Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: Yet Another Avenue; The Call For A second Constitutional Convention

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Sunday, September 2, 2007

Yet Another Avenue; The Call For A second Constitutional Convention


TWO HUNDERED YEARS after the framing of the Constitution, the United States is on the verge of holding a second Constitutional Convention.

Having failed so far to persuade Congress to offer an amendment mandating a balanced Federal budget, advocates of the idea have been urging state legislatures to go the petition route.

The Constitution stipulates that when two-thirds of them request it, Congress "shall call' a national convention for the purpose of proposing new amendments. And since the mid-1970s 32 states --just two short of the necessary .

The Underlying Problem

Obliquely stated the greatest fear surrounding the contemplation of a Second Constitutional Convention is that special interest, single-issues type of constituencies, i.e., Abortion, English as our Official Language, Gun Control Advocates, Anti Gay/Lesbian Advocates, Anti Stem Cell Advocates, Immigration Extremists, Anti Equal Right Folks and Anti Quotas Leaders, Anti States Rights/Jurisdiction Advocates, Flag Desecration Obsessionists and Prayer In School Demagogues, Creationist Theorists and Borkian Anti-Privacy Enthusiasts to site but a few of the most obvious, and let not the die hard Neocon believers and Corporate Vultures escape listing.

The entire process must be entered into with a seriousness of purpose and an informed delegate selection, lest any final product be one doomed from the start by the very forces of the collective corrupted content of our culture that cries out for repudiation and redress of its wrong doings.

August 3, 2006: The requisite state applications for an Article V Convention are registered in the Congressional Record.

Walker v. Members of Congress (05-35023 U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) is now on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Under the authority of Article V of the U.S. Constitution, the convention clause is peremptory; Congress must call a convention once the requisite applications are received. The convention call is based on a simple numeric count of state applications, arguments otherwise are invalid based on the Constitution itself, and all founding documents related to the matter.

Members of Congress are failing to carry out their constitutional obligation and issue the call to the states and are currently in violation of federal criminal law. Congress cannot veto the calling of a national convention.

Please contact your representatives in Congress and let them know you expect them to follow the law as written in the U.S. Constitution, and that they now go on record as being in favor of a national convention or resign their office.

What's Happening to Our Country?

Are you aware that We The People are being denied our constitutional right to an Article V Convention to make amendments, despite 567 requests by the state legislatures of ALL 50 states?

We need your help. If you want to help reclaim our rights, then you have come to the right place. Our mission . . .

Hello. Welcome to Friends Of the Article V Convention (FOAVC). We are a non-partisan association of American citizens from every state in our Republic comprised of a broad range of occupations, ethnicities, religious affiliations and political persuasions. Our common bond is a deep commitment to preserving the values and principles embodied in our founding documents - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - upon which this nation was founded.

The Founders at the signing ceremony of the Constitution

Article V of the Constitution of the United States provides that "on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, [Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments...". The Founding Fathers of our nation recognized the importance of providing this means by which the citizens of our country could initiate amendments to change and/or clarify the Constitution; the fundamental document which they intended to be not only the blueprint for our federal system but also "the supreme Law of the Land".

The Founding Fathers described the obligation of Congress to call an Article V Convention as "peremptory". Alexander Hamilton, author of the final language in Article V wrote in Federalist 85:

"In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments, it has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed.

For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers; and on this account alone, I think there is no weight in the observation just stated.

I also think there is little weight in it on another account. The intrinsic difficulty of governing THIRTEEN STATES at any rate, independent of calculations upon an ordinary degree of public spirit and integrity, will, in my opinion constantly impose on the national rulers the necessity of a spirit of accommodation to the reasonable expectations of their constituents. But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile.

It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof."

The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress "shall call a convention." Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

If the foregoing argument is a fallacy, certain it is that I am myself deceived by it, for it is, in my conception, one of those rare instances in which a political truth can be brought to the test of a mathematical demonstration. Those who see the matter in the same light with me, however zealous they may be for amendments, must agree in the propriety of a previous adoption, as the most direct road to their own object."

Despite the fact that ALL 50 state legislatures have submitted 567 applications (far in excess of the two-thirds requirement) requesting a convention call, Congress has ignored its constitutionally mandated duty. Some Americans fear a convention. This fear, based upon half-truths, myths and outright false hoods, helps to justify the congressional veto of direct constitutional text and denies the people their right to amend the Constitution without government interference or oversight. They say that such a gathering could become a "runaway" convention -- re-writing or over-turning parts or all of the Constitution.

They ignore the fact that the Framers also provided a safety mechanism to prevent such a fiasco: all amendments proposed by the convention must be ratified by three-quarters of the states before they become effective. There is no danger that radicals on either side of the political spectrum could bring about such an outcome.

Not all in authority have opposed a convention however. President Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address, March 4, 1861 said:

"Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself..."

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous to have the National Constitution amended.

While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept of refuse."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower also supported an Article V Convention saying:

"Through their state legislatures and without regard to the federal government, the people can demand a convention to propose amendments that can and will reverse any trends they see as fatal to true representative government."

Yet fears remain and the myths persist. The antidote for any fear is knowledge, and education is the reason why FOAVC exists. Our goal is to inform all citizens about the convention clause in the Constitution and to provide an electronic town hall where the people can discuss the various issues pertaining to a convention in a calm and rational manner. Our ultimate objective is to generate the 'critical mass' necessary to convene an Article V Convention.

We invite you, all patriots and concerned Americans, to carefully review the articles, documents and discussion presented in these pages. If upon careful consideration you conclude, as we have, that an Article V Convention is necessary to preserve the Constitutional Republic - and to prevent Congress from vetoing the will of the people - we invite you to join FOAVC.

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." --Edmund Burke


All court documents can be found here:

A court brief detailing the issue is here:

States With a Standing Call for a Constitutional Convention













New Hampshire

New Mexico

North Carolina

North Dakota




South Carolina

South Dakota




The remaining 18 states have not called for a convention.

Although 32 states had initially passed resolutions calling for a Con-Con (for the purpose of adding a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution), 3 states — Alabama, Florida and Louisiana — rescinded their calls.

The Nevada House of Representatives "purged" its resolution. However, since both chambers passed the resolution, it is questionable whether the one-chamber purge would be accepted as a rescission.

Conversely, it has been argued that because the resolution was actually purged from the records it would negate the initial resolution, since it must pass in both chambers.

We should not consider Nevada's purge, nor the rescissions of Alabama, Florida and Louisiana as set backs. Such things have been true even in the course of attempting to amend the constitution; the passage of time and changes within state administrations begs for such events.

According to Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a convention when 2/3rds of the states apply. That magic number is 34 states. Since three states have formally withdrawn (rescinded) their calls, that would seemingly leave us 5 states away from having a Con-Con.


*However, we have been informed that the advocates of the convention are waiting to capture not five, but only two more. It is planned, that if they get two more states to pass resolutions for a Con-Con, they will challenge the rescissions of the three states and throw them into the courts while going ahead with a convention.

After experiencing the onslaught of lawyers (scribes, as in "scribes and Pharisees") in Florida's presidential election fiasco, can you imagine the hay-day they would have with a court battle of this magnitude and importance?

The Constitutional Convention that led to the creation of the United States of America took place in the late 1700’s at a time when the population was below two million.

Slavery formed the foundation of large parts of the economy, especially in the South. The right of women to vote was almost inconceivable. There were no cars, trains, or airplanes, much less mass communication systems or large corporations. Nor were there organized political lobbying forces for special interests.

We had a ragtag military that had miraculously taken on the most powerful military force in the world. America was basically a startup operation, long on hope, short on experience.

The Constitutional Convention convened a group of white men, most of aristocratic heritage, with some bold dreams for what a new-and-improved political blueprint might look like, drawing from the best Enlightenment thinkers, the political model of the Iroquois, and experience with the Articles of the Confederation.

It was not a particularly inclusive group, with no representation for women, African Americans, or Native Americans, among many major stakeholders in the future of the country. Plus, the framers were definitely products of the European culture they had inherited. Even given all these limitations, though, the group was able to accomplish something historic – a political blueprint that could shape what would become the world’s most influential country.

For that accomplishment, Americans have shown a touching level of devotion. The Constitution has become, in many ways, a sacred document, revered with the honor normally reserved for the holy books of major religions.

This stems from its eloquent presentation of sacred truths, its practical power, and its resiliency – the ability to change with the times when a sufficient mass of the government or people feel an amendment is required. It is both timeless and amendable by the times.

Given the extraordinary benefits that were unleashed in the act of the framers creating a visionary and practical framework for a new country, might we be able to do something parallel now, in the first decade of a new millennium? It need not necessarily be called a Constitutional Convention but the function would be the same – to harness the best thinking and practices to create a visionary and practical framework upon which a great collective future can be built.

Our times have emergent challenges that simply didn’t exist in the late 1700’s, ranging from global warming to shrinking oil supplies. As good as the framers of the Constitution of the United States were, they did not have the benefit of 200 years of experience with democracy. They did not have Darwin’s theory of evolution, the technology of the Internet, Freud’s forays into the unconscious, or the sciences of complexity, to name just a few key developments. They also lacked the global perspective that comes from seeing our planet from space and hadn’t bridged the best wisdom of both Eastern and Western culture.

Our world view has transformed in thousands of extraordinary ways in these last two hundred years. What would a practical framework drawn up now that includes the best wisdom, insights, and practices from those two hundred years look like? It might start with the principles that have been carefully honed in the Earth Charter, and then translate them into a practical social-political-scientific-spiritual framework that could guide our next stage of collective evolution.

This would not necessarily be a replacement for the US Constitution but a parallel that has the benefit of including new insights from physics, biology, psychology, sociology, diplomacy, technology, spirituality, medicine, and many other domains. A state-of-the-art, visionary framework for building an emerging global culture.

As the number of democracies multiplies around the world, what can we learn about best practices from the many experiments? What can we glean from an intense study of the successes and failures of the American experiment? And how can we be more inclusive in a new spiritual-political vision by including the wisdom of marginalized voices?

If we were to answer these questions in a coherent new way, giving shape to an emerging consciousness, we could lay down the guiding tracks for a next American Evolution. Like the Founding Fathers, we do have the power to become the architects of our destiny and rise to meet the great challenges of our day.

No comments: