 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
We apparently no longer have the gene for political rebellion. It has been bred out of most of us. And those of us that urge a Second American Revolution are seen as fringe, nutty subversives.
So what do Americans have – other than a terribly bleak future? Where is hope in our dismal world?
In a bizarre twist of history that further illustrates just how impotent Americans have become, virtually all citizens are either unaware of or unreceptive to the ultimate escape route that the Framers of our Constitution gave us. They anticipated that Americans could become quite dissatisfied with the federal government. They feared that the political system could become incredibly corrupted by moneyed interests. They were right.
So here we sit over 200 years after our nation was created unwilling to use what is explicitly given to us in Article V of the Constitution – the option to have a convention outside the control of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court to make proposals for constitutional amendments. Do we really believe in the rule of law? If so, then we should understand that the supreme law of the land – what is in our Constitution – is the ultimate way to obtain the deep political and government reforms to restore true democracy and economic fairness to our society.
Make no mistake: an Article V convention has been stubbornly opposed by virtually all groups with political and economic power. This is most evidenced by the blatant refusal of Congress to obey the Constitution and give us an Article V convention, even though the single explicit requirement for a convention has been met. This fact alone should tell rational people that they are being screwed and oppressed. The rule of law is trumped by the rule of delusion. Our lawmakers are lawbreakers.
Let's have a look at Article V before continuing the reading of this article?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Article+V
http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/index.php?id=3080
Article V: The Amendment Process
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Before moving on I am reminded of a quote from Patrick Henry:
I smell a rat.
That was in reference to the cabal of wanna be dictators pretending to be 'Federalists', you know, the one's who forced the Constitution (Slave Contract) down the throats of unsuspecting victims?
Words, words, words. What really matters are deeds. Be nice?
A revolution is now working and it is a nice one. There may be no good reason to push it along at any faster rate. What is also happening, unfortunately, along side the peaceful revolution are crimes against humanity perpetrated by powerful people in their effort to maintain their power. They, the criminals, are truly pathetic. Don't feed the trolls.
That is simple.
Can an Article V convention manage to sever the link between the 'legal' criminals and the people who only want to live and let live?
If so, then, give it a go. If not, then, why bother?
A. Impeach every 'legal' criminal now and on into the future (the current example is Kucinich impeaching Dick Cheney). Sever the connection between the biggest 'legal' criminal and the innocent people first - move on down the list.
B. Start constructing and utilizing a more accurate currency. There is no law, on earth, that can stop people from this vital endeavor. This kills the power of falsehood at the root.
C. Improve the 'law of the land'. I am, myself, convinced that this will require a move back to jury trials where each individual can veto any law during any test of law; however - a constitutional convention could focus attention upon this simple return to democratic equity.
I'll read the link further to find out if the person writing the article on Article V has something specific in mind when considering a change in the rule book (the one currently being ignored).
Come learn more about the effort to get an Article V convention at http://www.foavc.org and become a member. Do not keep witnessing the unraveling of American society, voting for lesser evil candidates, and believing the propaganda that putting different Democrats or Republicans in office will actually improve things for most of us. Choose peaceful rebellion by using what our Constitution gives us. Fight self-delusion.
Research needed?
http://www.foavc.org/
---- To refrain from supporting any specific amendment proposal that may be proposed at an Article V Convention.
What is the point?
More checks and balances for the sake of checks and balances? If the existing checks and balances are not working, then, why is the fix - more checks and balances?
It sounds at least a bit dishonest to support something from no possition other than 'just because'.
Is it me?
How about looking for a specific gripe inspiring someone to bring about this check to balance against something specific?
http://www.foavc.org/faq/summary%20of%20amendment%20subjects.pdf
Anti-polygamy (Defense of Marriage)
Apportionment (One person, One Vote)
Apportionment and Presidential electors (Electoral College)
Apportionment/state schools
Balanced budget
Conflicting state and federal statutes
Court of Union
Direct election of senators
General (No subject specified by applying state)
General (Direct election of senators)
Independent state schools
Interstate taxation
Judicial review of statutes
Limited congressional terms (Term Limits)
Limited judicial terms (Term Limits)
Limited presidential term (Term Limits)
Limited taxation (Repeal of Income Tax, 16th Amendment)
Line item veto
Mode of amendment
National Recovery Plan
Pension for the elderly
Presidential electors (Electoral College)
Presiding officer of Senate
Reading Bible in school
Repeal of prohibition
Revenue sharing
Right to life (Abortion)
School attendance
School prayer
Secular school funding (Home Schools)
Sedition laws
Selection of federal judges
Supreme Court authority
Tax refund
Taxation of debts
Taxation of securities
Taxation on debts
Taxes on vehicles and fuel
Treaty powers
Treaty procedures
Unconditional federal funds
Unconditional public funds
Validity of 14th Amendment
Wage/hours regulation
World Government
I suggest a reading of Common Sense (and Crisis) by Thomas Paine:
http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
To say that the constitution of England is an UNION of three powers, reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical; either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.
First. — That the King it not to be trusted without being looked after; or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.
Secondly. — That the Commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the Crown.
But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the World, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.
Last edited on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 01:20 pm by Joe Kelley