Skip to comments.Concerned Enough To Act
Posted on 07/30/2013 8:35:16 AM PDT by john de herrera
Whats more powerful, the right to complain about government, or the right to reform it? Clearly, one right is more powerful, and indeed its that one which makes an American citizen who and what they are a member of a society with the power to alter or abolish what it dislikes about government. Youll find very few Americans today who want to abolish the government we have, the one with three branches legislative, executive, and judicial. What the vast majority want is to keep what we have, but address concerns regarding how it currently operates.
Polls show as few as 9% approve of Congress, or put another way, 90%+ disapprove of Congress, a statistic thats been trending for a decade. When the institution established to represent the will of the People is disapproved by 90%, and for ten years or more, its self-evident its time for them to exercise their right to alter what they dislike. History teaches that if We dont, forces of corruption will alter it against our wishes. Some argue thats already occurring due to court decisions and corporations acting as persons. This status quo of politics has resulted in government drowned in private money, where laws/loopholes go to the highest bidders, written by lobbyists, signed off on by members of Congress, and disliked by the People.
The Constitution is designed so that in the event Congress becomes unresponsive to the needs of the People, a convention of the states considers amendment proposals, and those voted up by 2/3 are then sent on to the People for ratification. Ratification by the People requires a super-majority of 3/4, a principle that regardless if conservative or liberal, a proposal must have all one side signed on, plus at least half the opposition, or it goes to the dustbin of history. 75% approval makes it mathematically impossible for a society to harm itself in the process of building consensus.
It all sounds pretty simple--if Congress stops working, the states hold a convention to propose amendments, and 75% consensus of the People determines which are worthy of adoption. So why havent we ever convoked this federal convention of the states as a right of the People? The answer is complicated, but in a nutshell, its because both the People and the members of Congress have assumed what political commentators have asserted for decades--that a federal convention opens up the possibility of the Constitution being rewritten. This is untrue for two reasons: the delegates propose amendments to this Constitution, meaning one would have to propose an amendment allowing for a new constitution, get it ratified, and then come back to draft anew; in other words, the Framers did not leave a self-destruct button in their masterwork. Also, its irrational to believe 75% of the People are going to approve of tinkering with the Constitution, let alone writing a new one. You may achieve fifty percent approval on this partisan issue or that, but there are few things in a society which can garner 75% support. In this sense, a convention is not a re-write, but an upgrade--we will keep what we have, and adopt such proposals as are deemed necessary by the People.
Even though a federal convention also involves the ratification process as a check and balance against marginal ideas from becoming law, many Americans still retain irrational fears about this aspect of the Constitution. Thats where you come in. In this audio/visual day and age, we need to hold a convention and document it, in order to show America what the solution looks like. We want you to stand in for the real thing, as a delegate to a constitutional convention, to build consensus with others on what has a chance at being ratified these days.
Occupancy of the room in which the convention is to be held is two hundred persons: 150 delegates, 50 dedicated to production/media/support. The room has been reserved in the capitol building of California, which in no way is meant to place emphasis on that state over any other, it was simply a matter of logistics/availability.
Whether you align with the Tea Party or Occupy movements, or find yourself somewhere else on the political map, but still believe in the founding principles of our form of government, We need you to help show what the Constitution provides for, and indeed is essential to a functional government of, by, and for the People. Please consider being a delegate to the convention of December 2-4, 2013, to be held in Sacramento, California. Doors open at 8:30AM; proceedings begin 9:00AM.
The Constitution also provides us a mechanism to reverse tyranny; however, I believe we are well past the point of effectively utilizing that mechanism.
Good, but you forgot the fourth branch - the states themselves.
I can just imagine the horror and disgust the framers of the Constitution would show us for letting the federal government become such an powerful oppressive 'organism'. I believe no one would have voted for Constitution if they could have seen into the future and see what we would have to deal with today.
Today, the Constitution has been turned upside-down, inside-out, and backward. It is now used to limit our freedoms and expand the all powerful federal government's. Exactly the opposite intended by it.
But when those who's only goal is more power, what should we expect?
I like it.
BTW, I sent a letter to my state rep a few weeks ago, advocating Article V to repeal the 17th. I did as you suggested, and reminded him of the power over national affairs that our framers vested with him and the FL legislature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.