Today on Blogcritics
Home » An Open Letter to Congressman Ron Paul

An Open Letter to Congressman Ron Paul

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

You have acknowledged the appropriateness of amending the Constitution. In fact, you introduced legislation for an amendment that would stop giving automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. You said: “Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.”

Personally, I endorse this particular amendment. More important, however, I am disappointed that you have never latched on to the long history of Congress’ failure to honor and obey the part of Article V of the Constitution that gives Americans the right to a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution – an alternative to Congress proposing amendments. Interestingly, the particular amendment that you favor will probably never emerge from Congress, but might have a better chance through an Article V convention.

Why have you failed to acknowledge that Congress has ignored over 500 applications from state legislatures from all 50 states for an Article V convention? As a champion of the Constitution, surely you know that the one and only requirement explicitly stated in Article V is that two-thirds of state legislatures ask for one. And surely you know that Congress has never passed any law that expands or modifies this single explicit constitutional requirement. So, I ask you Congressman Paul: Why have you remained silent on the Article V issue?

If you do not believe that Congress should honor Article V’s provision for a convention, why not say so publicly? If you believe that it should never be used, then why not call for an amendment to delete it from our Constitution?

Please Congressman Paul, as a champion of the Constitution, do not behave like other members of Congress and silently veto a crucial part of the Constitution that the Framers wisely gave us. They anticipated that eventually Americans could lose confidence in the federal government. You clearly have earned the respect and support of millions of Americans because you object to so many policies and actions of the federal government. Thus, you, more than virtually any other member of Congress, should appreciate the wisdom of the Framers in giving us the Article V convention option.

I beg you to speak up and demonstrate just how much of a champion of the Constitution you really are by bringing national attention to the Article V convention issue and supporting its use. As a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention (www.foavc.org) I invite you to play a leading role in giving the United States of America its first Article V convention.

[The author had the pleasure of a private meeting with Congressman Paul about a year ago to discuss his book Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government: www.delusionaldemocracy.com. He serves as National Press Secretary of Friends of the Article V Convention: www.foavc.org.]
Powered by

About Joel S. Hirschhorn

Formerly full professor Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, and senior official Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and National Governors Association. Author of four nonfiction books and hundreds of articles.
  • Buckwheat

    I don’t really think this rises to the level of “open letter material.”

  • Michael Solimanto

    I’ll study your link. Interesting… but wouldn’t you find a better target the other politicians who want to trample all over you rather than a man that would probably help you out if elected president?

  • Anthony

    I don’t mind your open letter but why not write him or his campaign and get an answer too? I’d like to know his answer.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I would guess that Paul, like most sane people, realizes that the Constitution we have is better than anything that would come out of a new convention given the gaggle of insane extremists, bought and paid for lobbyists, zealots, crackpots and idiots likely to participate in any contemporary convention.

    Dave

  • Michael

    A constitutional convention would rewrite our constitution. Once the process began, there would be absolutely no guarantee that at the end of the convention we would have a constitutional republic remaining. I firmly believe that Dr. Paul truly understands the issue and would rather work towards simple focused amendments. There is no need for a new form of government (which article V would provide.)

  • Will

    I think he has already addressed this, I will find the link.

  • Jeff

    While I agree with your argument for Article V of the Constitution, why not make this an open letter to every member of Congress? As well, if you are serious about getting Ron Paul’s attention,why not send this “open letter” to him or one of the Ron Paul blogs? Apparently, “the author” who met with Ron Paul about his book ( meaning your book, not Ron Paul’s)is trying to create a little buzz to sell some of “his” books to some of those millions of Ron Paul supporters. Clever, but somewhat transparent.
    Good luck on the book sales.

  • CKelly

    The so-called democracy we live in, is so tenuous as it is that were we to attempt amending it we probably would lose the little sovereignty we have left. I think the “reformers” of the second Vatican council in the Catholic Church shed light on what would most likely happen at a constitutional convention today. Radicals, would introduce vague language which would have a myriad of interpretations. The ideology of “inclusiveness” would serve as a battering ram. More radical elements woud remain hidden until the time is ripe, to usher in a government unrecognizable to those conventioneers who are well intentioned . Our original docunment may not be perfect, but the problem I believe is not the document but the corruption in the hearts and minds of today’s citizens. We need interior reform not more documents. If all our legislators were like Ron Paul our federal government would work alot better

  • NH

    Wow thank you Dave for response #4. Well said.

  • http://www.ProConstitution.com Marnie Pehrson

    I certainly can’t speak for Congressman Paul, but I can speak as a long-time conservative and advocate of our constitutional republic. I think we would do well to remember that the last constitutional convention resulted in the complete abolition of the current form of government (the articles of confederation) and resulted in the Constitution we have today.

    I, for one, would be fearful of opening up such a can of worms to a political electorate as ignorant of the proper role of government as we have today. In 1788, we had Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe. Today, who do we have? We have Ron Paul and that’s probably about it. Do you really want to open up a constitutional convention that could result in the complete abolishment of our U.S. Constitution and replace it with what politicians would come up with today?

    I, for one, certainly wouldn’t. And I’m willing to bet Congressman Paul wouldn’t be willing to run that risk either. No, let’s stick with the congressional method… it’s safer when you live in a world almost completely devoid of true statesmen.

  • chris lawton

    GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL! RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!

    Ron Paul “Dream On” Video!!!!

    Ron Paul “Don’t Tread On Me” Video

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot
    survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
    for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor
    moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling
    through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself.
    For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents
    familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and
    he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He
    rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night
    to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so
    that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.

    — Cicero: orator, statesman, political theorist, lawyer and
    philosopher of Ancient Rome.

    “In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act” GEORGE ORWELL

    Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.

    Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
    Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.
    Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
    Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.

    Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
    Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
    Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
    Ron votes against the United Nations.
    Ron votes against the welfare state.
    Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.

    Ron votes to preserve the constitution.
    Ron votes to cut government spending.
    Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.
    Ron votes to end the war on drugs.
    Ron votes to protect civil liberties.
    Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform

    How can you not love this guy listen to him he is truly a man who tells the truth “We The People” are taking our country back and restoring the original Constitutional Republic and returning Amerika
    back to America not the Homeland.

    “None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
    — Goethe

  • Lumpy

    GO LESTER MADDOX! GO LESTER MADDOX!

    Oh wait he’s dead.

    GO LAROUCHE! GO LAROUCHE!

    I mean why stop half way. If u want a conspiracy nut for president go with the original.

  • http://www.draftresistance.org Scott Kohlhaas

    Hello.

    We love Ron Paul!

    Would you be willing to spread the word about http://www.draftresistance.org? It’s a site dedicated to shattering the myths surrounding the selective slavery system and building mass civil disobedience to stop the draft before it starts.

    Our banner on a website, printing and posting the anti-draft flyer or just telling friends would help!

    Thanks!

    Scott Kohlhaas

    PS. When it comes to conscription, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

  • USAF Vet Dan

    “I am disappointed that you have never latched on to the long history of Congress’ failure to honor and obey the part of Article V of the Constitution that gives Americans the right to a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution”

    Congress hasn’t failed here… it takes 34 states to call for the Con Con. To date, not enough states have made the official call. I’m surprised that you, the grand promoter of the Con Con, didn’t know that. (eyes rolling)

    Perhaps more importantly, our Constitution has been usurped and ignored. What makes you think that the problems this causes will go away via an amended or (may God help us) re-written constitution? One has nothing to do with the other.

    You should be honest with your readers and tell them about the “Constitution for the Newstates of America” sponsored by the Ford Foundation at a cost of more than $25 million.

    As I stated above, less than the 34 states required by Article V to make the con con call have done so, in part because many people have alerted their state legislators about the dangers of a con con. You’ve stated in the past that a con con can be restricted so as to protect the constitution from being thrown out. That is NOT true… from Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9:

    “The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order.

    Stop selling a con con under the guise of reasserting constitutional limits. You are a wolf in sheep’s clothing!

    and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution.

  • Joel S. Hirschhorn

    Dear USAF Vet Dan:

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] I will give you the benefit of the doubt and simply say you are incredibly misinformed, ignorant and unpatriotic (for not respecting our Constitution and what the Founders gave us in Article V). If you have some living brain cells go to http://www.foavc.org and spend several hours opening you mind and learning the TRUTH. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] Happy Thanksgiving

  • USAF Vet Dan

    Mr. Hirschhorn,

    Your reply didn’t attempt do debunk one of the assertions I made. Please give us some specifics about where you think I was wrong as opposed to merely insulting me.

    At your suggestion, I went to your website whereby you claim 567 applications (going back to 1789) have been made by states but that number fails to account for those that were rescinded and/or expired. My last look into this showed 32 states (two shy of the 34 needed). Of those 32, four are of questionable status for various reasons.

    It appears that it is not I who is misinformed.

  • Active Duty

    Mr. Hirschhorn,

    I am curious as to why you resorted to personal attacks on USAF Vet Dan. I read your article and it made me think. Then i read everybody’s comments and when i got down to your response to USAF Dan’s comment it took me by surprise. If you feel you are 100% correct on this issue why would you resort to personal attacks? Your article now means nothing to me. I will look forward to your response to USAF Dan’s 2nd post.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Dan, that’s about the same thing I found when I researched this issue. And to go even farther it’s very clear that in every case where applications from states got enough support to come close to requiring a convention the result is that the Congress then entered the amendment they were promoting. So the truth is that the system as now operating DOES work and HAS been working and an Article V convention isn’t necessary.

    Dave

  • http://www.articlev.org john de herrera

    guys. in case you were unaware, sometime this year, the congress (via the FEC and FCC) is going to place the electoral system and the airwaves into private bank accounts. what? yes. that’s right. we will have private corporations counting votes, and private corporations editing popular information. one amendment to the constitution can secure the vote and how we receive information from the corporate interests.

    an Article V Convention is necessary because the congress is failing to act in the public’s interest. unfortunately, americans cannot be told we need a national convention because we’ve been conditioned to fear one. we have to be shown.

  • USAF Vet Dan

    John de Herrera,

    We’ve had a private corp counting votes for years (though most people don’t know it). The vote is counted by a little-known private corporation named Voter News Services (VNS) located in New York City. VNS is a major media conglomerate comprised of all the major networks, including Fox and CNN, and also the wire services, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

    While I certainly agree with you that this is wrong and should be changed, I disagree that an amendment to our Constitution will solve the problem. Simply look at the myriad of constitutional usurpations that currently exist. The solution to this and almost all of our nation’s problems doesn’t lie in modification of our law, it resides in the enforcement of our law. This is why getting Ron Paul elected is so supremely important.

    Furthermore, considering its definable risks, using a Con Con to fix the vote tally problem is akin to burning down the house to kill the mosquito.

    In response to your assertion that we’ve been conditioned to fear a Con Con, please address Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9 described in my response above. Again, I see this as but one example of the tangible reasons we should avoid a con con… at all costs.

    On an unrelated matter, it appears that the search links to this article have been blocked. Yesterday morning, it was #6 on a “Ron Paul” search… by yesterday evening, it no longer showed up.. Google search the title of Hirschhorn’s article and see for yourself.

  • http://www.article5.org Bill Walker

    I would like to take a moment to respond to the main thrust of the article. For those who feel Mr. Ron Paul is such a defender of the Constitution, would you care to explain to me why then Mr. Paul joined a federal lawsuit to establish that Congress has the right to veto the law of the Constitution and refuse to obey it if they choose? This position taken by Mr. Paul as well as all other members of Congress in public record and acknowledged in open public court by Paul’s attorney of record is a violation of federal criminal law. The attorney acknowledged that Paul had violated federal criminal law by joining the lawsuit. And this is the guy you want to elect to be President?

    As to USAF Rep Dan. He is incorrect on several factors in his comments. I will simply state the most important. First of all he stated a convention could promulgate a new Constitution. This is not correct. That job is reserved by federal law to the Archivist of the United States.

    He also forgot to mention that as convention delegates are federal officials and therefore would be required to take an oath of office to support the Constitution. Violation of that oath if a federal criminal offense. Thus if the delegates did anything else other than propose amendments to the Constitution as specified in Article V they could face arrest and conviction facing up to a year in jail as well as removal from office.

    As a veteran I assume he is well aware of these oaths which he himself was required to take and I assume he knows the penalites and how seriously they are taken by the government.

    He states that less than 34 states have applied for a convention. This is incorrect for two reasons. First, Congress has not recognized any of the so-called recessions and they are invalid anyway. Under the terms of Article V, the applications they supposedly recess would first have to be recognized by Congress. This would nullify the recessions as the Constitution provides no means by which an application may be recessed any more than a senator may recess their vote on a law after it is enacted or a voter recess their vote for an election after it had occurred. In addition, the applications were long past the 2/3rd mark before the first of these so-called recession occurred.

    Secondly, and more importantly, the Supreme Court has long since ruled that only 19 states are required to cause a convention call, not the popular 34 though that number as I’ve indicated already exists. So the recession argument is false and misleading and Dan should check his facts before asserting them.

    Now let’s turn to his comment that a convention will not make any difference. Just to provide one example of how it would. If one traces the application history you would find some nine different conventions should have been called by Congress in the last century. One of them would have been called in or about 1964. Now, if it had been called it is not unreasonable to say that anti-war opponents (to Vietnam) would have been present. LBJ used the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to get us into that war. That is fact. If a convention had even been discussing an amendment to simply require that troops could only be committed with an actual declaration of war rather than a resolution, LBJ who was very political, would probably not have tried what he did and 50,000 American lives would have been spared. 50,000 veteran lives Mr. Veteran Dan. 50,000 of your fellow sevicemen now dead would have been alive and living their lives with their families, wives and children. That is what a convention could do. Save lives.

    Now as to this Constitution for the Newstates…” I’ve heard this story so many times, it’s old hat. First it was the Rockefeller Foundation. Now it’s the Ford Foundation. What it really was was a joke written by two college students and spread by the underground in the Vietnam era to make people think the government was going to try take all their rights away. Later it was picked up by the number one opponent of the convention for their political purposes in opposing the ERA amendment which is where most of the drivel regarding a convention stems from. That group is and was the John Birch Society who has spread outright lies about a convention, what it could do and what it can do and what it would do. In fact if you take the time to trace all these fears back you will find they come from only one source and no other: The John Birch Society. Are you a member Mr. Dan? You sound like it.

    And while we’re on that subject Dan, let’s not try the old the first convention did what I wrote about and ignored the Congress and the states and created a new document which they forced on everyone. If you check your facts you will find an act of Congress specified precisely what the 1787 Convention did and that was exactly what that convention did. No more no less. I do have the documentation on this if you want it. But you can just as easily find it in the Congressional Record.

    Now if you want the JBS to set national policy, to control your lives with their brand of politics then by all means oppose a convention Dan. But do it with facts, not lies spread by an organization who cheers each time it is established the government doesn’t have to obey the law of the Constitution. Oh yeah and that federal lawsuit? Paul won by the way. It is offical government policy now, not political theory, not blog posts, but actual federal policy enunciated by an actual federal judge and approved by the Supreme Court of the United States that Congress may under the political question doctrine refuse to obey the law of the Constitution?

    Happy now Dan knowing that you have a government that doesn’t have to obey the Constitution? For real Dan, not theory. A real federal court ruling. And if you check the FOAVC website you will find an email written by an actual U.S. Senator who makes it clear that is the way Congress views it, that they “may” call a convention meaning they have an option as opposed to “shall” call a convention which is what the Constitution reads.

    Just as an aside Dan, the word “shall’ is used throughout the Constitution meaning the same interpretation by Congress can be used throughout. Like for example, the term of the President “shall” be four years. Meaning the president could under this ruling, stay in office forever if he/she wished. The right to jury “shall” be preserved meaning you can now be arrested, tried and convicted by secret court if they want without any charges made whasoever. Notice all of the rights of the Constitution come and are made with the word “shall.” Still want to cheer the news the word “shall” can be ignroed by Congress?

    Now let’s talk about this Corpus Jurs Secundum thing. It’s an opinion and a bad one. First of all the Constitution limits a convention to proposing amendment to THIS Constitution. Thus it cannot write a new Constitution and without ratification even what it proposes has NO legal effect. You neatly avoided that clause of the Constitution Dan. Now who is trying to mislead people?

    Second, your position is illogical. If a convention is a “direct representative of the people” by what right do they have to overthrow the people’s soverign document without specific insturctions from the people which has been withheld by specific language in Article V? The court rulings prove they reject this position and since that is actual federal policy, not theory you position using this Secundum thing is now entirely irrelevant. The court placed the convention as well as all other aspects of the amendatory process including the right to replace state legislatures by military force in order to cause ratification (all under the political question doctrine)under the “exclusive” control of Congress. So, in fact, not fiction, not speculation, in legal fact, the CONGRESS is the super power you fear as it has “exclusive” control of the entire amendatory process and therefore could do as you suggest, frame, enactand proulgate a new Constitution.

    When you start knocking people about a subject, Mr. Veteran Dan you might first get the latest information on that subject. Just a suggestion.

    I could go on but I suggest instead that all who have made comments here learn all the facts first. Read the actual facts about the lawsuit which consists of the actual documents at http://www.article5.org then maybe you’ll understand why Joel is so passionate about a convention. There was nothing in the court’s ruling that limited veto of the law of the Constitution to just Article V.

    Now think about that hard when you think about fear and a convention. The court for the first time in history said officially and formally the government doesn’t have to obey the Constitution. If you are any kind of loyal American, that should make you shudder. It does me. That’s why I support making Congress obey the law of the Constitution because if they don’t have to, the Constitution is dead. I assume Dan, you have no problem with that as you have obviously worked hard to see it come about.

  • http://www.articlev.org john de herrera

    as i was saying. we’ve been conditioned to fear a convention. and if we can’t get folks like us–folks who are still paying attention–to agree it’s time to break the status quo with the convention clause–to put the constitution to work for us–then the country will need to be SHOWN. bringing together 100 college students and Robert’s Rule of Order is the best way to do that. enter that documentary into national and international festivals, where it will have a good chance of breaching into the mainstream. if a picture is worth a thousand words, a good documentary would save everyone a bunch of time. and time is something we don’t have a lot of.

  • USAF Vet Dan

    Bill Walker said,
    “…would you care to explain to me why then Mr. Paul joined a federal lawsuit to establish that Congress has the right to veto the law of the Constitution and refuse to obey it if they choose?”

    It is curious why you failed to give us enough specific information about this to know what event you’re talking about. You only gave us your “slant” on this. Don’t you think your position will hold up under scrutiny?

    “As to USAF Rep Dan. He is incorrect on several factors in his comments. I will simply state the most important. First of all he stated a convention could promulgate a new Constitution. This is not correct. That job is reserved by federal law to the Archivist of the United States.”

    I quoted Corpus Juris Secundum. On what foundations do your assertions lie? I’ll also quote Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger who said, “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose.”

    “He also forgot to mention that as convention delegates are federal officials and therefore would be required to take an oath of office to support the Constitution.”

    Wow… that makes me sleep better at night! (eyes rolling) Federal officials are notorious for breaking their oath!!! Again, you failed to address the precedent analysis that I posted that proves your assertions are incorrect.

    “He states that less than 34 states have applied for a convention. This is incorrect for two reasons. First, Congress has not recognized any of the so-called recessions and they are invalid anyway.”

    Wrong. They HAVE recognized the rescissions and expungements and that is why a Con Con hasn’t been initiated by Congress.

    “Secondly, and more importantly, the Supreme Court has long since ruled that only 19 states are required to cause a convention call, not the popular 34 though that number as I’ve indicated already exists.”

    Article V is specific, “…on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States”. Again you make a general assertion without providing anything to backup your claim. …a claim that contradicts the clear language of Article V.

    “Now let’s turn to his comment that a convention will not make any difference…”

    Again, our Constitution has been ignored by our elected officials. Amending it 1,000 times will not solve the compliance problem.

    “Now as to this Constitution for the Newstates… The John Birch Society. Are you a member Mr. Dan? You sound like it.

    Ahhh… now you using the propaganda technique known as “name calling” whereby one attempts to arouse prejudice among the public by labeling the target something that the public dislikes. No, I’m not nor have I ever been a “Bircher”. I’m a Constitutionist.

    “And if you check the FOAVC website you will find an email written by an actual U.S. Senator who makes it clear that is the way Congress views it, that they “may” call a convention meaning they have an option as opposed to “shall” call a convention which is what the Constitution reads.”

    I’ve already quoted a Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court that counters your Senator. Let me add a few more to the mix. Here is a letter from two professors of constitutional law. Here is a letter from Mass. State Senator Bob Headlund.

    “Just as an aside Dan, the word “shall’ is used throughout the Constitution meaning the same interpretation by Congress can be used throughout. Like for example, the term of the President “shall” be four years. Meaning the president could under this ruling, stay in office forever if he/she wished.”

    HUH??? That’s even sillier than the rest of your assertions. I bet there are more people who believe the earth is flat that believe the word “shall” allows the president to stay in office forever. I’m starting to feel that I’m wasting my time here.

    “Now let’s talk about this Corpus Jurs Secundum thing. It’s an opinion and a bad one. First of all the Constitution limits a convention to proposing amendment to THIS Constitution. Thus it cannot write a new Constitution and without ratification even what it proposes has NO legal effect. You neatly avoided that clause of the Constitution Dan. Now who is trying to mislead people?”

    The Articles of Confederation were thrown out in their entirety in favor of a new (our current) constitution. As I and Chief Justice Burger and many, many others have stated, the powers of the delegates of a Con Con are limitless. I didn’t “avoid” anything… and I haven’t attempted to mislead anyone. I’ve provided backup and web links for every assertion I’ve made. That’s far more than you and Mr. Hirschhorn have done.

    “When you start knocking people about a subject, Mr. Veteran Dan you might first get the latest information on that subject. Just a suggestion.”

    I stand by all of the assertions I’ve made.

    “I could go on but I suggest instead that all who have made comments here learn all the facts first. Read the actual facts about the lawsuit which consists of the actual documents at http://www.article5.org then maybe you’ll understand why Joel is so passionate about a convention.”

    Joel didn’t do much for his credibility when his first and only response had to be censored because of personal attacks on me. I don’t call that passion, I call that unprofessional. I think I’ve given enough information to the readers here to see that those who promote a Con Con are either misinformed or have another agenda. Readers are encouraged to go to your web site and then go to one (there are many, many out there giving the same warnings) like Sweet Liberty. We’ll let the facts speak for themselves.

    “Now think about that hard when you think about fear and a convention. The court for the first time in history said officially and formally the government doesn’t have to obey the Constitution.”

    For once we find common ground – usurpations of the Constitution abound. But to the main point here… the supreme law needs to be enforced. Amending it won’t solve the enforcement problem. And a Con Con is a VERY dangerous way to try to change it. You and Mr. Hirschhorn’s proselytizing the Con Con at the expense of a possible diminishment of Ron Paul’s support reduces our chance to elect a president who can help solve the problem as he would seek to enforce the Constitution. That is why I’ve spent my Thanksgiving Day evening away from my family writing this response. Hirschhorn attacked Ron Paul because he has opposed a Con Con… for many of the reasons I’ve noted herein. On this issue, we’ll let the readers decide if they trust you or Ron Paul.

  • USAF Vet Dan

    Mr. de Herrera,

    “as i was saying. we’ve been conditioned to fear a convention.”

    Ahh… so just ignore the evidence I posted that shows why we should fear a Con Con. I don’t think that will fly very far with this crowd.

  • http://www.article5.org Bill Walker

    To Dan,

    First of all you do understand that as a vet you are still under the oath of office you took meaning you have advocated the overthrow of the constitutional form of government by supporting that a constitutional provision may be ignored by the government and thus refuse to obey it.

    I not joking or kidding around when I make this next statement. I am going to contact Joel on this issue. If he feels it is appropriate I intend to report your actions to the proper governmental authorities for prosecution. If Joel says to do it, it will be done. I assure you I am not joking. As to finding out your real name, address and so forth, the threat of government intervention in the website will be enough to get the information.

    Now, the issue is this simple. The law says Congress must call a convention. Ron Paul joined a federal lawsuit to oppose obeying the law. When he did so, he did the exact same thing you have done. Under federal law it is a criminal offense to even advocate, that is publicly declare, opposition to obeying the law of the Constitution. Specifically it is a federal offense to even join such a lawsuit.

    You and Mr. Paul and others advocate the law of the Constitution should be disobeyed. You advocate its overthrow. You are not a loyal or patriotic American. Loyal, patriotic Americans support the Constitution and if doing so presents problems, they solve them, not advocate that the government it is to regulate veto, disobey or otherwise obtain the power to choose whether or not provisions of the Constitution can or will be obeyed by that government which include Ron Paul.

    By solving the problems they come up with answers. You refuse to do that. That is clearly un-American and unpatriotic.

    Now I gave you the site that contains all the legal papers in the lawsuits. I’ll give it again. http://www.Article5.org. You say I didn’t give you enough details. That was because the lawsuits and there were two, have nearly 25,000 pages of legal material in them counting all references and so forth. A little hard to put in a comment don’t you think.

    You say you are a constitutionalist. Then act like it. A Constitutionalist, and by the way that term is used almost exclusively by John Birchers, is one who supports the provisions of the Constitution. You are on public record not doing so. Now, I’ve made statements that Ron Paul joined a federal lawsuit. I will give you a few details for you to munch on then I’m going to send my email to Joel and let him decide about you.

    1. Under 5 U.S.C. 7311 it is against federal criminal law to join such a lawsuit. Mr. Paul did so. That is public record.
    2. The attorney who represented Mr. Paul admitted he had joined this lawsuit by referring to specific laws which determine that Mr. Paul of his own free will joined the lawsuit.
    3. If you read the material on the website you will find Mr. Paul has been given numerous specific opprotunities to publicly address this issue and has, as with all members of Congress, avoided doing so. In sum, he has refused to refute his joining the lawsuit or its objective to establish Congress has “exclusive” control of the admendatory process including the right to use military force to overthrow state legislatures and compel a “ratification” vote by them for any amendment “proposed” by Congress.
    4. This issue went to the Supreme Court which signed off on it but before doing so, the attorney of record for Mr. Paul and the rest of Congress acknowledged as required by federal law in open public court that what I have said and stated together with all other statements regarding the convention I have made to you were correct as to fact and law. That is public record and that includes the fact the attorney acknowledged Mr. Paul had committed criminal actions in this regard.

    Now this attorney was the Solicitor General of the United States acting in his official capacity not a retired Chief Justice giving his opinion which when on the bench might change. The official government position on this issue as a result of these lawsuits is the Congress controlls the entire amendatory process including all aspects regardless of any language in the Constitution. In short the government can veto or disobey the law of the Constitution.

    Now Dan you’ve got what you want. Total government control of the entire Constitution by the government who have also incidently established they don’t have to obey any provision of it, meaning all your efforts have done is help the government gain power and it is clear you as a disloyal, unpatrotic American desire this. Why else would regardless of how you say it, urge the government have the right to disobey the law?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    to Bill above me here…you express the legal “opinions” of a hydroencephelalitic mongoloid on crack cocaine…seriously

    nowhere in any of his statements has he asserted any desire to do anything but “uphold and defend the Constitution”

    save your bullshit internet tough guy keyboard threats…you are a complete non-factor

    learn to think clearly, imo..and seek professional help

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    gonzo, whilst largely agreeing with the sentiment you express, i find myself a little uncomfortable with the way you went about it. Having a difficult Thanksgiving?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    do note, i expressed by thoughts about his opinion , not about him

    reading the drivel, i am very comfortable with the typings…

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    It’s borderline territory, but I would really appreciate it if you, as one of our most regular and saner commenters, would help to set a good example from time to time. Lawks knows there’s enough hotheads on the site! That’s just a request for consideration by the way, nothing more. No biggy.

    By the way, did you know that “Excelsior” is the slogan that appears on the New York state flag?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    “fingers deep inside the Borderline…”

    point taken into Consideration

    and, of course i know it’s on the State flag…was born in Yonkers, New York, long ago…in a *galaxy* far, far Away…

    but i digress

    Excelsior?

  • USAF Vet Dan

    Bill Walker said,

    “”First of all you do understand that as a vet you are still under the oath of office you took meaning you have advocated the overthrow of the constitutional form of government by supporting that a constitutional provision may be ignored by the government and thus refuse to obey it.

    I am going to contact Joel on this issue. If he feels it is appropriate I intend to report your actions to the proper governmental authorities for prosecution. If Joel says to do it, it will be done. I assure you I am not joking. As to finding out your real name, address and so forth, the threat of government intervention in the website will be enough to get the information.””

    Your threats are as laughable as your arguments in favor of a Con Con. Hirschhorn’s unprofessional and unwarranted personal attacks and your outrageous threats have done far more to discredit your pro-con con position that I could have in 100 pages.

    I think most would agree that your pro-con con beliefs are as sincere as your beliefs that the feds are going to respond to your demand by arresting me for not agreeing with you. If you truly are sincere, I honestly think you could use some professional help. At a minimum, you may do well to find another hobby. Political debate is not “your thing.”

    To debate you further on these issues would be to add credence to your dillusions and waste my time. Therefore, I’ll consider my job done here and return to my efforts to support Ron Paul.

    Good luck with your con con movement ;)

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    Hi gonzo, thanks for that. I just happened to see the state flag on University Challenge a couple of days ago and thought of you straightaway. It’s easy to forget that the US States are, or were, actually like individual countries once.

  • http://www.articlev.org john de herrera

    dan, imagine congress were coerced to issue the call tomorrow. then what? then the states hold special elections for delegates. the delegates do not legislate, they simply arrive in washington, put ideas on the table and go home. next the entire country examines what’s on the table. and as soon as 38 states agree to any one idea–boom–ratification.

    with the country as polarized and as fightened by the msm as it is, the only amendment with a chance of being ratified today is one concerned with electoral reform.

    but now let’s look at where political science plays a part. bill walker’s lawsuits forced the courts to establish that the convention call is descretionary–no longer ministerial. therefore, as soon as a tipping-point majority of americans move toward article v and the civic ceremony the clause provides, the government will get out of the way.

    as silly as mr. walker can seem, he is actully correct. to be anti-conventionist today is to advocate breaking the constitution. but that aside, now take a look at why you support paul. to get rid of the federal reserve? or something of the like? well, there’s only two ways to getting what you want: congress or convention. congress is broken and moving in the opposite direction 90%+ americans want it to go. we have a “legal fiction” calling the shots now. a convention–a civic ceremony bringing the country together–will break the status quo so it can be reformed. that is why the clause is part of the constitution.

    with all we clearly know to be true today, to be anti-conventionist, you have to be afraid, stupid, or corrupt. not to seem rude, but based on what we know about congress and special interests on the one hand, and the constitution and the rule of law on the other….

    the convention clause is part of the structural law, not civil law. you can’t debate the structural law or what the word SHALL means.

    if the individuals who people government could benefit from a convention, they would’ve manufactured consent and done it. the powers that be have not, because a convention opens up discussion and ideas. think about this.

    the framers did not write a self-distruct button into the constitution, and dscussing an idea does not mean it can somehow accidentally turn into new and unwanted law. what you fear happening at convention, is currently taking place by way of the the roberts’ supreme court.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Let me summarize here for those not keeping score.

    Dan is right on the issues and most of the facts. Bill is talking through a rather thick tinfoil hat.

    However, it’s not acceptable for Dan to threaten Bill as he did in #31. We’re all entitled to our opinions here, no matter how goofy and wrongheaded they may be.

    The basic problem for the Article V advocates is NOT the mythical oppression of some government conspiracy nor is it misinterpretation or abuse of the constitution.

    The main stumbling block for a convention is that not very many people want one or see a need for one. What’s more, as I’ve pointed out before, in the few instances where there WAS enough support for a convention Congress stepped up before a convention could be held and introduced the desired amendment itself.

    The truth is that Article V is not being ignored or suppressed and no one really wants or sees a need for a convention except for a few cranks whose peculiar pet issues would get zero exposure in a convention if one were ever held.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dave, Dan did not threaten Bill, it was the other way around. Dan in #31 was quoting from the threat in order to respond to it.

  • Franco

    USAF Vet Dan….sez The solution to this and almost all of our nation’s problems doesn’t lie in modification of our law, it resides in the enforcement of our law.

    Thank you.

    I think “we the people” should make it a law that Congress can not make anymore laws (or modify them) until they can uphold the law they have already made. When they can prove themselves responsible to this oath, then, and only then, can they be trusted with deliberating any new laws “of, for, and by the people”.

    As for this opinion pieces….I have to agree with Dan.

    As for Bill Walker I have to agree with #26 — gonzo marx

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, Dan did not threaten Bill, it was the other way around. Dan in #31 was quoting from the threat in order to respond to it

    Right you are, Dr. D. After reading all of their twaddle I started to find them hard to tell apart.

    Dave

  • http://www.articlev.org john de herrera

    let’s look at facts:

    the constitution is made up of two types of law: structural and civil, i.e. articles and amendments.

    the strucural law reads that upon the application of the requisite number of states, the congress shall call a convention.

    the congressional record shows 567 applications have piled up all these years (the majority cast between ’65 and ’90) and one congress after another has ignored its constitutional obligation to issue the call.

    these are the facts, and they are indisputable. none of that is twaddle, but reality.

    while some may have the subjective opinion that we don’t need a convention, or americans don’t want a convention, allow me to refute both of those ascertions.

    on the first point, it is no secret that special interests, i.e. money, determines how the legislative branch functions–what legislation gets addressed, how it reads, and what gets passed.

    two years ago a departing senator told mike wallace on 60 minutes, that the legislation members of congress sign off on is written by the lobbyists who fund their campaigns: this is what we call Institutionalized Corruption. therefore it should be clear that a corrupted institution concerned with preventing such is not going to involutarily right itself.

    since corruption has become institutionalized to the extent it has, an amendment to the constitution would have the political weight to break that status quo. it should be pretty clear that the constitution is required (via the convention clause of article v) to create some order out of what has become chaos. and there are a number of amendments that could do it: electoral reform, term limits, a flat tax, media reform–none of which the current congress will ever touch.

    as to the other point that americans don’t want a convention, my research indicates otherwise. i’ve travelled the country twice (2002 olympic torch route, 2004 presidential campaign), and have discussed the issue on internet forums such as this with americans from across the political spectrum. once it is explained that it’s simply a civic ceremony where delegates place ideas on the table for the country to examine, i’ve found everyone except the corrupt declare themselves conventionist.

    with all we know to be true about our government and our lives today–to be anti-conventionist at this point you must be afraid at having been lied to, stupid, or corrupt.

  • Franco

    Joel S. Hirschhorn, Bill Walker, and john de herrera

    Do you think 9/11 was false flag terror?

  • http://www.articlev.org john de herrera

    it doesn’t matter. in terms of political science, all we need is a tipping-point headed towards article v. whatever 9/11 was will be dealt with by an enlightened public afterwards.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    “an enlightened public”

    Now there’s a fanciful concept.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    john sez – “with all we know to be true about our government and our lives today–to be anti-conventionist at this point you must be afraid at having been lied to, stupid, or corrupt.”

    ok..here’s where you go horribly wrong

    i Reject each of the three options you postulate, and state that you have NOT thought this one through enough…there are many other Possibilities, as well as Variables than what you have laid out

    you do NOT get to set the Agenda, nor state an “either/or” proposition without proving your axioms and showing your work to substantiate such broad “statements”

    another failure to utilize either Logic or Reason

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.articlev.org john de herrera

    it’s amazing how fanciful things can become when open discussion on a national level begins.

  • http://www.articlev.org john de herrera

    to exselsior:

    the genius of the framers was that they funneled all political discourse to an absolute: for/against.

    we are talking structural law of the u.s. constitution. you cannot debate what the word SHALL means.

    here’s something else you might not know: the american flag, the stars and stripes, the good ol’ red, white n’ blue represents many things to many people. but objectively, it represents one thing: the combined words of the u.s. constituion. without that there is no u.s.a.

    to be anti-conventionist today is to be anti-constitutionalist and thus anti-american.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    again…bullshit…you still have not demonstrated any proof for your axioms, much less shown the tautology of Reasoning to reach your stated conclusions

    a flag represents a piece of cloth, people may choose to convey said piece of cloth as they like, with whatever significance they deem fit…

    but the cloth itself, is just cloth..an inanimate object, and cannot represent itself as anything

    just one example of just how fucked your pathetic attempt at reason, or even coherent argument is

    john sez – “the genius of the framers was that they funneled all political discourse to an absolute: for/against.”

    and again..i call bullshit, show your proof

    the name is gonzo…gonzo marx…”Excelsior” is my sign off, a Thought meant to convey the gist of my typings…

    reading comprehension is the first step towards rational adulthood…

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.articlev.org john de herrera

    we don’t need genius today, just need to do what genius wrote into the structural law of the supreme law of this nation.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    actually…we DO need genius, even more so if such a thing as a Continental Convention is to even be thought of as a possibility

    there’s the problem…anyone with half a Mind can readily Agree there are many problems with our Nation…

    but very few think there are any problems with our Constitution

    and one would have to be in complete denial of Reality as well as realpolitik if they think that the outcome of such a Convention would be anything other than disasterous

    without a high Probability of something better than what we have with our Constitution(and Bill of Rights) being the outcome, no sane Individual could seriously advocate allowing those self same special Interests and the like to have access to re-writing the secular Covenant our Nation is founded upon

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    to be anti-conventionist today is to be anti-constitutionalist and thus anti-american.

    Out of curiosity have you actually read BOTH paragraphs of Article V?

    The reason we haven’t had and are not going to have an Article V convention is that Article V provides for TWO methods of amending the Constitution, and because the non-convention method has worked perfectly well for 220 years, we’ve never had a need for a convention. Plus there’s no indication that it won’t continue to work in the future, hence no future convention.

    Now let’s get down to the nuts and bolts of the issue. WHY do you want a convention. What do you think you could get done in a convention which couldn’t be done without one? Why do you think that an issue which could get approved by 2/3 of the legislators wouldn’t immediately get picked up by the Congress and passed as an amendment?

    What a convention is NEVER going to do is allow you to produce an amendment or revision to the Constitution which represents the beliefs of a small minority of the population, like 9/11 conspiracists, ethnic separatists, federal reserve abolishers, or any of the highly motivated but numerically small and politically powerless groups out there.

    And I’m GLAD the framers designed the system that way.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    mark it on yer calendars , boy and girls…

    i completely /agree with #48

    Lucifer has just bought ice skates

    Excelsior?

  • troll

    …which just goes to show that the two of you are nowhere near as far apart on issues as it might at first appear – two sides of the same coin when what is needed is a whole new currency

    refined institutions are insufficient –

    today’s graffito: Stop Suffering