A Declaration of Independence
If private funds had no influence on the way politicians voted, or what does and doesn’t make it out of congressional committee to the floor for a vote, then corporations and wealthy individuals wouldn’t dump millions of dollars into political advertisements and campaign accounts. For generations the People have desired to remove private funds from public elections, or to “take the money out of politics,” where legislation goes to the highest bidder, written by lobbyists, signed off by members of Congress. The intent of the Constitution was to prohibit such a system. Through agents of corporate power--members of Congress--what was once a government for the People, has been overthrown.
The Founders all agreed that
the Constitution was not and could never be complete due to the fact that
things change, and therefore amendments were necessary from time to time. Initially
only the Congress had authority to propose amendments, but then the question
was raised, what happens if Congress itself became the problem? Or, what if the
Supreme Court made some really bad decisions running counter to the principles
of the Constitution? The solution was a feature which provided for a convention
of state delegates, so they could deliberate, find the common ground, and propose
solutions based on that consensus. The only reason we’ve never held a federal
convention is because the People have erroneously been lead to believe that
such a process might destroy the Constitution itself, but when the Framers
wrote Article V, they also wrote it so as to protect it from hostile forces. Three
things were forbidden:
1) Altering the arrangement
known as slavery (a ban since removed by amendment).
2) Altering the arrangement
of equal representation of the states in the Senate.
3) Writing a new constitution.
The Framers were keen to use
the phrase, “a convention for proposing amendments,” and by doing so made it an
institution beholden and limited just like Congress. Once there, any such proposals
then require 3/4 approval of the states in order to be ratified into law of the
land. The principle of 3/4 approval, or what is also known as a super-majority,
is shrewd in that agreement of multiple regions/constituencies/bias are required
for any change to occur. Whether Red state or Blue state, conservative or
liberal, an amendment needs all of one side signed on, plus at least half the
other, or it goes nowhere. In other words, it’s mathematically impossible for
the People to harm themselves in the constitutional process of holding a
convention because a proposed amendment must first be sanctioned by popular
will of the People before it becomes a law, and 3/4 of the People are not going
to insist on harming themselves and/or removing their rights and liberties. The Constitution is based on the common sense that not everyone is
always going to agree, and that deliberations are required to build consensus
and find common ground. Yet, even though the Article V Convention embodies the ultimate right of Americans--to examine and purge corruption--groups on the right like the NRA and John
Birch Society, and groups on the left like the ACLU and Common Cause, have had
Americans erroneously believing that a “constitutional convention” would be
like throwing our rights to the wolves, when it is nothing more than a non-binding deliberative process of
building consensus, and then proposing solutions based on that consensus. How is it
possible that these national groups from opposite ends of the political
spectrum miraculously agree when it comes to being against the idea of a
convention? That’s the subject for another essay, ironically though, what these
groups irrationally fear happening at a convention is already happening in
reality. Our rights and economic security and prosperity are thrown to the wolves every day in
the form of corporate lobbyists writing legislation that members of Congress
sign off on.
Since 90%+ of all campaigns are won by the candidate who spends the most money, public servants are no longer dependent upon the public, they’re dependent upon the .05% of Americans who make political contributions of $200 or more, and corporations which create and fund political action committees. This is the problem with confusing the freedom of speech with the freedom to spend money. Money is not speech just because a session of the Supreme Court said so. Money is the volume of speech, or what message is heard over the broadcast frequencies. There’s no reason one should have to be wealthy or have access to wealth in order to serve the public. A non-partisan amendment concerned with electoral reform is likely the only thing to be ratified today as it’s the only issue which consistently polls with an approval rating of 90%+. Is it coincidence that 90%+ disapprove of Congress, and that same amount desires electoral reform?
History shows there’s an inevitable conclusion if something isn’t done. The writing is on the wall, either the People alter their government by finding common ground for a suitable amendment, or agents acting in the interests of corporations will not only keep our government from acting in our interests, but will eventually do away with our form of government once and for all. Do you like your standard of living here in the USA? Do you like the opportunity it provides? Do you like being an American citizen? These things are all on the line, again, not because this essay says so, but because the objective facts of reality and all of history say so. So what are we going to do about it? What can be done about it? Anything?
The legality of the Article V Convention is spelled out in the Constitution, if 2/3 of the states ever cast an application for it, the Congress calls it. The call is ministerial in nature, non-discretionary, meaning federal politicians don’t decide whether the People exercise the right. Over the decades hundreds of applications have piled up at the doorstep of Congress, and as might be expected, certain think tanks and university professors have created bogus assertions that applications sent in by the states must be concerned with the same subject, or cast around the same time, or cast for the same subject at the same time. The problem with arguments as to what is and isn’t a valid application for a convention, is that there are no laws stating such terms or conditions, which means one thing: there are none. The reason no terms or conditions apply to the applications is obvious, because the spirit of that clause was and is that people in Washington DC will make up excuses not to call a convention. Thus, the Framers based it on a simple numeric count. And because forty-nine states have already cast dozens upon dozens of applications, means that the clause has been satisfied, and in terms of political science and practical politics, means that as soon as enough Americans desire a convention, the politicians in Washington DC will call it. Why? Because there are things that those in DC don’t talk about because if they did they’d have millions of Americans galvanized in unity, and their system works better when the People are divided. The flip-side is, if a tipping-point ever does desire the same thing, the politicians will deliver.
Over two hundred years and our government has now become what the thirteen colonies had successfully escaped. We today have the right to examine and fix what’s broken, indeed we have an obligation to do so if one respects the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. To convoke a federal convention is to do just that. For those who believe we don’t have Americans bright enough to pull it off, they forget delegates will not be there to reinvent the wheel, but to propose an amendment which would alter the system as it currently operates. Those who think Americans today don’t understand the Constitution and why it exists as it does, fail to realize how the process of holding a convention and building national consensus in and of itself will re-educate two or three generations here and now, not to mention leave a lasting impression for who knows how many generations to come.
Do you think Americans should be free to determine their course, or do you think corporations should determine it for them? Do you think Americans today deserve to go through the constitutional process of deliberation and finding out what 75% of us agree on, or do you think we’re no longer good enough? The Declaration of Independence was written into the Constitution in the form of the Article V Convention, the genius of the Constitution is that it provides for a peaceable reformation. All we have to do now is raise awareness that 1) The Article V Convention is not dangerous nor fraught with unanswerable questions, 2) The current system of institutionalized corruption requires an amendment and such a one is not going to originate and pass in Congress, and 3) A tipping-point of Americans desiring a federal convention of state delegates is all that’s required and in the blink of the eye we'll have our republic back under the control of the People.
