspective, so long as we can agree that there must be some sort of external control placed on limitless federal borrowing. We have tried as hard as we can to engage the Left, including designing our BBA proposal to poll test at above 50% for democrats and including on our advisory council Progressive Law Professor Lawrence Lessig to ensure that we keep our messaging and policies respectful, if not desirable, to the principled left. Despite your column, I am happy and continue to be willing to engage you and the principled Left. To quote a man on your side of ideology, the Nation needs two wings to fly when it comes to amending the constitution, whether by compact-structured convention or wide-open convention!
You keep using that phrase, I do not think it means what you would like us to believe that you think it means.
Exactly! It’s not left vs. right, it’s permanent entrenchment of the sociopaths currently sitting at the top of the heap! What’s not to like?
Ah, that explains it. Someone seems to have mistaken us for their local veal pen.
Tell me, in your polling did you happen to explain to the people polled just why and how a “balanced budget amendment” would be extremely corrosive to our economy and standard of living… and why the “elites” push it so hard nonetheless?
Now that would be a poll with interesting and valid results.
If you really believe a balanced budget will solve all our problems, you need some serious life lessons. Spend a week on the streets of our nations capital surviving with the 1000 HOMELESS VETS. Then we’ll talk.
Zapkitty, please read the BBA. With our federal debt at $16.4 trillion, it exceeds 100% of GDP, an amount not seen since the height of WWII. Despite that, you will see that our BBA allows for a roughly $20 trillion revolving line of credit for still more federal borrowing. That line of credit can be increased still more with the approval of just 26 state legislatures. This will allow for policy flexibility for just about any progressive program that won’t completely bankrupt the nation. But it will require an organized, clear and transparent national debate and a wide national consensus before we continue mortgaging our future. Why would anyone on the Left not want that sort of structure for borrowing so much money? How in the world could keeping a huge revolving line of credit in place with a modest measure of external control deny the economy sufficient government spending to float whatever policy boat you want? I honestly do not understand the critique on your side. Do you really want anyone or any government to have limitless borrowing capacity knowing that the chief evil of such capacity is that it saddles future generations who have never had a vote with the policy choices we make?
By Bast’s furry ears… so much that is so wrong, and going for the “big-spending liberal” meme to boot…
… let’s make this short: will your plan end fractional reserve banking? And if so, how?
As I understand it, there is no way to limit the number and types of amendments proposed, debated and possibly voted on by a constitutional convention.
This issue has always been raised as a reason to be careful about convening a constitutional convention, because of the danger of it ranging out of control and in unpredictible directions.
IOW, the limited scope of the proposed convention seems to be unconstitutional by definition.
We have an enormous and growing wealth disparity in our country and globally. The disparity is now so extreme, that any legal process for governance and change – elections, ballot initiatives, legislation, judicial procedures, executive actions, conventions, regulatory regimes – is subject to the corrupting and self-serving influence of those few individuals and corporations that control the wealth, power, and resources of our country, and the world.
They will do nothing that doesn’t lead to the further concentration of wealth and power into their hands. Sometimes this is overt – such as the restrictions you describe for a proposed single-issue convention. Other times there is some illusion of democracy and choice, such as our national elections, but any quick look at information such as that provided by opensecrets.org shows where the money and influence are coming from, even without secret contributions facilitated by Citizens United.
Those who hold most of the wealth don’t care how much money, borrowed, obtained through taxation, or stolen (as from the SS Trust Fund) finds its way back to war profiteers, the fossil fuel and FIRE industries, or the Waltons, Kochs, and their multi-billionare peers. They want mechanisms that increase the wealth and control of the few at the expense of everyone else, and at the expense of democracy and justice. For example, who but the wealthiest could build (buy) support for a spending increase in “60 days” in enough states to pass the measure, as this proposal states? Not you and me, that’s for sure.
Unless political initiatives are backed by a social movement committed to democracy, justice, civil society, and an economic model that works for all of us, any political process will be controlled overtly or undermined by the power of concentrated wealth.
How many states is several states? Section three of the amendment states that several states must concur with the desire to raise the debt ceiling.
The phrase “the several states” means all the states, so a simple majority, or 26 would be needed.
Bravo! Sounds like all that’s left is revolution. If the PTB do not take this seriously,as i said before, IT WILL NOT BE PRETTY.
It takes 66% or 34 states to pass in a convention. They have not only the 34 states by that point but the 38 states required to ratify the amendment. It is a convention with a pre-determined outcome.
That would be great but no.
Nick, I think your effort will make everyone want an open convention. You are helping us more than you know, or maybe you do. I won’t stand in your way, don’t stand in our’s. Once the JBS is behind you, you know you have nothing to worry about. With open debate, maybe we can keep the people outside the convention center from shooting the delegates as they enter or leave? I think this would be the 2nd amendment solution scenario you believe justifies the 2nd amendment. I would expect other people to feel justified in violent reaction. If we fail to get an open convention in July, and you have your’s according to plan, I strongly believe there will be another one coming soon after.
Well, that was actually intended as a reply to nickdranias @ 19 but I goofed it
… X 2 … on point comment minIL … money politics and doing money politics as seen done in USA/WashingtonDC becomes all about money — who gets the most — who holds and keeps the most — who gets to buy the WH and put people like Bill Clinton,G.W.Bush and B.H.Obama in the WH. As is then also the case up on Capitol Hill. The questions need to be asked about the money and little is going to change because money won’t let such questions happen/stay happening about the money politics.
Take the money out?
Attempting to do so likely leading to a 1861 moment again in USA national politics.
Capitalism is all about the money.
Who has it — who does not — who gets to hold/keep it — who gets to hand it out.
How many capitalist based/Wall St./ money politics doing types has POTUS Obama and Obama’s DOJAG EH nailed and jailed since 2009?
Obama wants to CPI SS and box up MC/MC and send them to AHIP so AHIP can dice/slice MC/MC into AHIP lets make money deals — this seems to be about doing money politics and the money ** — not about what common USians need.
** See 2009 Obama WH/AHIP stealth money politics/deal making — AHIP won/USians lost
We’ve lived through three constitutional epochs in the United States: Continental Congress and Articles of Confederation (1776-1789), United States Constitution with slavery (1789-1865), and United States Constitution with slavery outlawed by the 13th Amendment (1865-present). Mass revulsion against the Radical right-wing efforts to amend our present Constitution will propel us into a fourth epoch, with a new and hopefully more enlightened framework of governance.
Lions and mountains and bears, … oh my.
This folks is how it’s done.
This is why they always win. That and the shite-load of money backing them. But, but, but … this is America!, no? Money buying influence in America, … that’s even more American than apple pie (wake the F up!).
Money rules here. It happens, … it will continue to happen, … get used to it. Hate to insert reality into the rebellious, independent and freedom-loving streak, but if you think otherwise, you’re delusional. America has always been about money!!! Always will be.
We stole it from the indigenous (Trail of Tears you halfwits?). Do you even know the number of promises, treaties, compacts, promises, legal decrees we have broken with the American Indians? No of course not, … and what could be more American? Don’t know??? Ask an American Indian.
I won’t digress into the whole slavery thing. Segregation? Armed forces weren’t integrated until much later. I won’t even go into the other minorities, ie. “the brownies”, “the gays”, … shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh don’t say the W word (*cough*Women*cough*).
We all may loathe what they’re doing, but make no mistake, the country’s with them (ie. the vast majority). Don’t give me that nonsense about polling either. If you can’t get your ass up out of your seat for something, you don’t care, not really. Because if you won’t change things, then you don’t care. (Real change was Occupy, for one simple reason: they fed and took care of the homeless by themselves. That’s leadership. That’s honor. That’s duty. That’s giving and caring. One thing I will never forgive is how easily so many turned their backs on Occupy. They fed people. People who needed it. How many here have physically and personally done the same?)
#16 may make you throw up in your mouth, but once you actually do get your heads out of your asses, maybe you could … I don’t know … analyze the words? Maybe? Like #17 (someone’s got a brain and actually uses it).
Because if you did you would see how solid it sounds to most people in this country.
If I may?:
“Dan, Compact for America wants your support and that of the principled left.”
Thus if you’re not “principled”, you are radical (basic opposites, ie. if you’re not principled, you are … unprincipled). BTW, these are cue words that the propaganda of the corporate media has established quite well and it invades all facets of Americana.
For those of you who don’t get it: He’s using “trigger” phrases to associate ideas already cemented in the minds of most Americans. It’s like the word “balanced”, or “responsible”.
Well played Dan. Even though it’s a prepped piece meant for dissemination to the masses. But it works! Check.
“I cannot imagine that the principled left supports the status quo of limitless debt spending.”
And now he’s trying to put us on he defensive. Once again this line of thinking, that the “left” is some drunkard, manic-depressive, on a spending binge has been hammered into the masses. And it works! Check.
“The Compact will not displace the “plain vanilla” wide open convention process under Article V that you prefer; that route will always remain open to you. But I think you are cutting of your nose to spite your face in opposing the use of the Compact vehicle because this country will never take the giant leap of a wide open Article V convention without a more incremental and controlled approach first.”
Ie. why can’t you folks be “reasonable”? We’re doing our stuff, you do your own stuff. Notice the use of the key words “incremental” (vs. radical and drastic change, … which everyone knows is “bad”), and “controlled” (vs. why are you people so uncontrolled, … why can’t you “control” yourself?). The masses eat this shite up. Check.
“Despite your column, I am happy and continue to be willing to engage you and the principled Left.”
Ie. can’t you “radical” and uncontrolled” people see that he’s trying to “engage” us? Why can’t you people be bipartisan? Notice the use of another key word “partisan”, ie. a part, aka apart, aka not mainstream.
————————
At #17 he really lays down the coup de grace.
“Zapkitty, please read the BBA. With our federal debt at $16.4 trillion, it exceeds 100% of GDP, an amount not seen since the height of WWII. Despite that, you will see that our BBA allows for a roughly $20 trillion revolving line of credit for still more federal borrowing. That line of credit can be increased still more with the approval of just 26 state legislatures. This will allow for policy flexibility for just about any progressive program that won’t completely bankrupt the nation. But it will require an organized, clear and transparent national debate and a wide national consensus before we continue mortgaging our future.”
Ya Zap, don’t you see there’s flexibility there? 20 trillion amount of flexibility. Don’t you feel silly Zap? Now what MIC program would you want expanded by 20 trillion? Your call Zap. Any MIC program you want. Name any MIC program.
More fighters … done.
More drones … done.
More naval fleets … done.
More anti-personal weapons … done. (BTW, I prefer the SMA-50, aka the laser that blinds, but only sometimes is it permanent, so it should be perfect against … civilians. Water cannon? Zap we no longer have to put down the black people, let’s think bigger. How about some acoustic amplifier-type weapons. Only causes permanent deafness in some. Even if you hippies don’t like the SMA-50, everyone, I mean everyone of note, loves the “rock and roll”.)
Need I even mention the 3 trillion the Pentagon “lost”. Billions sent to Iraq, magically “unaccounted for”. Afghanistan’s corruption. Pakistan’s corruption. Israel’s corruption. So if you really want, we can bribe some governments, important people, or buy off the masses.
So Zap, these are your “varied” choices on how to spend 20 trillion taxpayer dollars. What say you?
p.s. The language and intent is subtle and seamlessly incorporated with the corporate media propaganda. I may not like what #16 is doing, but gosh darn it, that’s just standard fare in this here America (and honestly, that’s some efficient work).
You are correct. I really don’t think our corporate ruling class wants a Constitutional Convention, which can simply rewrite the whole damned thing(a very good idea, IMO) if it so chooses.
Even if this Compact for America succeeds in calling a Constitutional Convention, it could easily get out of control. There is nothing to stop an Amendment to ban corporate personhood, for example, or even one to simply abolish the United States Senate and establish real proportional representation.
So, I hope they succeed in getting a Constitutional Convention. It would give popular pressure a real chance at accomplishing something that actually benefits We The People.
Our nation is hanging on ever thinning threads. Sooner or later they will break. Then no convention will be able to do a thing. The rest of the world, having already held their conventions, will sit in wonder as to why the nation that created the system that saved them, refused to use it to save itself. Has anyone noticed that those nations which have held conventions in the past 20 to 30 years are not in financial and political trouble because their people not only realize they can address the issues at hand but already have and therefore have more confidence in their system of government/economics? Meanwhile those few nations that still have out-dated Constitutions, tax systems and so forth wallow in massive financial debt and political chaos. It is not a coincidence.
The plan of ALEC and the Goldwater Institute will not succeed. The legislatures have already rejected the plan in several states. Moreover, as always, Nick refuses to discuss or even recognize what the federal courts have already ruled regarding a convention. It must be by ELECTED representatives. It can discuss AMENDMENTS. THERE ARE NO IMPLIED POWERS IN ARTICLE V. Hence, the states have no authority to dictate, especially by compact,the terms and conditions of an AVC.
As the courts have ruled repeatedly a compact must be approved by Congress meaning that CONGRESS, not the STATES set the rules, terms and conditions of a compact. To suggest Congress will approve this is sheer ludicricy. At some point in time, the courts will get involved in this either as a state agrees to the compact or when it is presented to Congress but before it takes place. The courts will dispose of it based on Coleman v Miller.
So, you can relax. I’ve been warning about Coleman for years and no one has listened to me so I won’t waste a lot of time repeating myself here. Coleman v Miller gives carte blanche to Congress regarding the amendment process even to the point of approving MILITARY control of state legislatures to cause “ratification” of an amendment. All of this is considered acting under the “political question” doctrine. The court further removed itself from the matter and this has been tested in federal court twice since the 1939 ruling, by stating its only power in the amendment process was “advisory, given entirely without constitutional authority.”
This compact is constitutionally wrong on so many levels and violates so many court rulings it is impossible to list them all in this comment. Suffice to say the courts will say it is wrong if not the legislatures who, as I’ve said, have already in some cases rejected this proposal.
But let us list a few. First of all, it is violation of First Amendment and as any convention delegate is a federal official, a violation of speech and debate to arrest them. Second, the Constitution clearly states a convention can propose AMENDMENTS not amendment. Third, under the terms of the Constitution neither the attorney generals nor the governors nor any other standing official in the state may hold the position of delegate UNLESS they resign from that office BEFORE becoming a delegate. Fourth under the terms of Article V it is Congress that issues the call meaning it sets the time and place for a convention. It is highly unlikely Dallas will be selected. Fifth, as Article V does not allow recessions which is no more than a form of estoppel, the other 33 amendment subjects contained within applications by the 49 states/ 748 applications which can be read at http://www.foavc.org must be considered under both the 14th equal protection as well as First Amendment provisions by any convention. Sixth, as stated delegates must be elected under the terms of the 14th Amendment.
I think you get the idea. I find ironic this comes from the conservative side of the political aisle. The JBS which is clearly ultra conservative along with the Eagle Forum as others of this bent, have been the rock of opposition for so long I’m not certain if they did change their minds and actually urged the Constitution be obeyed it would make any difference at this point. I suspect they will be very surprised to learn that all their efforts have been quite successful, so much so that the monster they created, allowing the federal government to veto the Constitution, has long since left the nest they created and gone out on its own. In any event, considering it is they who always fear a “runaway” convention, wouldn’t be ironic if it is they who are the ones behind such an effort.
BTW for the record their accusation that liberals want such a convention is bogus. I’ve been working in this area for over twenty years. I’ve never, not once, ever heard, seen, or read about any liberal, let alone any liberal group advocating a runaway convention–probably because they realize all of the applications by the states are conservative, not liberal. Indeed the only ones who have ever brought up a “runaway” convention in the entire spectrum of politics is the JBS which created the myth in the first place.
This proposal need not worry anyone. It will never happen. But it will draw attention, national attention to a convention and its ability to solve problems, not problem facing this nation. One big beef people have is they have no way to get at Congress, or the courts or the presidency. That’s true because the JBS has made them fear the means provided to do so–a convention. Amendments can change Congress, the courts and so forth. That’s why a convention is there.
Consider this scenario instead. An elected convention with the support of the people meets and proposes a series of amendments designed to resolve the various issues we have. It proposes an amendment which limits the debt, has the people more involved in that process and also makes sure that Congress doesn’t get around the entire process by also addressing appropriations. It proposes an amendment that allows for electronic voting, not the type people think of today but a process designed to allow the people real time voting regarding the actions of Congress such that the people of any district or state may at their designation take a vote and instruct their representative how he or she will vote on a specific issue or procedure. It proposes an amendment to allow for recall, initiative and referendum. It proposes an amendment allowing for review of judicial decisions based on one of three methods already before the convention. It proposes a new system of economics based on a tithe system with the government receiving its income not from taxes but the interest of the tithe after such tithe has first paid the national debt and then been used to pay from lowest to richest the taxes owed by the nation until the tithe replaces all forms of taxes thus raising the income of all some 40 percent annually while still allowing the government income necessary for all constitutional functions.
The list can go on but the fact is the Goldwater Institute wants to cheat the American people out of greatness. A convention can do great things as I’ve shown. But not if people like Nick have their way. Then all they will create is chaos and destruction of the Constitution.