Article V Convention Call
FOR WHO: This is an InterOccupy subgroup of the Monday night general call. Audience is all Occupations.
PURPOSE: Discuss feasibility of Occupy organizing to convene an Article V Constitutional Convention to write a new citizen’s Bill of Rights. Also, to discuss how to invite all US Occupations to consider resolution of such, perhaps through the Committees of Correspondence.
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR THIS CALL
11 comments
Rob Hager says:
Jan 25, 2012
Adopting this unnecessary and dangerous constitutional convention idea would be a fatal error for Occupy. The strength of Occupy is that it stands firmly on the rights granted in the Constitution, especially at this time the First Amendment. There is no need for any amendment of the Constitution to solve the problems that Occupy protests. Occupy gains strength from standing alongside those who have pledged to defend the Constitution, and gains nothing by falling into the mistake of thinking it needs to attack the Constitution. This diverts energy from the task at had to attack a corrupt government which has systematically violated and undermined the Constitution,
Though the public converstation has been taken over by useless and needless calls from professional activists for various constitutional amendments, none is necessary to fix any problem identified by Occupy.
Before taking this fateful mis-step into the exponentially worse constitutional convention idea, please check this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwIJQJLhb4
or read this articel
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Reversing-Citizens-United-by-Larry-Kachimba-120112-189.html
Michael C. Hager says:
Jan 25, 2012
Quite frankly, the time for studying the Constitution has passed. If you are not yet trained in on how the Constitution is your best friend in this crisis, then by all means get the training. But we are now advanced to the stage where we must transform Congress to uphold the Constitution. There are absolutely no insufficiencies in the Constitution that need to be addressed.
jon frasz says:
Jan 26, 2012
I agree that the Constitution as it is,is sufficient to deal with getting money outta politics. I believe there would be a real danger in presenting an activist supreme court with more (new)language that they can reinterpret to serve their corporate handlers. the big money types are going to resist this mightely. Although time is of the essence maybe we should slow down just alitle. Read article 3,sec. 2,cl2, Sentence 2
Doug Ballard says:
Feb 13, 2012
Article V of the constitution lays out the amendment process very clearly regarding a state legislatures part in this process. No state legislature, as of this date, have passed any amendment legislation to Congress regarding the Citizens United vs FEC. I found no article in the congressional record as referenced by change.com to confirm that I am wrong. Therefore, Congress is not refusing to honor a petion because no petions exist.
Also, there were not enough states in any of those applications referenced to force any action by congress. 2/3 of the states must submit applications on the same subject. At what point have 2/3 of the state legislatures made the application to call such a convention? Until & unless this requirement is met and then only if congress refused to call the convention would any legal action against congress regarding this issue be relevant, necessary or appropriate. Further more, the Executive branch (Eric Holder) can’t make a determination as to what the duties of the Congress are because of the separation of powers between the branches of government. He would only be able to investigate and make his findings public whithin 90 days. I am of the opinion that an amendment can only accomplish change if it is introduced at the local level educating people and gaining their support as we go until a state government has no choice but follow the will of the people and petition/apply to the U.S. Congress for a convention. With 2/3 of the state legislatures demanding an amendment congress will have no choice but to comply. If they stall passage or attempt to ignore the states demand then the Attorney General scenario would play out but I doubt that it would come to that.
This is such a waste. I do not understand why the people who want a quick fix by mere protest alone expect to accomplish, as with most challenges in life, it takes time, hard work and determination to effect real and lasting change.
I think this specific effort could be put to better use networking and educating people who can then begin the state to state process which would by virtue of number, speed it up. There are so many people who want the same thing but there is not enough of a coordinated effort yet.
Christopher A. Brown says:
Feb 14, 2012
An Article V convention logically needs preparatory amendment to proceed generally with full constitutional intent. The abridgment of free speech, the corrupt campaign finance and election/voting systems, needs correcting before a general convention to propose amendments is convened. I’m focusing on compelling initial agreement amongst Article V advocates, towards delegates, for an understanding of these absolutes as the proper way to begin this effort to restore constitutional government.
J. Glenn Evans says:
Feb 16, 2012
I believe our basic Constitution with the Bill of Right is good and well thought out. We could use an amendment for direct election by the people and circumvent the Electoral College and an amendment to take the money out of elections and removal of personhood for corporations. Otherwise I believe our time would be better spent supporting the grassroots movement of dealing locally and creating an alternate economic system to see that we all are fed and sheltered; smaller local businesses and co-op by workers and consumers to provide for our basic needs. For changes in government we must make every effort to replace the corporate whores that so call “represent” in our elected office with people who will stand with the 99%. Then we can rescind or amend the objectionable laws that have stolen our freedoms, Homeland Securities, The Patriots Act, and the NDAA. Quit voting for the two major parties and throw your support behind independents, the new Justice Party and Rocky Anderson, the Greens or Socialists. All these groups believe in Economic Justice, Political Justice, Criminal Justice for all. Lt’s go after the people who have not been voting out of apathy because of lack of choice in people they can support in good conscience.
J. Glenn Evans
Eric Hodgdon says:
Feb 16, 2012
A Constitutional Convention is long overdue. A new Bill of Rights? I’ve not seen any proposal. But we must not stop with just that, do we? If you study our history enough and couple it with the progress of the Federal government, you will see the basic foundational error we have been given.
This gross error is what I think caused events with the Federal government to get out of control. This gross error was intentional. It needs to be repaired as much and more so than all occupy stated problems.
Do you know about the largest theft to the People? Not many due, and if it is logically considered, you will understand why discontent with government in general is so high. I refer to the House of Representatives neglect problem. I knew the situation was wrong, but I didn’t know where to go. There is a pamphlet at the link below. Read it please.
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/documents/TTO_Pamphlet.pdf
Dan Marks says:
Feb 18, 2012
WE ARE READY TO AMEND — PETITION
http://www.change.org/petitions/we-are-ready-to-amend-petition
What is an Article V Convention?
The only direct way citizens can propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Why should OWS do this?
Because OWS stands for fundamental changes to our democratic institutions and such a convention, an institution unto itself, is our brightest hope towards bringing about these changes.
What would OWS be proposing as amendments?
This is something that needn’t be answered specifically at this time. We can say now though, that our moniker—Occupy Wall Street—is a direct statement about where we see a fundamental problem, the solution to which must take place outside the current nexus of government and corporate institutions.
The proposal today is not about what amendment(s) to discuss and debate at a convention. It is simply about supporting the idea of holding a convention because we recognize it is the only way we citizens can participate directly in our constitutional form of government.
If OWS gets behind the Article V Convention it will create the awareness and political circumstance necessary to bring it about.
*******
We involved with Inter-Occupy Article V Work-group unanimously acknowledge the fact that the States have satisfied the required two-thirds numerical threshold to call for an Article 5 Convention Convention under Article V of the US Constitution and Congress should call an Article 5 Convention to order.
We offer the attached data to support our agreement of fact.
http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments
Dan Marks says:
Feb 18, 2012
Audio from the inter-occupy article 5 work-group meeting 2-9-12
http://www.livestream.com/occupyhawaii/video?clipId=pla_f09b4b85-e274-4e08-ac6c-e5a3f027cfd8
Dan Marks says:
Feb 18, 2012
Audio from the inter-occupy article 5 work-group meeting 2-9-12
http://www.livestream.com/occupyhawaii/video?clipId=pla_0e88d6fe-cef3-4228-95c4-e6f17522fb6d
sorry the previous post was from 2-2-12.
Steve Hamm says:
Feb 18, 2012
To those who think the Constitution is a static document that stands as is, you apparently fail to understand the adaptability of Constitution. If you think a Constitutional Convention is a danger to our society read Lawrence Lessig’s book, “Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It”, especially the last chapter: Strategy Four – The Convention Game.
While the Constitution had (and has) flaws, the Framers understood that times and conditions change, so they built in options for amending and adapting the Constitution. Article V is probably the most powerful way to address insufficiencies and inconsistencies that become apparent only over time and through experience.
Those who wrote it were some of the finest minds of their time but they were not infallible gods. Those who live today have two centuries more experience and historical hindsight to their advantage.
Amending the Constitution is the only way we’ve been able to right terrible oversights, prejudices and injustices. If our republic is to continue serving those it was designed to serve then we must use the tools so brilliantly inserted into that noble document and not be afraid we’re going to mess it up.
As it stands, our Congress is beholden to powerful interests and each member is subject to the influence of those who can afford to live just down the street from the Halls of Congress imposing, ON A DAILY BASIS, their corporate clients’ agendas in subtle and effective ways on those WE supposedly elect.
And we elect them all too often based on 30 second sound bites because those powerful influences that control Congress also control the medium and the messages by which we make most of our choices.
It is only fear that keeps us locked into thinking we can just change the laws but not the basis upon which those laws are written. First of all, few laws are passed to protect us anymore. And those that might be are subject to Supreme Court interpretatins and measured against what they interpret the Constitution says. Consequently, like Citizens United, they throw out laws they think contradict the intent of the Constitution. Worse, they allow interpretations that conform to their political and social values – not ours. Only by courageously clarifying the Constitution by amending it can we focus their minds on what we, the People, know are our best interests. And, if we do things that are not in our best interests, the Constitution allows us to right those, too, as we have.
It’s bad enough we have a SCOTUS that misinterprets the Constitution. To have a vocal constituency that propagates fear of change reflects an unnatural understanding of the Nature of Things. Everything, without exception, changes and it is better to be ready to acknowledge the need for change when it arises and address that need directly than leave it to a small select and entrenched minority whose sole purpose is to maintain their own powerful authority and ignore those whose rights they supposedly take an oath to protect.
One more suggestion to those who fear amending the Constitution, read Akhil Reed Amar’s “AMERICA’s CONSTITUTION: A Biography”