Below is a speech I wrote for a sheriff. As I understand it, he's going to deliver it, or something close to it, at the next constitutional sheriff's meeting.
Good afternoon,
What’s more powerful, the right to complain about
government, or the right to reform it altogether? Clearly, one right is more
powerful than the other, and indeed it’s that right which makes an American
citizen who and what they are--a part of a society with the power to alter what
it dislikes about their government. You’ll find very few Americans who want to
abolish the government, what the vast majority want is to keep what we have,
but like a carburetor, just clean it out real good. Polls show as few as 9%
approve of Congress, flip that stat around and it reads 90%+ disapprove of
Congress, a statistic that’s been trending for a decade now.
When the institution established to represent the will of
the People is disapproved by 90% of them, and going on ten years, clearly it’s
time for the People to exercise their ultimate right and alter what they
dislike. The only way for them to legally do that within our form of government
is to propose and ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
You might be wondering, if the only way the People can
alter how their government operates is to propose and ratify an amendment, then
what’s the amendment going to be? But that’s the wrong question, because it’s
impossible to answer. Does anyone know what 75% percent of Americans can agree
to ratify today? We can all make guesses, but of course no one knows for sure.
Is there anyone here who is against the People exercising
their right to find out what, if anything, 75% would agree to ratify? Do you
think the People deserve to build consensus for amendments? If you’re against
letting the People find out what they agree on, then you’re against the
Constitution, because the spirit of it is that the People get to ratify changes
when changes are needed.
Is there anyone here who has not heard of the provision
found in the Constitution which allows for a federal convention of state
delegates? Also known as a concon, or constitutional convention, but properly
named the Article V Convention. Anyone who has never heard of it?
As you may or may not know, forty-nine states have cast
hundreds of applications for the Article V Convention and one session of
Congress after the next ignores them. Yet they’re still there, on record,
tabled and awaiting proper disposal. In fact a leading national group has
created an on-line database of PDFs of these state applications, direct from
the Congressional Record.
Let me read you Article V: (read up to, “shall call a
convention for proposing amendments”) You’ll notice Article V does not say
“upon the application within five years,” or “upon the application for the same
subject,”--or for the same subject within five years--the letter of the law is
that as soon as 2/3 of the states cast an application for any reason Congress
shall perform its governmental duty. There are no terms or conditions
pertaining to state applications. In other words, a reading of Article V and
review of the Congressional Record reveals a crime. Congress is illegally
blocking a federal convention from taking place. According to the rule of law,
this is not a political issue, this is a legal issue. If you want to argue a
convention is not currently mandated you have stopped protecting and defending
the Constitution because you are construing it so as to defeat its obvious
aim--which is to allow the People to find common ground for amendments when
elected officials stop working in their interests.
As a constitutional sheriff, I don’t care what your
politics are. I may agree with them or I may not, but they’re not important to
me in terms of my oath. I don’t care if you think a federal convention of state
delegates is a good idea or a bad idea, because this is not a political
issue--the 113th Congress is currently violating the Constitution by denying
the Article V Convention from taking place, and denying the People their right
to find common ground. This issue is not just one issue of many--it’s the issue
every other issue hangs from, because while different groups may have ideas
about what amendment will best fix Washington DC, no one’s going anywhere until
we do as instructed and join together to deliberate proposals. Congress is not
going to reign in its own power, nor is it going to properly check the
executive or judicial branches--so this is a litmus test: it exposes just how
sincere you are. Did we come here to beat our chest and declare how much we
want to honor our oath to protect and defend, or are we going to actually do it
by forcing the 113th Congress to obey the Constitution?
How would we do that? By declaring in a coordinated
policy statement that we might arrest or detain any member of Congress we find
in our county in order to inform them of their legal obligations. And we’ll
tell the American People that the oath of office does not come with an instruction
manual, and that our statement and actions are in line with the Constitution
and the rule of law. And that by raising awareness in the People, we aim to
protect the Constitution by coercing the 113th Congress to obey it, by properly
disposing of all current state applications with a time and place for a federal
convention of state delegates.
If you don't need any more persuading, and it’s clear to
you why the Article V Convention is part of the Constitution, and that the
People have a right to find their common ground, and you understand that
corruption has made Congress incapable proposing suitable amendments, then
please raise your hand.
(Ask those who raised their hands to join you at the
microphone, and then get an open discussion going until those still sitting
begin to realize what we're saying--best case the truth becomes obvious to all
in attendance and we coordinate from there.)
