statusquobuster’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Finding Hope In A Dismal World

  Finding Hope In A Dismal World

  Joel S. Hirschhorn

  For so many, hope is down the drain.  Hard to fault them.  Abundant evidence shows our insane world sliding down a global cheese grater.

  Fish are dying in the Great Lakes.  Bees have disappeared.  Polar ice caps and glaciers worldwide are melting faster than ever.  A global pandemic of a drug-resistant strain of TB is coming at us.  Much of the U.S. food supply is highly vulnerable because of imports and totally inadequate government scrutiny.  Politicians keep lying.  Americans keep dying.  Too many senselessly in the insane Iraq war that our delusional president cherishes and our cowardly Congress refuses to stop.  Others die because of lax gun laws.  Even more because they can't get quality medical care.  And the icing on the fungus-infested cake: the richest one percent of Americans captures 19 percent of the nation's income.  As the rich become super-rich, economic injustice and inequality punish most debt-loaded Americans, with millions facing bankruptcy and home foreclosure.

  Our crisis-filled, threatening world offers these existential choices.

  Distraction: Pay little attention to bad news.  Escapism prevents pain, such as compulsive consumerism, Internet surfing, gambling, drugs, cell phone and iPod oblivion, religion, etc.  Stay politically disinterested and disengaged.  Selfishness prevails.

  Denial: Psychologically block out awful, disturbing information.  Stay focused on personal needs and pleasures in a socially and politically disconnected world.  Why bother voting?  Why think about a world tumbling into the toilet?  Why keep up with all the shitty news?  Better to watch American Idol.  Don't pay attention to doomsayers.

  Devotion: Actively stay informed.  Eat up the bad news and suffer despair, depression, cynicism.  Cope by finding some basis for hope - something that just might stop some of the madness.  Devote time, energy and commitment to it.  Something worth fighting for is the noble way to remain sane in a crazy world.

  These days, hope often lies with the successful climb to the presidency for whoever is believed will turn things around, take us in a new, better direction.  Such is mainstream delusional political hope.  Why delusional?  Because only a fool trusts politicians.  None of the Democrat's promised major legislative priorities for the new Congress have been enacted.  Not one!  Impeachment of President Bush has not been pursued.  Transgressions of Republicans in Congress and the Executive Branch - criminal, legislative and ethical - are so commonplace they barely get attention anymore.  Our delusional democracy thrives on lesser-evil voting that sustains the two-party stranglehold.

  Others make a commitment to some cause or movement: like fighting global warming, stopping the Iraq war, finding a cure to some terrible disease, supporting a third party, etc.

  Here is the hope I have discovered.  It is not mainstream.  It goes against the grain.  It is not politically correct.  It rejects historical precedence.  And yet it is the epitome of true patriotism for Americans that trust the U.S. Constitution, and for those who see all three branches of government unable and unwilling to work in the interest of "we the people."

  My hope is that we can successfully pressure Congress and state legislatures to give us what our prescient Founders and Framers gave us in Article V of the Constitution: a national convention to consider proposals for amending the Constitution.  An Article V convention would operate outside the control of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court.  The wise Framers foresaw that ultimately Americans would confront a government that was not serving them effectively.  So they created two routes to propose constitutional amendments, the highest level of lawmaking.

  For over 200 years only one method has been used: Congress has proposed all of our constitutional amendments.  No Article V convention has ever been allowed.  The one flaw in Article V was that only Congress can call a convention when two-thirds of state legislatures ask for one.  The word "shall" made clear Congress' constitutional mandate to call a convention when that one and only constitutional requirement was met.  Have 34 state legislatures asked for an Article V convention?  You bet.  In fact, there have been over 500 state applications from all 50 states over our nation's history.  Unsurprisingly, Congress has never wanted to share power and allow an Article V convention to operate independently, even though whatever proposals for amendments resulted would face exactly the same constitutional requirement for ratification by states that proposals made by Congress face.

  Have Americans risen up in rage and rebellion over the stubborn refusal by Congress to obey the Constitution?  Hell no.  Has the Supreme Court made Congress obey the Constitution?  Hell no.  In fact, a miniscule number of Americans even know about our right to an Article V convention, even among the most politically engaged.

  Have there been many organized attempts to get an Article V convention?  You bet.  And not one has succeeded.  They all failed for two reasons.  First, they all were associated with efforts to get a specific constitutional amendment.  This always mobilized groups that opposed the amendment.  ANY amendment will bring out opposition, and when it emerges it produces fierce opposition to an Article V convention.

  Second, a wide array of organized interests, on the political left and right, have forcefully opposed the Article V convention.  Those with influence over the political system do not want an independent convention to propose ways to fix the many political, government and social problems plaguing the nation.  They would rather use their muscle and money to corrupt politicians.  They have employed the scare tactic that an Article V convention would be a "runaway" convention that would threaten national stability. They lie that an Article V convention could by itself create a new constitution - ignoring the ratification requirement and all the public and media scrutiny that would inevitably envelope America's first Article V convention and prevent delegates from pursuing nutty objectives.  They also ignore countless state conventions that have changed constitutions without disastrous effects.

  Sadly, no presidential candidate has come out in favor of an Article V convention, not even the mavericks.  Nor have any of the cuttingly honest political commentators of our age, including Gore Vidal, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Lou Dobbs.

  I believe a convention is the best way to restore the quality of American government, politics and society.  And also inspire a new era of political engagement among much of the public so fed up with politics as usual.  Conventions do not threaten democracy - they strengthen it.  My hope rests with the new national group - Friends of the Article V Convention.  It can succeed in creating the forces necessary to give us what the Framers said we have a right to.  FOAVC will not back any specific amendment.  Like members of Congress, convention delegates have the right to consider whatever they deem necessary.  FOAVC will also fight the lies of anti-conventionists.

  You too can find hope.  It is located at www.foavc.org.  Then let that hope channel your moral energy by becoming a member.  The Friends of the Article V Convention need you.  America needs you.  Now.

  [Joel S. Hirschhorn co-founded Friends of the Article V Convention; his latest book is described at www.delusionaldemocaracy.com.]On The roar of jets drowns out the warnings about jet emissions posted 2 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Taking Democracy Seriously

  Taking Democracy Seriously

  Joel S. Hirschhorn

  American: So you mean that if you Australians don't vote, you get a fine?  
  Australian: Yeah, and when you Americans don't vote you get George W. Bush.

  As surely as politicians lie, citizen apathy produces democracy atrophy.  Much more than a right - in a democracy voting is an irrevocable civic duty.  No mental gymnastics can help you jump over this ugly reality: Voter turnout over all American elections averages markedly less than half of eligible voters.  This disgrace must be fixed.

  These are my proposed solutions: We should make voting mandatory, give voters the option of "none of the above," make Election Day a national holiday, provide same day registration everywhere, and lower the voting age to 16.  

  No one reform is a panacea.  But together these five reforms can dramatically re-energize voting in America.  They could be placed in one constitutional amendment and ratified by the states in time for the 2008 presidential election.  Limiting public support, however, is an elitist mindset among people with political power, wealth and intellectual arrogance.  They wrongly dismiss large numbers of citizens for their lack of education or political involvement.  Electoral reforms can create a culture of voting that ultimately produces a more informed public.

  Mandatory Voting

  This is not a crazy, radical idea.  Hold your reaction on what probably is a new idea for you.  Over 30 countries have compulsory voting.  Violating the law usually merits something akin to a parking fine, but it still works.  When Australia adopted it in 1924 turnouts increased from under 50 percent to a consistent 90-plus percent.  Conversely, when the Netherlands eliminated compulsory voting in 1970 voting turnouts plunged from 90 percent to less than 50 percent.   Polls regularly show 70 percent to 80 percent of Australians support mandatory voting.  Research found that people living in countries with compulsory voting are roughly twice as likely to believe that their government is responsive to the public's needs and 2.8 times as likely to vote as compared to citizens in countries without compulsory voting.  Is compulsory voting inconsistent with personal freedom?  No!  We have compulsory education, jury duty, and taxes that are more onerous than voting periodically.  And all people have to do is turn out to vote.  What they do with their secret ballot is up to them.

  Counting Dissatisfaction

  When people can officially say with their ballot that none of the candidates is acceptable, it makes compulsory voting more palatable.  In turn, it can increase voting for ballot initiatives and measures.  And it is better than lesser-evil voting that has become all too common, because of the two-party duopoly's stranglehold on our political system.  It is beats so-called "Mickey Mouse" voting, whereby people write in frivolous names.  Nevada offers the None of the Above option, though the candidate with the greatest number of votes wins. Yet protest votes are counted, sending a message to parties and politicians.

  Election Day Holiday

  Standing in a long line to vote often loses out to being at work or doing other things typical of work and school days.  Long commute times add to peoples' time poverty.  On a holiday, voting would be more evenly spread out throughout the day and could be held at more places.  It would be easier to recruit the best qualified poll workers and government costs would be reduced because of shorter hours.  A national holiday also sends an important message: Voting is critically important and something to be celebrated.  Opinion surveys have found that 60 percent or more favor making Election Day a holiday.  The National Commission on Federal Election Reform made a strong case for this action.  Like others, the commission backed moving Veterans' Day to coincide with Election Day.  The holiday might be called Veterans' Democracy Election Day.  Most Western democracies hold elections on either holidays or weekends.  In Puerto Rico people are given the day off and voter turnouts are typically over 80 percent.  Early and absentee voting attack some problems.  But a national holiday that celebrates the sacred duty of voting by all eligible voters makes more sense.  Voting should become more of a social, community activity, bringing Americans together, rather than something done as quickly as possible to get it over with.

  Same Day Registration

  At least 30 percent of eligible voters do not vote because they are not registered.  It makes no sense to make registration onerous.  It should be done automatically once voter rolls are established and once citizens show up the first time to vote and present residence and citizenship qualifications, as required.  Same day registration has been used successfully in some states for about 30 years.  Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Wisconsin, Montana, Connecticut, and Wyoming use this approach. North Dakota abandoned registration entirely in 1951.  Five of these states have the highest voter turnout in the country.  When Montana used it for the first time in 2006, voter turnout jumped from the usual 50 percent to 70 percent.  With more same day registration it is appropriate to have more safeguards against all forms of voter fraud, especially registering non-citizens.

  Youthful Citizens

  We place no upper age restriction on voting, even though some elderly people have reduced mental capabilities, and are often taken advantage of by get-out-the-vote efforts of the two major parties.  Our political system is deciding the future for our younger citizens.  On fairness alone, balancing a large over-50 voting bloc with younger citizens is justified.  Youths age 16 to 18 pay substantial taxes, are often treated as adults in criminal cases, have definite interests impacted by public policy, and in some states can marry and obtain a driver's license.  Being in high school is an advantage, because there is more stability and time to build a habit of voting.  Considering our Information Age, lowering the age to 16 makes perfect sense.  What happens between ages 16 and 18 to make younger citizens more qualified to vote?  Nothing.  There is a movement to register 16 year olds, but making them wait until 18 to vote is plain silly.  New, younger voters can help make voting a patriotic family activity on the new national holiday.

  Countries using this lower age include Brazil, Cuba, Nicaragua, and the Isle of Man, and movements for doing so are strong in Britain, Canada and many more.  In Germany, a greater proportion of 16 and 17 year-olds voted than those aged 18 to 35 - and twice as many as those in their later 20s - in municipal elections in Hanover.  In local elections in Vienna, Austria, 59 percent of 16- to 18-year-olds cast a ballot, about the same as other age groups.  Rather than starting wars to spread democracy, America could lead a global surge in voter entitlement.  This is what populism is all about.

  A Constitutional Necessity

  Voting is the heart of a healthy democracy.  With our persistent low voter turnout, the heart of American democracy is barely beating.  The decline of American democracy is both a cause and consequence of low voter turnout.  Low voter turnout makes a mockery of representative democracy.  Most politicians get elected with - at best - not much more than 25 percent of eligible voters.  This may explain why bought-and-paid-for politicians mostly represent corporate and other special interests.  Hefty political contributions by less than 1 percent of adults trump voting.

  Face facts.  Incremental and piecemeal attempts at electoral reforms have failed.  Why?  Because those in power do not want across-the-board high voter turnout.  Shame on them.  And shame on us for letting Democrats and Republicans get away with using costly means to get out their base supporters.  This perpetuates divisive partisan politics that entertain and anger Americans rather than serve them - 70 percent of whom are centrists.

  Now is the time for one bold constitutional amendment that can grab public attention and move the nation forward.  If Congress is too cowardly to propose the amendment, then we need two-thirds of state legislatures to request an Article V Convention for this purpose; to learn more about this never-used constitutional right go to www.foavc.org.

  Let us begin by urging members of Congress and 2008 presidential candidates to take a public stand on electoral reforms.  Will Democrats and Republicans walk the talk of cooperation for the good of the nation?

  Abraham Lincoln spoke of government "of the people, by the people and for the people."  If you really believe in these words, then speak out to increase voter turnout to resuscitate America's half-dead democracy.

  [Check out the author's new book at www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
  On My presidential platform calls for clean air and no war. What about yours? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 23 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Delusion is the only way to understand Bush

  Delusion Destroys Democracy

  Joel S. Hirschhorn

  Of course Bush can delude himself about global warming.

  Will Americans learn to trust their fellow citizens or stay stuck on stupidly backing serial political betrayers?

  I have been watching films from the 1940s and 1950s about World War II.  It was well known that Adolph Hitler was truly delusional.  His delusions prevented him from accepting wisdom and facts from experienced military officers and others, and caused millions to suffer and die.  Surely George W. Bush resembles Hitler psychologically.  His obsessive delusions about his Iraq war are also causing incredible suffering and death, as well as squandering our nation's wealth.

  Our constitutional democracy makes it nearly impossible to free the nation from the grip of a seemingly sane but deeply delusional president.  The present constitutional provision for impeachment is clearly inadequate.  As with Hitler and other delusional tyrants, Bush has surrounded himself with sycophants that share his delusions, and perhaps nurtured them, and refuse to tell the emperor that he has no clothes.  Congress, even under Democratic control, commits negligent cowardice.  And our mainstream press has not rallied the nation to free itself from misused presidential power.

  Also clear to some of us is that the delusional Bush has survived because delusion runs rampant across the nation, blocking populist actions in the national interest.  Here are the main states of American delusion:

  Millions of Americans persist in believing, contrary to all historical evidence, that changing control of Congress and the Executive Branch between Democrats and Republicans produces sorely needed reforms.  But mainstream politicians are serial betrayers.  Thus, people suffer from delusional political faith.

  Millions of non-wealthy Americans believe that the economy works for them.  This persists despite reams of facts that show how working- and middle-class people are not receiving their fair share of national income and wealth.  They keep running on a debt treadmill that will not take them to the proverbial American dream.  What they get is economic insecurity, inequality and injustice.  Consumer confidence is an oxymoron.  This is delusional prosperity.

  Viral delusional thinking is that America sets the gold standard for democracies.  The rest of the world, however, to its credit sees an arrogant nation with a government that uses its military strength foolishly and sees its policies rewarding the rich at the expense of all others.  People from Finland to New Zealand question why Americans do not receive universal health care, why its workers are sacrificed for global trade and corporate powers, why millions of its citizens go hungry and homeless, why so few people bother to vote, why so many politicians are convicted of crimes, and why there are more people in prisons than in all other countries combined.  Yet Americans by and large keep thinking that their constitutional republic gives them first class democracy.  This is delusional patriotism.

  So, what are we to do?  Keep expressing dissent by marching and protesting in the streets?  Keep signing petitions on the Internet?  Keep demanding impeachment of Bush?  Keep reading and writing angry diatribes on progressive websites?  Keep voting for mainstream politicians from the two major parties, hoping for a political messiah?  Keep obeying Bush by borrowing, spending, shopping and consuming to keep our debt-ridden nation afloat?

  Such activities release anger, but are largely placebo self-medications, unlikely to provide the permanent solutions our nation needs.  Protests serve more as entertainment for the nation than a force to tear down the rotten system.  Scale is a problem.  Maybe if one million angry Americans sat down peacefully in the streets all around the White House, defying police action for many days, just maybe the system would crack.  Protests must have a revolutionary character.  They must induce fear into the hearts of smug and delusional power elites - like Dick Cheney.

  The real needs are structural reforms that combat the major societal delusions that are driving America downhill.  We must attack the root causes of problems rather than provide temporary relief or cover-up of symptoms.

  Delusional political faith and delusional prosperity require profound reforms in our political system.  A new competitive political party is needed.  One that is guided by a set of principles that both mainstream Democrats and Republicans can not opportunistically accept, because the principles clearly conflict with their rotten behavior.  A recent New America Foundation survey of Californians found that "seven in 10 voters say they often feel they must choose the lesser of two evils; more than half the voters say California needs another major political party."

  Delusional patriotism is tougher to remedy.  To revitalize American democracy we must have a national dialogue.  Heed the words of the great John Marshall: "The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it.  It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will."  And James Madison: "the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution."  Thomas Jefferson believed that the constitution-drafting process should be repeated by each generation of Americans.  That's what real freedom is all about.  A great democracy must be much more than stable - it must be self-correcting.

  When a political system no longer deserves trust, citizens must trust themselves.  Considering how doggedly our unrepresentative democracy stays under the grip of moneyed special interests and fails large fractions of Americans, more direct democracy aimed squarely at major reforms is desperately needed.  That requires a lot more than protesting and ranting.  Some urge citizens' assemblies (see http://www.cusdi.org/ and http://www.foavc.org).  However, elitist status quo forces have made the population afraid of such activities - a sick delusional, status quo bias belief.  If it persists, Americans will not set themselves free of the oppressive forces that have hijacked their nation.  They will keep venting their anger as dissenters or stay distractive consumers rather than work to return power to the people.

  LET'S NOT DELUDE OURSELVES THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AFTER BUSH IS GONE.  AS AWFUL AS BUSH IS, HE IS A SYMPTOM OF WHAT AILS OUR NATION.  Our nation will remain in need of deep reforms.  Millions of dissidents must wake up to what is really needed and rally around a revolutionary strategy.

  [Check out the author's solutions for fixing the nation at www.delusionaldemocracy.com; for information on the Article V Convention concept contact him at articlevATgmailDOTcom.]On Ugh posted 2 years, 9 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Fixing the U.S. and Its Constitution

  Healthy Political Faith

  Joel S. Hirschhorn

  It's hard to avoid labels.  I am a proud political dissident.  Could the majority of Americans be dissidents?  Think of the two-thirds of the country that believe the nation is on the wrong track, the 52 percent that believe politicians are dishonest, the majority that do not vote, and the vast majority that think of themselves as centrists, libertarians, moderates or independents, rather than liberals, Democrats, conservatives or Republicans.  And definitely think of the many thousands of Americans out in the streets in recent months to protest the Iraq war, and the larger numbers reading Internet sites to sidestep the mainstream corporate media.  Dissidents exist because placing faith in mainstream politicians is as delusional as George W. Bush believing that sending more American soldiers into the Iraq cauldron is justified.  It flies in the face of reality, experience and sanity.

  The great paradox is that so many people still desperately place faith in politicians.  It's as if through magic or divine intervention some super-honest, non-corruptible, brilliant and charming Democrat or Republican can reform the system.  And make us feel good again, restore quality to American democracy, and fight economic inequality by rejecting and stomping on all the evil corporate and other special interests that have robbed we the people of our country.  Someone that will actually put the interests of working- and middle-class Americans above those of rich and powerful elites.

  So what should American dissidents put their faith in?

  I have long sought the answer to that question to avoid existential depression and despair.  And also to avoid doing what most Americans do to dull the pain: compulsive and distractive consumerism.  This is just fine with mainstream politicians.  Debt-ridden consumers are so much easier to govern than active dissidents.  As George W. Bush has preached on many occasions, neo-patriotism equates to personal borrowing, spending, shopping and consumption.

  Other than protesting, I have arrived at two things worth putting my political faith in.  And faith is exactly the right word.  They require devotion and commitment as an act of faith.  There is no way to prove that they will materialize or, if they did, that they would deliver all that is needed.  Yet, to keep putting faith in glib, power-hungry politicians is plain nuts, based strictly on actual history.

  My first answer is third parties.  At critical times in American history third parties have come to the rescue and greatly improved our nation.  We need more political competition.  We need some third party to become competitive to Democrats and Republicans in local, state and federal elections.  Some party that does not advocate fractious issues that divide, but rather presents a set of principles that bring American dissenters together to collectively pursue substantial changes in our political and governmental system.

  Yet, third parties have not done well in recent decades, despite having highly committed members, albeit in relatively small numbers.  The two-party duopoly has convinced most people to think of votes for third-party candidates as wasted.  And so in every election many - and perhaps most - voters end up voting for the lesser evil Democrat or Republican, and eventually regretting it.  Many others reject placebo voting.  They have properly lost political faith.

  My second answer is less understood and just as undermined and sullied by the two-party duopoly and other status quo defenders.  It is to compel Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution that says it "shall call a convention for proposing Amendments" if two-thirds of state legislatures apply for one.  That numeric requirement is the ONLY constitutional requirement for an Article V convention.  Now, here is an absolute truthful fact.  Applications have been submitted from 50 states - actually over 500 applications.  An official with The John Birch Society - one of the nations's far, far right-wing groups - when confronted with that fact said: "had we ever reached the requisite number of state applications, a convention would indeed have been called."  I could not believe that this anti-government, pro-constitution group could actually have such faith in Congress.  Or was that just a fanciful excuse for opposing a convention?

  Still, we must ask: Why has Congress not called an Article V convention?  The answer is simple.  

  Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have not wanted to share the constitutional power to propose amendments with the states.  Institutionally, Congress has defied Article V to keep power.  As Russell L. Caplan noted in Constitutional Brinkmanship: "Congress has never kept regular track of incoming convention applications, and there exists no official catalogue of the applications adopted by the states since 1789."  Researchers have had to dig through many documents to build an inventory of state applications (see www.article5.org).

  While Congress has acted surreptitiously, many people and organizations on the left and right have steadfastly and openly opposed an Article V convention.  What do they have in common with Congress?  They want to maintain the status quo that gives them ample opportunities to control government.  For decades they have successfully implanted fear into the public consciousness.  They especially like to talk about a "runaway convention," able to overturn our Constitution, destroy our democracy, and rob us of our civil liberties and freedoms.  

  Indeed, at a 1998 House hearing on a bill to amend the Constitution, Republican Charles T. Canady said: "The specter of a `runaway convention' seems to have been accepted by many as a convincing political argument."  In 1995, when both houses of the Virginia legislature passed a resolution to limit Article V conventions, one reason cited was "many states are reluctant to ask Congress to call a national convention for fear of creating a `runaway convention' that might undermine the delicate constitutional framework the forefathers worked so hard to establish."

  Yet some people see the truth.  Writing in the Wall Street Journal in 1997, Roger Pilon of the libertarian CATO Institute made these salient points about an Article V convention: "With Nebraska as the only state with a unicameral legislature, it takes majorities in 75 of the 99 state legislative bodies in America to ratify any change in the Constitution.  Looked at from the other direction, it takes only 13 such bodies to block any change.  ...Are we really to believe that a runaway convention could get its schemes past the public?  Are there not 13 bodies in this land that would rise to block all but the most popular of proposals?  ...By overwhelming majorities, averaging 75 percent, Americans of every creed and color have come to understand that there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that has resulted, under modern conditions, in our being ruled year in and year out by a class of professional politicians.  That situation is neither healthy nor right in a limited, constitutional democracy.  Fortunately, the Framers provided a way to do something about it, a way to make substantial change while ensuring that our fundamental principles remain in place."

  And Wendell Cox, speaking before the right wing American Legislative Exchange Council in 1995, asserted that "concerns about a `runaway' convention are entirely unfounded."  At the conservative Heritage Foundation James L. Gattuso concluded in 1988 that "there are numerous political and restraints which make it virtually impossible for a `runaway' convention to rewrite the Constitution against the wishes of the American people."

  The Framers gave us the Article V convention option because they anticipated that the federal government could become too powerful or just plain incompetent and ineffective.  Dissidents know this has happened.  The government has already been hijacked by all kinds of moneyed special interests and corrupt politicians.  An Article V convention is like a fourth, temporary branch of the federal government - except that it is really a production of the states aimed at improving the federal Constitution.  With enormous public and media attention its delegates would be far more difficult to corrupt by special interests.

  What must be emphasized is that an Article V convention would have NO power to change the Constitution or do anything else other than to propose amendments that would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.  

  John de Herrera recently summed it up nicely: "Americans have been conditioned like Pavlov's dog to fear a convention because of what might happen--that it would be some kind of Pandora's box. But what the newspapers and politicians failed to mention is the ratification process. They only told us half the truth, and as the late great Ben Franklin mentioned, half the truth is often a great lie."

  All kinds of people say totally stupid and wrong things to keep the public afraid of a convention.  Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, a Democrat, wrote in 1986 that "one of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights."  Wait a second!  An Article V convention can only make PROPOSALS.

  In 1987 arch-conservative Phyllis Schlafly said: "If a constitutional Convention can change our structure of government as defined in Articles I, II, and III, it can also change the Article V requirement that three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify any changes. The Convention of 1787 reduced the number of states required to ratify a change from 100% of the states to 75%, and a Convention in the 1980s could `follow their example' and reduce it further, to 66%, or 60%, or even 51%."  Just that one stubborn problem: An Article V convention can only make PROPOSALS!

  On the positive side is how former Attorney General Griffin Bell saw things: "Those who wring their hands over the prospects of a convention run the risk of exposing their elitism, implying that the average citizen cannot be trusted."  This resonates with me.  As certain as the law of gravity is, is that elitist politicians cannot be trusted.

  Another favorable view was that "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 [Congress] not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse."   Abraham Lincoln said that in his first inaugural address.

  It comes to this: Be a proud dissident.  Find a third party to believe in.  Take a good look at some new efforts: the Centrist Party (www.uscentrist.org), the Populist Party of America (www.populistamerica.com), and the Whig Party (www.thephoenixchronicles.org).  Join the movement to make Congress obey the Constitution and call an Article V convention that could safely re-energize and engage Americans politically.  The only thing to fear is that bipartisan lies about an Article V convention will triumph.  The job of making American democracy is not done.   Doing what our Founders anticipated we would have to do, through a convention, is not the same as undoing what they did.  They had faith in us.

  Thomas Jefferson was correct.  A free people have the right to alter or amend their government when they see fit.  Everyone believes in freedom, yet too many fall victim to phony political faith healers.  Dissidents keep the faith and want to practice freedom themselves.  Just like the people who created our nation.

  [Check out the author's new book: www.delusionaldemocracy.com, and for more information on fighting for an Article V convention contact him at articlev at gmail at the usual dot com.]On Friggin' Nader posted 2 years, 9 months ago 26 Responses