Wednesday, January 14, 2015

The straw that broke the Camel's back

As I wrote in a previous post, thirty-three (33) of the thirty-four (34) states needed to "call" a Convention to Propose Amendments under Article V have made such a "call".  I have compiled the list of those states and the citations to the Congressional Record where each such "call" is recorded.

This means of course if only one (1) more state makes such a call, Congress would be compelled -- and the Supreme Court could be properly petitioned under its original jurisdiction to order Congress to -- call such a Convention.

Thus it was with real delight that I received a telephone call in response to my Black Caucus letter from one of the seventeen (17) states holding the power to make the "call".

The conversation I had with this person covered the technical issues of how a state makes a Congressional "call", the wisdom and value of so doing and ended with me stating what I fatuously have named "Sibley's Law":  If you can do something positive, you should; if you are the only one who can do something positive, you must."

It was now out of my hands . . . and into  someone else's.


Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Article V Convention and Fear-Morngering

The fear-mongering about an Article V Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution is now underway.  In an unsigned article, the anonymous author headlines the piece: “A constitutional convention could be the single most dangerous way to 'fix' American government.”  The article deliberately uses false statements and incendiary language to the end of attempting to arouse public fear or alarm about an Article V Convention.  Shades of the infamous Daisy television commercial.

For example, as to false statements: “Conventioneers could alter absolutely anything about the way the United States is governed.”  This, or course, is patently false.  At best, if a majority of the states attending such an Article V Convention voted to proposed an amendment, that amendment would then have to be circulated to the 50 states and would only become the law of the land if 3/4s of those states approved it. Accordingly, the “Conventioneers” could “alter” absolutely nothing.

As for incendiary language, the article states: “ At stake, potentially, are the freedoms we take for granted under the Bill of Rights; the powers of the president, Congress and the courts; and the policies the government can or cannot pursue.” Well, yeah . . . that is the right of the governed to control how they are governed.  Is the unknown author of this piece proposing the alternative? That the governing elite determine the limits of their power?

As for the most inane argument against an Article V Convention, the article quotes notable Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe as stating that such a Convention would be: "putting the whole Constitution up for grabs." Exactly what the Founding Father's intended when they enacted Article V!

Simply put, what is being stated here is that those in power fear a change in the status quo so completely that they would de facto amend the Constitution to prevent any amendment to the Constitution which would change the present power structure by scaring the public from calling such a Convention.

A more chilling position could not be articulated by any government official.


Friday, December 19, 2014

Radio is still alive and well . . .

Little did I know -- or even suspect -- that my brief, twenty-two (22) minute interview on the Peter Boyles' KNUS radio show out of Denver, Colorado, on December 18, 2014, would animate just the right people to take unrelated steps which produced -- what would appear in hindsight -- to be a coordinated effort.  Peter had invited me on to talk about the Elizabeth Duke case and in the last two minutes the topic of an Article V Convention came up and how at present 33 of the 34 states needed to call such a Convention had in fact made the call.  Here is the interview: