Campaign Begins To Stop Congress’ Brazen Violation Of The Constitution

[CurtisLow]

"In letters to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the newly formed national organization Friends of the Article V Convention declared its challenge to Congress. “The time has come to stop playing games with the U.S. Constitution and respect the rights of Americans,” said FOAVC founder Joel S. Hirschhorn."


(1888PressRelease) June 12, 2007 - In letters to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the newly formed national organization Friends of the Article V Convention declared its challenge to Congress. “The time has come to stop playing games with the U.S. Constitution and respect the rights of Americans,” said FOAVC founder and National Press Secretary Joel S. Hirschhorn, a former senior congressional staffer.

FOAVC told Pelosi and Reid that Congress has a legal obligation to call a convention and that it is initiating a national campaign to build public pressure on Congress for a convention. "The one and only requirement specified in Article V for a convention is that two-thirds of state legislatures apply for a convention. With over 500 applications from all 50 states on record with the Congress that sole requirement has been more than met.

Congress has never passed any law to expand or further specify requirements for an Article V convention, meaning the language in Article V prevails,” said FOAVC.

“Congress has cheated Americans by not obeying Article V of the Constitution. Members of Congress are violating their oath of office to faithfully obey the Constitution,” said Hirschhorn, “and we must hold them accountable.”

“Members of Congress seem more effective as lawbreakers than lawmakers,” added California congressional candidate Byron De Lear and an FOAVC founder. “If Congress can silently and unilaterally ignore or veto one part of the Constitution, then it can disobey any part of it,” said De Lear.

Thomas E. Brennan, former Chief Justice, State of Michigan, and an FOAVC founder has said publicly that a convention “is necessary, desirable, and feasible.” The convention option “is to be taken seriously…it is not a joke, nor an illusion. It would bring a new, responsible dimension to American politics,” said Brennan.

“Operating outside the control of the federal government convention delegates could, like members of Congress, consider any constitutional amendments they deem necessary to address unresolved national problems – and that’s what frightens politicians,” noted Hirschhorn.

De Lear said, “Congress can’t have it both ways. Give Americans its first Article V convention or propose a constitutional amendment to remove the convention option.” FOAVC reminded Pelosi and Reid that Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower supported use of the convention option.

“Sadly, no current Democratic or Republican presidential candidate has done likewise, especially mavericks like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and ‘champion of the Constitution’ Ron Paul,” noted De Lear.

The non-partisan FOAVC at www.foavc.org urges Americans and state legislatures to demand that Congress obey the Constitution, respect states’ rights, and announce the first Article V convention. FOAVC does not support any specific constitutional amendment, though it invites groups advocating specific reforms that might be achieved through amendments to become Affiliate Members.

http://delusionaldemocracy.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/12/778342-campaign-begins-to-stop-congress-brazen-violation-of-the-constitution?email=html

http://www.1888pressrelease.com/campaign-begins-to-stop-congress-brazen-violation-of-the-co-pr-qa7y16r72.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xucI5mgX_HU&mode=related&search=

[TurtleBurger]

An Article V convention would be a disaster. There is no reason to believe the majority of delegates would be libertarian, or have any respect for the Constitution as it currently stands. There is no limit to what they could do: they could scrap the Constitution and start over; at a bare minimum they would throw out the 2nd amendment and take the teeth out of the rest of the Bill of Rights. I don't see any way that a convention of politically correct-minded 21st century Americans could improve on what is already in the Constitution, as flawed as it is.

[LibertyEagle]

This is a very bad idea. People have been trying to get a Constitutional Convention called for many years. Thank goodness, they have been stopped.

In a Constitutional Convention, everything is up for grabs.... our Bill of Rights... EVERYTHING. We do not need a new Constitution. We just need to follow the one we have.

[X_805]

We do not need a new Constitution. We just need to follow the one we have.

Exactly. I mean there are a few amendments I've been pondering for a while, but as it stands, it's a great piece of work.

[Gee]

Huh? Its not really any harder to amend the constitution with a convention than it is otherwise. You bypass the federal govenment, but you still need the hardest part, 3/4ths of the states to ratify it. In fact I'd bet it would be even harder than a normal amendment, since you'd have a lot of people voting against it just because the feds were sidestepped.

And if we are so worried about following the one we have, we aren't doing a very good job if we are ignoring Article 5.

There is no limit to what an amendment might do, regardless of whether it starts in a convention or in congress.

[angelatc]

It's not really all the dangerous. Amendments proposed by the Convention must still be ratified by three-quarters of the states before they become law.

The point is that if they have presented valid petitions, then Congress has a legal obligation to call the convention. There are different types of conventions that cna be called - A limited convention would only discuss amendments, and not entertain the notion of discarding the existing document in its entirety.

http://www.foavc.org/

This is the way to amend the constitution without the consent of Congress. It is a good clause, because it gives power to the States.

edited to add: I'd amend it to take out the part about needing Congress to call the Convention.


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[beerista]

Friends of Article V Convention can't be very good friends with Article V if they didn't even invite it over to their website. I can't find the full text of that very short Article anywhere on the site, much less on the home page where you would expect it to be.

What I did find on the home page was an endorsement of the idea of a Constitutional Convention by Lincoln in the very same paragraph of the very same speech that he endorsed the people's “revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow... the existing Government... [w]henever they shall grow weary” of it. Same guy who pretty much dismantled the parts of the Constitution he didn't like in order to suppress that “revolutionary right” for half the country when they tried to exercise it. Doesn't mean he was wrong in his endorsement (of the Convention or the “revolutionary right”), just a funny sort of obvious irony.

Personally, the idea of letting people loose to make laws after they have been intellectually stifled for so long scares the hell out of me. Hell, most people couldn't define a Right if you handed them Thomas Jefferson's own dictionary. And this is definitely not where I would begin if I were mounting a campaign “To Stop Congress’ Brazen Violation Of The Constitution.” I believe I'd start more with holding their feet to the fire about some of their more flagrant violations than this. But we each fight our own battles, I guess. Even so, the idea scares me just a little bit less, I suppose, than politicians making laws and proposing their own Amendments. (Flag burning and gay marriage ring a bell?) So, if the claim on the website is accurate (and I'd like to see their supporting material) that the requisite two thirds of all state legislatures have applied for a Convention, I don't see that Congress has a leg to stand on in refusing to call one. But I'm still scared.

By the way, anyone remember what happened the last time we had a Constitutional Convention, right about 1787?