Slaying a Dragon

There were a dozen conventions leading up to the 1787 Federal Convention at Philadelphia which drafted the Constitution. From there the people of the thirteen states had to then be persuaded to embrace it. The final argument of the Federalists, No. 85, explains that if Congress ever becomes so corrupt it no longer expresses the will of the people--if corruption becomes institutionalized at the federal level--the displeasure of the states, registered by a numeric count of applications, forces Congress to issue the call for a convention. Everyone alive at that time knew what one was for--to address concerns in a non-binding deliberative assembly so that when it was time to vote for change everyone had an understanding of issues. Ratifying conventions were held in each state to see what everyone thought, and then there was more voting. So how could our nation have survived all these conventions which took place at our founding, but now somehow, the same process is a huge question mark fraught with fear? We today, after fifty-plus years of military/industrial nonsense have forgotten what a convention is and why 3/4 ratification is overly sufficient to block divisive issues from becoming law. Fear that a convention will propose the most corporatist, draconian, and/or fundamentalist ideas is one thing, but to fear 38 states agreeing to them is not only irrational, but illogical as well: 75% means the idea must have overwhelming and broad support, that whether conservative or liberal it must win support of all one side, plus half the other. In other words it’s mathematically impossible for a divisive issue to be ratified. To put it another way, if you fear a convention it’s because you irrationally/illogically believe issues like abortion and marriage are so easily agreed to they could achieve 75% overall consent. 

On the other hand, there are issues that are easily agreed to: Electoral Reform in general, creating standards for transparency in the voting process, and removing money from politics, in particular. Electoral Reform always scores 80-90% approval. Removing money from politics has been an on the lips of Americans for over a century, and guess what we’ve never had in that century? A convention. 

Congress refuses to issue the call even though applications have been submitted by the hundreds. A new legal challenge is about to prove once again that Congress refuses to obey the Constitution and issue the call. So where does that leave you and me? All it means is what Presidents Jefferson, Lincoln, and Eisenhower have said in so many words: It doesn’t matter what the Congress or Court thinks, only what We The People think. As soon as we galvanize a tipping-point around the idea that there is nothing to fear and everything to gain from a convention, Congress will do what it’s always done: play dumb, then manufacture consent for what the people want (this time we don’t want a new amendment, we want a convention to consider a number of them--some concerned with how Congress operates).

Our trick now is to gather political groups and individuals from across the land and political spectrum to join in the call for the Article V Convention. Government here in the USA has been overtaken by corporate and foreign interests, legislation is now written by those who fund campaigns--banking interests, big business. Now is the time to hit the reset button on governance with a convention. How? Within the political environment of a convention discussion is removed from another corrupt, tired two-party affair, to that of how 38 states might alter and abolish the status quo. Whether or not any idea can indeed garner the approval of 75%, the constitutional process of a convention is a three-part national discussion that in and of itself alters and abolishes the status quo. In other words, all we need to do is build the pressure upon Congress to issue the call and once that goal is accomplished we are immediately, literally overnight, delivered from the hell of politics as usual.

The Rule of Law is that there are laws and they are to be obeyed. Of law, there is the letter of it (how it’s written/what it states) and the spirit of it (why it states what it does). Those unfamiliar with the Article V Convention and the numerous Supreme Court decisions directly related to it or an aspect of it (such as election of delegates), must first ask themselves if they’re clear on the distinction between subjective opinion and objective law. If at present you believe the Article V Convention can be limited in any way, you are applying a subjective standard that doesn’t exist and was never meant to. To limit a convention to one or more subjects, or to believe applications need be submitted within a “reasonable” time period, means you have not read the letter of this law nor understand the spirit of it. The letter of Article V is that upon the application of 2/3 of the states, with no other terms or conditions and without debate, the Congress “shall” issue the call. The spirit of Article V is that any generation can alter/abolish the status quo of a two-party system at any time the desire is strong enough. There are no limits, terms or conditions on the applications, except that one has been cast, and hundreds have already been cast. Nor are there any limitations on the convention once convoked. Hopefully, you will come to realize the Article V Convention is untouchable: as soon as one attempts to put a single limitation upon it, where does one stop? Where you think it should stop? Where I think it should stop? Where Newt Gingrich thinks it should stop? You cannot apply subjective criteria to an objective law which has no terms or conditions, unique in all the world. That’s what we should all understand finally, that there is nothing like the American constitution in all the history of civilization. The idea of a “runaway convention” is a myth and such fears are unfounded based on reason and logic. The Article V Convention is an assembly of the states to discover if indeed there is anything that 3/4 might agree to. Simply working to discover what might garner such approval in and of itself will put the hurt on the two-party corporatist state of affairs, and the system we’ve all come to loathe.