 | Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
NOTE: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? I wrote my Senators (Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R- TX) and Senator John Cornyn (R- TX) ) and Representative (Representative Michael Burgess (R - 26)) on 01-July-2007. I'm still awaiting a reply. Please feel free to use the template letter below.
Dear Senator / Representative [insert name here],
Thank you, |
 | eRe: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
 | Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Michael wrote: Perhaps because it does not include a pay raise. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Yes! That is what's so frustrating about this amendment thing. If government wants to amend the constitution, government amends the constitution! Just like that. Someone pointed out that the 16th amendment was ratified by a republican congress, yet it was (so called) ratified by the states during Woodrow Wilson's presidency, six years later. And many state documents pertaining to the state's ratification are unsubstanciated. The wording of the law was changed in the state's version and considered a radification of the 16th amendment. The wording of the amendment cannot be changed. It must be ratified by the states as presented to the states. Serious examination of the state's ratification of the 16th amendment must be undertaken before an article V convention takes place. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Yes, it is very frustrating. It is only one of many ways revealing how arrogant and irresponsible our politicians have become. Congress thinks only they are allowed to make admendments, and are ignoring 567 requests by ALL 50 state legislatures to make amendments. That is a violation of the Constitution and the Supreme Court that also chose to ignore the states' constitutional right clearly stated in Article V of the Constitution. That's why I believe we need to build a list (i.e. an Article V Grade Card) of politicians that either support or oppose the citizens' constitutional right to an Article V Convention. Then, come election 2008, we'll know exactly who to stop re-electing. Congress will continue to ignore the Constitution as long as we repeatedly reward them for it; letting them enjoy a cu$hy 90% to 95% re-election rate since 1996. One thing is for certain. Federal and State politicians will NEVER take the citizens of the nation seriously as long as the citizens (200 million eligible voters) repeatedly reward politicians by repeatedly re-electing them and blindly pulling the party lever; empowering the two-party duopoly's stranglehold. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
This is an interesting city in the county of Starke, in northern Indiana. It's a small city, 3000+ people. The county seat of Starke. Starke County has a population of around 27,100. It's not a bad place to live... I take that back. Austrialia sounds good to me now. This mayor and this city/county government wouldn't have the slightest idea what Article V of the U.S. Constitution is. They are more concerned with the height of the grass in the neighbor's yard. They are really involved with manipulation the property tax while accumulating as much property as they can via an E.D.I.T. income tax. They use this tax to buy property but they never let go of it. They just keep taking our payroll taxes to fund the purchase of property and the property sits, unproductive. It's considered an asset by the local government and no taxes are paid on this property. Hmmm. My home is next to an extinct glove manufacturing plant. The "Pariso Glove Factory" produced knitted gloves for the automobile manufacturing plants in this area. A union convinced the workforce to insist on higher wages and the "Pariso Glove Factory" was out a' bidnes in just 2 years. A shame. The government sold the assetts to pay back taxes and the government still holds the property some 15 years later. If any Article V convention were to be held, it must be held by people who are NOT lawyers, who are NOT politicians. The First Article V Convention should be held by delegates chosen by a random selection from a pool of valid SSN's. We must first validate the ssn's, or find another way of validating the ratification process. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Property taxes are too high, and getting higher in many places. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
http://smokytown.typepad.com/smokytown/2000/05/index.html A little piece of the history of Starke County, Indiana. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
I am waiting for replies from Rep. Joe Donnally, and Senator Richard Lugar. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Senator Evan Bayh did not even answer your question. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
http://wethepeoplecongress.org/index.php Go to the link where V tries to serve a petition! mms://media.sitestream.com/wethepeople_sitestream_com/open/V-in-DC-high.wmv Watch this video and you will see what is in store for anyone requesting an answer. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
It is obvious to me that Congress has no intention of responding to the people's wishes for an Article V Convention. Therefore, I propose that we BYPASS Congress and call a convention ourselves through our state legislatures, or, failiing that, by conducting an online election of delegates to the Convention and the selection of a site for it. Why not? If our so-called "elected representatives" insist on ignoring their "constituents," I don't think we have any other choice short of outright revolution. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Michael Densmore, Thanks for the links.
That's one thing that will help to disrupt the cycle of government FOR-SALE. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Michael, I'm afraid you are far more optimistic than I am. I don't think that simply electing another politician to this or that office will have much of an effect at this point. Our national capital, and some of our state capitals, are so corrupt that new electees are forced to either conform to the prevailing corrupt system or are ostracized by the other "representatives." Ostracized, they are unable to be effective in the "legislative body" of which they are a member. No. if we want change we have to "think outside the box," and be prepared to take unfamiliar directions. I find it difficult to understand, after the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, that Americans can have any confidence anymore in "voting!" Voting for what? For whom? I doubt that the 2008 presidential elections will even take place! All the Bush junta needs is another "terrorist attack," or "pandemic," or other "national emergency" (to be defined by the "Chief Executive" alone) to declare martial law and dispose of what is left of the Constitution! Elections? Why, the country already has the benefit of the Indispensable men - the chosen of God! Why replace them? We should all reverently bow before them and kiss their robes! Wake up America! What we are dealing with here is a mortal threat not only to the survival of the country, but to the survival of all Americans. We are dealing not with a Calvin Coolidge, but with a Napoleon Bonaparte! The people in power, even most of those in Congress, have no regard for the Constitution or for the well-being of American citizens. They are like eighteenth-century French aristocrats. They don't know anything about the stuggles of the "sans coulottes" (us) and don't want to know. They speak a different language: the language of wealth, power and influence, and they have utter, complete contempt for the people. There can be no reform of them, or the system of which they are a part. We, the people, have to rebuild this government from the bottom up, or, if you prefer, from the Constitution down, and we had better not count on the help of any of them to do it! |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
This is a statement overlooked but is the ultimate truth to Article V! I agree with James when he says:
Article V allows the people/states to override and be equal to the federal government. There is no reason why his words should not be valid. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? | ||
|
The prerequisite has already been met for an Article V Convention.
|
 | Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
I agree with you in regard to the value of a Convention as a forum to raise public awareness and bring forth specific proposals. Even if no amendments are ratified, it is still a worthy democratic exercise. I would like to suggest that we poll the State legislators on what they would like investigated. That's an easy enough thing to do through email and we might find that a consensus begins to emerge about how Congress has failed to do its duty and provide the people with good information on how their government has been performing recently. A proposal for an "Accountability Amendment" might permit the States to initiate investigations of the Federal government. How would it work? That's a mystery to me, but a Convention could address the question of how to begin investigations at the behest of the States. I'm simply looking at it from a practical political perspective and asking myself: what might State Legislators ( Republican and Democrat ) agree is necessary to preserve our Constitutional Republic? Steve Moyer |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
Do you think she really meant to say that? |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Michael, It appears politicians don't want to answer the question. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
I know. We have to think outside the box. We, at http://www.article-5.org must forge the framwork that will be used to select the delegates to an article V convention. We have to set the framework in stone and ask people to join in support of it. Is there a structure in place for selecting delegates for an article V convention? |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/fulltext/hr1343.htm http://www.in.gov/legislative/session/manual/chap04/index.html#ratifyingconstitution A JOINT RESOLUTION directing the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States concerning... I found this manual but I can't find any specific legislation from Indiana to call for a constitutional convention! Are there any from Indiana and where I can find them? |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Michael, Michael Densmore wrote: I found this manual but I can't find any specific legislation from Indiana to call for a constitutional convention! Are there any from Indiana and where I can find them? Here's a list of most, the subject of each, and when it occurred. APPLICATIONS SUBJECT--STATE BY STATE: P.S. My Senators (Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn) and Representative (Michael Burgess) STILL have not responded with their position on Article V of the Constitution. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
After reading this thread I'm nuder the impression that actions supporting "Article V of the Constitution" are viewed as obscure or outdated, superseded political mechanisms by officials and the public in normally confused response. Here is what must be a valid explanation for this lack of function. Media has distorted the individuals political roles, their power. By the distortion, the power of the individual citizen is diminished. My point is that each citizens daily needs ultimately are at stake. As corporations and government collude, wittingly or unwittingly, the time grows closer where our survival can and will be compromised. Article V of the Constitution may be a method to regain control over governmental and corporate impacts on our need and survival. However, compelling the citizens in a MAJORITY to take part in Article V of the Constitution action is a task that can only be conducted from a position which is occupied by potentially criminal elements, MEDIA. Television, radio, film, print media ....... all of it must be considered suspect. With the preceding logic I would presume to assert that our official representatives position basically has little meaning, and that they know it, which is why they don't answer inquiry on the matter. Now is the test of the meaning of these words. If they accurately describe a situation, will those reading be able to discern that accuracy and act accordingly? Can they define that action, share it amongst themselves, determine its validity and unify to act effectively? |
| Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Christopher Brown,
That is the most important leverage voters have, and repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians only empowers them to grow increasingly irresponsible and corrupt. Even if all your choices stink, re-electing the incumbent allows them to grow more powerful and corrupt.
It's that simple really, but very elusive because blind party loyalties and wallowing in the distracting and destructive partisan-warfare allows corruption to grow and grow, as the federal government continues to grow and grow to nightmare proportions, becoming increasingly wasteful and fiscally and morally bankrupt. Government won't become more responsible and accountable until the voters do too. Voters must pressure their state and local governments also to demand that the federal government (Congress) adhere to the Constitution and call an Article V Convention, because it is all too clear that our federal politicians and Do-Nothing Congress will not even remotely consider any amendments that may even slightly reduce the incumbent politicians' power, reduce their opportunities for self-gain, and/or reduce the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies (and the numerous unfair advantages they have bestowed upon themselves; not to mention they just gave themselves their 9th raise in since 1997). |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Greetings Daniel, As far as I can tell the media is the key to the entire issue. Every issue we can think of. Any cause any American might have. Of course you are right on about rewarding politicians with votes while they don't support an Article V Convention. Does FOAVC have a page listing the status of politicians on the Article V Convention matter? There is a very good chance that no issue will gain enough support from voters until the media is taken over. Seriously, taken over. The neglect and malfesance is seriously endangering all of our lives. In support of Article V Convention I suggest that a preliminary unity project be organized by FOAVC. Here is a very crude draft of the basic idea. http://algoxy.com/poly/media_lawsuit.html It is not quite complete, so we should talk abou that aspect later. You should get the basic idea. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Hello Christopher, Christopher Brown wrote: As far as I can tell the media is the key to the entire issue. Every issue we can think of. Any cause any American might have. First of all, I think your document is a good idea. The media is very irresponsible. I'm certainly sick and tired of hearing about Paris Hilton, Rosie O'Donnell, Britney Spears, etc. The Main Stream Media (MSM) is barely better than one of those cheap tabloid magazines you see on the shelf at the grocery store check-out counter. When that crap comes on, I change the channel (usually to the Science Channel, History Channel, or Discovery Channel) or turn the TV OFF completely. Yes, the MSM news is truly pathetic. Just yesterday I was in a discussion with a friend and I told him that a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more in year 2004), 90% of all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money, and Congress has enjoyed a 90% to 95% re-election rate since 1996. He said, why am I hearing this from you? Where did you find that information? Why is it the MSM doesn't tell us these things? I answered: Because the Main Stream Media News is bought-and-paid-for by a very few that abuse vast wealth and power to control it just like our bought-and-paid-for politicians in Congress and their puppeteers that use vast wealth and power to control and influence government. Also, too many voters empower and reward them for it by repeatedly re-electing them, or watching their News/Radio stations. There are some vastly wealthy individuals that own FOX News and CNN News. You can clearly see the bias in their news reporting. Certain individuals at each News station epitomize those News channels values. BOTH are pathetic in many ways by what and how they choose to report (or fail to report). Think back to the 1960s. What News station had the guts to report the sexual escapades of JFK? None. Meanwhile, JFK had the secret service bringing prostitutes to his hotel rooms. The MSM also fuels the petty, distracting, destructive partisan-warfare too. During elections, they should not be partisan, but the clearly are in subtle ways that helps decide elections. Thus, I support lawsuits against this type of irresponsibility by the MSM. Especially for those examples above and some of the examples in your docuement. We must stop rewarding the MSM and irresponsible incumbent politicians by blindly patronizing their [dis]services, and stop rewarding corrupt politicians by repeatedly re-electing them. In fact, some nation-wide boycotts may get their attention faster than anything. But can the voters organize to do such a thing. After all, most voters don't even know who their senators or representative are. And look at the voters of New Orleans. They re-elected William Jefferson!?! What's up with that? Never mind that he was caught red-handed by the FBI years earlier with $90K of bribe money neatly packaged in $10K packets of aluminum foil hidden in his freezer, and the whole thing was recorded on video. Jefferson even joked at the time that "it's not like we're being video taped". OOOpppps! Christopher Brown wrote: Of course you are right on about rewarding politicians with votes while they don't support an Article V Convention. Does FOAVC have a page listing the status of politicians on the Article V Convention matter? Yes. This page is for that very purpose, and we have a datbase to store those responses. We will soon have a page listing those responses. So far, NO one has posted a response from any politician with a YES vote that they support Article V. Member Michael Densmore (see above) got a response, but his senator (Evan Bayh) did not even answer the one simple question (see form letter above). Evan Bayh is either ignoring the question or never read the question. This will be common. Too many of our politicians are so arrogant that they think they can just send back a form letter (if anything), totally avoiding the issue of Article V, or totally ignoring us and sending no response whatsoever. Thus, we will put those politicians down in the database as REFUSED or FAILED to respond to the question on their postion on Article V. We will display that database as soon. However, so far, we've only received one response, and it ignored the question. Christopher Brown wrote: There is a very good chance that no issue will gain enough support from voters until the media is taken over. Seriously, taken over. Well, I have constitional concerns about taking over the media, but I totally support enforcement of laws to maintain accountability, prevent dissemination of false information (e.g. reporting invalid election results, etc.), displaying offensive activities on stations where people do not expect it (e.g. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction), hiding information from the public to protect politicians, etc. There should be stiff fines for these violations and irresponsibility. The MSM is a pathetic, but our growing number of pressing problems will require action on many fronts. We should be critical of the MSM, but to be taken over is possibly a larger crime than the fact that the MSM is bought-and-paid-for like too many incumbent politicians in our FOR-SALE government. Christopher Brown wrote: The neglect and malfesance is seriously endangering all of our lives. In support of Article V Convention I suggest that a preliminary unity project be organized by FOAVC. Here is a very crude draft of the basic idea. http://algoxy.com/poly/media_lawsuit.html I agree 1000% about the seriousness of the problems facing the nation; growing dangerously in number and severity. I fear we will soon be in for a bumpy ride. I think the first signs will be increased economic instability. It may be too late already. Like the Titantic, it's hard to change course at the very last moment. We very badly need action as soon as possible . . . before it is too late . . . before the majority of us have to learn our lesson the hard and painful way (again). |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Daniel, So glad you are able to take this discussion into the fundaments of Constitutionality. Thank you sincerely Christopher Brown wrote: There is a very good chance that no issue will gain enough support from voters until the media is taken over. Seriously, taken over. Daniel Summars wrote: Well, I have constitutional concerns about taking over the media, but I totally support enforcement of laws to maintain accountability, prevent dissemination of false information (e.g. reporting invalid election results, etc.), displaying offensive activities on stations where people do not expect it (e.g. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction), hiding information from the public to protect politicians, etc. There should be stiff fines for these violations and irresponsibility. The MSM is a pathetic, but our growing number of pressing problems will require action on many fronts. We should be critical of the MSM, but to be taken over is possibly a larger crime than the fact that the MSM is bought-and-paid-for like too many incumbent politicians in our FOR-SALE government. Christopher replies: Glad to see that you've noticed the basics. When I say taken over, I mean that corporations have abused it so badly, and there is so much collusion between government and the media that the democracy cannot function. When I say "taken over", I mean that the potential for that is ended, removed permanently by shutting television down as we know it until it can be shown that it will not happen any longer. Newscasts would be determined by randomly selected committees who overview raw reports. Random selection of committees would be from historically registered members of organizations with a top down priority relating to our existence on the planet. Peace and environmental organizations would be a top choice, and courts will have to logically agree to this if they are founded in the Constitution and social contracts preceding it. Peace and environmental purposes are selected for obvious fundamental reasons. War goes directly against life and environment supports life. Please, allow me to explain. The Declaration of Independence guarantees life as a preliminary principal of these United States. The Constitution reinforces that with first amendment rights, although this is not well articulated and basically unknown with the language carried, but fully implied. The simple philosophical logic in the explanation will be obvious. Let me premise this with a historical fact. Law is based in philosophy. This information comes from the Indigenous people of this continent who spent a good deal of time communicating with the founders and this information should be fundamental to basis of the next Article V Convention; The greater meaning of free speech: Through free speech an understanding can be created; that understanding can lead to, forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love; protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Indigenous people of this continent had experimented with over 400 forms of self governance before colonization in the millennium before that tumultuous event. The founders were astounded at the depth of understanding that was inherent with their spiritual leaders. They have tremendous insight into human spirituality and instinct because of their religions which include practices of working directly with the human unconscious mind. Our psychologists can barely recognize such exists and controls us in most ways. Only the most honest will. Hopefully you can see that Constitutionally everything I propose is fundamentally founded. It is so fundamental it may be viewed as alien, that does not change the fact of its veracity and if we abandon that veracity we are relinquishing sacred ideals. I cannot see violating basic rights to uphold lesser ones. One such court decision which does this is the 1895 decision which gave freedom of speech to corporations. This goes fundamentally against the premises of protecting the individual at the root of the Constitution. People are addicted to TV. And because they are addicted they think they have a right to be misinformed if they want to be. I say fine, if that is the case, relinquish the right to vote because a person that badly misinformed cannot possible vote properly with regard to upholding our Constitution. Basically our humanity has been subverted by television, and this has happened in no small way. Seriously, ............ it is that bad and some of the examples you cite indicate this somewhat. But let me go to fundamantal information. Do you realize that the manipulation is so severe that one in 50 political activists knows what BCCI is, and it's implications? I wonder if you could tell me why that is true? |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Hello Christopher, |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
|
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
I have a response from Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana: Dear Mr. Henderson:
Thank you for contacting Senator Bayh about Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Your correspondence has been forwarded to me, a legislative correspondent.
As you may know, Article V states that on the "Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments". Although many states have applied for a convention, this clause has never successfully been invoked. This method has come close on several occasions including an instance when only one State was needed before the Senate responded and passed an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators. Other instances include a petition drive for a constitutional limit on income tax rates, another to limit the Supreme Court's legislative apportionment decisions, and finally, a proposal for a balanced budget amendment.
Because this clause has not been invoked, the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions. However, arguments exist that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States, there would be a response by Congress.
Again, thank you for contacting Senator Bayh about this question. I hope the information given in this response has been helpful. Please continue to keep him informed on the topics that are important to you in the future.
Sincerely,
David J. Ziemba Legislative Correspondent |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Thank you Jacob! three cheers!
|
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Thank you, very much, Mr. Henderson. I'm glad to see that Senator Bayh's office was responsive to the issue you asked about. It constitutes an acknowledgment of Article V, and I think that's a worthwhile step in a slow, slow process. Sincerely, Fred |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
From what the "legislative correspondent" said, it looks like a Article V Constitutional Convention has nearly been called three times, but only when a state put a lot of pressure on the Federal Government. So, I think, the question is Will we have enough clout when the time comes? I suggest a full partnership with MoveOn.org as our goals are extremely similar, if not one in the same. In fact, it might be an idea if we could band all of these like-minded organizations together into some sort of Union for Change... |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Excellent effort Jacob Henderson! Your senator is actually quite responsive and helpful. It's OK that it comes from a LEGIS. CORR. They know more detail and history. Jacob Henderson wrote: I have a response from Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana: --- this clause has never successfully been invoked. This method has come close on several occasions including an instance when only one State was needed before the Senate responded and passed an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators.-------- Christopher wrote: This indicates that many states consider election reform to be a high priority. I consider the present system unworkable in a number of ways and feel that a time for democratic initiative, which the compulsion to Article V Convention is, to be a natural. And, .. history shows it is. When was "only one state needed" is something I wonder. -----Other instances include a petition drive for a constitutional limit on income tax rates, another to limit the Supreme Court's legislative apportionment decisions, and finally, a proposal for a balanced budget amendment.----- Christopher wrote: All hot issues historically. Something we can depend on for general support, if we could generally ask for it or find a place to gather it. -----Because this clause has not been invoked, the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions. However, arguments exist that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States, there would be a response by Congress.------ Christopher wrote: Key words, "authentic national movement". I think the issue of media necessity is well underlined. The question is how to compel it to act in the citizens interest. All indications are that media is working against citizens and the Constitution. An issue that dispenses with apathy is needed. One that all citizens can relate to, the spearhead. definition of the issue and dissemination of that are primary. The many organizations need but to find common ground. Establishment of priority. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Hello Jacob Henderson and Michael Densmore, (Edited by Administrator NumberTwo - original submission Wednesday, 18 July 2007, 11:54 PM) |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Daniel Summars wrote: |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Christopher, 523 (as of 1972) of 567 STATE APPLICATIONS FOR A CONVENTION Below is a table summarizing all applications in the Congressional Record for an amendment convention showing the date of the application, the state applying, the subject matter and the location in the Congressional Record of the application. The source of this material is the ABA Report of 1972 as well as the federal Judge Bruce Van Sickle article reference in our legal material.
: . . . MORE . . . : :
No, the Convention does not have to occur in one single Convention. That is, an Article V Convention is required anytime 2/3 of the state legislatures or 2/3 of both houses of Congress call for it. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Daniel Summars wrote: No, the Convention does not have to occur in one single Convention. That is, an Article V Convention is required anytime 2/3 of the state legislatures or 2/3 of both houses of Congress call for it. I fear if Congress is allowed to ignore Article V much longer, it will become only one of many parts of our Constitution that are usurped from the citizens of the nation. Christopher replies: Wow! So the ommission of the time period in the language of Article V as it is written allows the accumulation over time of requests for Convention outside the period of Congress convening whenever the requests are made? The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." IX basically supports what I define. Is that the same as what you understand? |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
The problem with that omission of a time period is that congress can use the Supreme Court to rule a time period against all of us. So, we will need a pretty convincing argument to get out of this... |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Jacob Henderson wrote: The problem with that omission of a time period is that congress can use the Supreme Court to rule a time period against all of us.
Christopher Brown wrote: The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So, any ambiguity (if any, which is debatable) in Article V can "not be construed to deny or disparage" the people. Also, there is significant precedent to support the argument that ambuguities are usually interpreted in favor of the spirit of the law. The ambiguity (if any) should not allow politicians to interpret in their own favor, when the politicians have an obvious conflict of interest, and are obviously and historically opposed to any amendments or reforms that may even remotely reduce their power, opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies. Sadly, Congress can vote itself a raise in a heart-beat (i.g. 9 raises between 1997 and 2007 while our troops go without body armor, adequate medical care, and promised benefits), but Congress can not ever get around to passing any badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer laws regarding campaign finance reform, election reform, tax reform, lobby reform, ethics reform, elimination of pork-barrel/waste/graft, or immigration reform (failing to enforce existing laws and essentially choosing to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other); allowing a continued influx of illegal aliens by the millions, over-running our schools, hospitals, ERs, healthcare systems, border patrol, law enforcement (e.g. 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens), insurance, welfare (e.g. 32% of all illegal aliens receive welfare), and even voting in our elections; not to mention the untold cost of displaced jobs, disease, and crime (homicide estimates range from 3.6 to 12 homicides per day). |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Daniel Summars wrote: Jacob Henderson wrote: The problem with that omission of a time period is that congress can use the Supreme Court to rule a time period against all of us. Perhaps. And that is an increasingly poor reason, because it is becoming fairly ridiculous when you consider that the state legislatures of ALL 50 states have made 385 of the total of 567 requests only since 1960. Christopher replies to Daniel: Jacobs point is well made to any who have seen the performance of the courts, any of them, in recent years. They, are not following laws nor the Constitution either. We cannot depend on them. Accordingly I'll reply to Jacob's post in a fashion which is comprehensive to almost everything that has been written here and also in the thread started by Joel Hirschhorn and linked below. All that is not really addressed in this post is the nature of the issues that are collectively of the highest priority in gaining Article V performance from Congress and the Senate whether we know it or not. Only because "we the people" haven't determined it yet. Basicallly I'm trying to define with concrete steps the beginning of the people doing exactly that Jacob Henderson wrote: The problem with that omission of a time period is that congress can use the Supreme Court to rule a time period against all of us. So, we will need a pretty convincing argument to get out of this... Christopher replies: Yes Jacob. That has become clear with the evolution of this discussion. Really two threads here are getting close and closer to serving the same purpose, at best. Consider what is said here. http://www.article-5.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=44 Then the response from Senator Evan Bayh's office. ----Because this clause has not been invoked, the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions. However, arguments exist that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States, there would be a response by Congress.------ THEN THIS FROM MY EARLIER POST Christopher wrote: Key words, "authentic national movement". I think the issue of media necessity is well underlined. The question is how to compel it to act in the citizens interest. All indications are that media is working against citizens and the Constitution. It is very clear that we are going to have to do something extraordinary to develop the impetus in the public to get anything done. At the thread linked above the term "umbrella" is mentioned. I equate that term, for our purposes, to refer to priorities commonly defined and accepted. I refer to what Joel Hirschhorn has written at the thread linked above. It is really very good, comprehensive to the fundamental problem we face. Joel Hirschhorn wrote: Realistically, reaching consensus will be resisted by many reform-groups that would not be selected as the priority, solidarity option. One cannot ignore the considerable egos of activists that have energetically created a web group, and that have attained supporters – though rarely in significant numbers. They sincerely believe that their strategy is the best one and having relatively few supporters does not deter them. Many are as opposed to alternative reform strategies as those in the status quo establishment, but not all. Most celebrate their long shot status with a religious zeal bordering on obsession. We need passion for a solidarity strategy. Christopher replies: So consensus is what Evan Bayh's office indirectly identifies with, "authentic national movement". I propose that the interested public need to practice "movement" and develop its very rusty skills. I propose that in practice we utilize an online petition as a place for people to gather. The people themselves are the target of this petition. Simply to exercise their natural right to agree. That we start with universally acceptable agreements just to get the process of agreement started, to bridge across previously created gaps and differences that media has broadened with manipulation and exploitation. That our petitions have stages of deepening commitment from the people that elicit more and more true activism from them working towards an "authentic national movement" and use technology to do it. We will separate ourselves from this stigma http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/internet.asp by identifying it and that we do not expect anything official from our preliminary petitions. That we understand "slactivism" http://www.snopes.com/info/glossary.asp#slack and are working away from it towards higher functions. Accordingly IF we were to do such a thing its final purpose be stating from the beginning all the way to the final actions that compel elected representatives to take action within ONE convention of congress to conduct Article V procedures. I think we need a message board that allows polling for our own purpose IF we are going to attempt something comprehensive. I suggest we use, http://www.hostingphpbb.com/ to develop the language used in the first petition here. http://www.petitiononline.com/petition.html Any who are in favor of this action to "weave an umbrella" of understanding and agreement, please post suggestions regarding HOW to get the full membership of FOAVC involved. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
And don't forget to record your vote for an Article V Convention here too. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Daniel Summars wrote: And don't forget to record your vote for an Article V Convention here too. Christopher replies: I propose that FOAVC members commit to a certain amount of outreach once a petition for support in the creation of an "authentic national movement" by posting on message boards or any number of other methods of expanding the American call for Article V Convention. So far there are 24 yes votes on that page. We need 24 million. I'm ready to make some youtube video that expresses what we decide the "umbrella of priorities" we are going to gather under will be. Got strategy? |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Christopher, |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
It is my understanding that a request from the state legislatures calling a convention under article V need no specific amendment attached to it. The petition is to simply instruct the congress to bring forth a convention with delegates selected via popular vote. Congress must sanction the conception of this convention and nothing more. The discussion of certain amendments is irrelevant now because the election of delegates will provide the many possibilities and that is long after the evocation of an Article V convention has been ordered. History and this website exposes the challenge it is to evoke an Article V convention. Senator Evan Bayh did not respond to our enquiry. Some person did, and his name wasn't Evan Bayh. A response from Evan Bayh would carry forward a plan that would eventually get him re-elected, to a higher post. A plan conceived by Evan Bayh in response to www.Article-5.org 's inquiries would include progress reports, stratagies, documentation of discussions, decimination of information, adds, speeches supporting the recognition of any of the 3 pieces of legislation mentioned by the person responding to our enquiry. If Evan Bayh was seriously considering the need for an Article V convention what better place to start than in his own state? There's a whole trainload of reporters following him around. His plan would surely include them! Selecting delegates is simple. Too simple to be credible if random support is used as it's vehicle. No credance would be given to anyone who proclaimed themselves to be a delegate to a national convention. But if Evan Bayh were to speak from Indianapolis to his state about the history and intent and the blatant ignorance of Article V of the U.S. Constitution... Then I would say I had a response from a Senator from Indiana, Evan Bayh. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Michael Densmore,
. . . just about anything other than providing body armor, adequate medical care, or promised beneifits for our troops, or numerous other badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms or amendments regardless of the hundreds (567) of times ALL 50 states request it. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
I recently read a book entitled Dark Ages America by Morris Berman. The book lists many of the problems that are listed by Daniel above, and concludes the modern America has many of the same problems as now deceased nations did (Rome, pre-Revolution France, etc) before they fell. Morris believes, as I do, that we have reached a point of no return, and that our government will have to be "rebooted," that is, rebuilt from the ground up. Your congressmen will be no help at all. They are only interested in keeping their power. And I fear any major march in favor of an Article V Convention will be ignored, or worse, met with hoses and dogs. Some of you may consider me paranoid, but this is what all governments do: preserve their own existence through any means necessary. That means we will have to be prepared to defy the thing we have called our government since we were born. See this: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/8111 |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Mr. Jacob Henderson, Mr. Jacob Henderson wrote: Some of you may consider me paranoid, ... I do not think you are paranoid. Not one tiny bit. I think you are very perceptive. Too bad there are more as perceptive as you are If I had to make a bet, I think we're going to have to learn the hard way (again). Yet, no matter how much evidence exists to raise concern, we are dismissed as dooms-day, chicken-littles. The only reason I continue to try is because it is logical. We don't know 100% for certain that our demise is already in the pipe-line. And doing nothing will most certainly spell our demise. Thus, trying is the only logical action. However, preparation is logical too. That's why I've paid off the mortgages on my homes. When the next Great Depression occurs, foreclosures will be rampant. My advice is "own your own home; free and clear". Mr. Jacob Henderson wrote: . . . but this is what all governments do: preserve their own existence through any means necessary. Again, you get it. Yet we are often considered cynical. It's not cynical if it is true. Our government is corrupt because that is always what all governments do. It's a simple fact of human nature. And we need to admit and thoroughly understand it if we are ever to deal with it adequately. Otherwise, we'll simply be one of thousands of nations that dissappeared into oblivion. If the roots of corruption are allowed to take firm hold, undoing the damage becomes increasingly unlikely. If I had to make a guess, this is where we are headed. It is a cycle and there's no guarantee that we'll survive the next iteration.  Especially when slumbering voters keep rewarding irresponsbile incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them, and letting them enjoy their 90% to 95% re-election rates since 1996. The only hope in turning it around, which won't be easy, is Education, Transparency, Accountability, and voters have got to stop rewarding irresponsible by repeatedly re-electing them. They must take off their partisan blinders and stop empowering irresponsible incumbent politicians based on blind party loyalties. The blind partisanship and partisan warfare is carefully cultivated by politicians. It is extremely effective and seductive. It taps into the voters' laziness and tendencies to lazily blame the OTHER party, rather than ever consider that politicains of BOTH parties are about equally irresponsible and unaccountable. It's a death of a thousand cuts, and we are doing it to ourselves. Unfortunately, coming generations for many generations to come will suffer the consequences. Especially with the massive debt heaped upon them ($42 trillion of nation wide debt). Mr. Jacob Henderson wrote: See this: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/8111 Yes, I've read that. Joel writes: I have long asserted that Americans live in a delusional democracy . . . He's absolutely correct. When will it end? When it finally becomes too painful. And some unavodiable pain and misery is already on the way. But the most dangerous factor is because too few care. The most difficult component of the following formula is Conscience (i.e. virtue, caring, morals):  Thus, we have growing corruption, among many problems growing in number and severity. Congress hasn't a clue. They are only intersted in gettin' theirs, fillin' their own pockets, and their own security. We've been crappin' in our own nest for a long time. How much longer before the branch it all rests upon snaps? Or will it merely be a slow and gradual demise? Congress' approval ratings are very low (in the mid 20%) range, but voters are so thoroughly brainwashed to pull the party lever, there's little hope of ousting the thoroughly corrupt, and Congress will continue to enjoy a very cu$hy 90% to 95% re-election rate since 1996. You're right. Congress won't reform itself. The voters have a simple solution. Don't vote for them. Especially those opposing our Constitutional right to an Article V Convention. But too many voters are too brainwashed to pull the party-lever. And 40% to 50% of 200 million eligible voters don't even vote. It comes back to Conscience (i.e. virtue, caring, and morals). People won't be so apathetic and complacent when they are hungry and homeless, but by that time, it's too late. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
That one-simple-idea is a good site. It puts all the variables out on the table that most of us forget when we are arguing with a neocon relative. The internet is the best tool of democracy that exists. See http://www.unity08.com/ It's a start. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
My U.S. senators (Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R- TX) and Senator John Cornyn (R- TX) ) and U.S. Representative (Representative Michael Burgess (R - 26)) still have not answered the simple question above (i.e. their position on Article V of the Constitution).
We want to build a list of all responses. |
| Re: A reply from Indiana State Senator: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Dear Michael, Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding Article V of the Constitution. Your thoughts and concerns are a valuable guide to my work as your state senator. While I acknowledge your opinions on this issue, the Article V Convention is out of my jurisdiction as an Indiana State Senator. I do not have the authority to consider or vote on this issue. Nevertheless, I strongly encourage you to get in touch with our Indiana federal representatives: Congressman Joe Donnelly Longworth House Office Building 1218 Washington, D.C. 20515 202/225-3915 Senator Evan Bayh 463 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 202/224-5623 Senator Richard Lugar 306 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 202/224-4814 Again, thank you for writing me. If I may be of further assistance on a state matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ed Charbonneau State Senator, District 5 Anne Swords Hendrix Legislative Assistant Office of Senator Richard D. Bray Office of Senator Edward E. Charbonneau 200 Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 232-9840 ahendrix@iga.in.gov -----Original Message----- From: Michael L. Densmore [mailto:mld@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 9:22 AM To: s5@ai.org Subject: Email Your Legislator Name: Michael L. Densmore Email: mld@mchsi.com Address: 5 South Cleveland Street City: Knox State: IN Zip: 46534 Email Updates: Comment : Dear Senator Heinold, What is your position on Article V of the Constitution? Do you think Congress and the Supreme Court have the right to vetoand ignore the states' and the peoples' right to an Article VConvention? Already, the legislatures of ALL 50 states have made 567requests on things ranging from Term-Limits,Balanced-Budget-Amendment, to Tax Reform. Please let me know. I am helping the Friends of the Article VConvention (FOAVC) to build an Article-V-Grade-Card database, and weneed to know which Congress persons oppose the U.S. Citizens'constitutional right to an Article V Convention. Thank you, Michael L. Densmore -- Sent to Senator Vic Heinold |
| Re: A reply from Indiana State Senator: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
So have we got a response from Joe Donnelly or Richard Lugar yet? |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Sent another E-Mail (via their own web-sites) to each of my U.S. senators (Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R- TX) and Senator John Cornyn (R- TX) ) and Representative (Representative Michael Burgess (R - 26)) on 02-Aug-2007. I sent one previously 01-Jul-2007 but never received any responses from any of them.
Also sent (on 02-AUG-2007) E-Mails to my Texas State Senator (Chris Harris) and State Representative (Tan Parker). |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
I sent this letter to my local congressman and state senior senator from Texas.
Mr. Louis Gohmert
I have a great concern over Article V of the US constitution. Article v gives the US people a right to have their representatives tell congress that their constituents wish to hold a convention to amend our constitution without oversight of the president of the United States. Since the late 1800's through 1980's all 50 states have submitted their wish to hold such a convention 567 times, only 2/3rds of states were needed. In 2004 the US supreme court ruled that they can just ignore the citizens right to do so. My concern is because our constitution needs some amendments that congress will not adhere to nor like. 1. Amendment to change the Supreme courts sitting judges way of holding office, they should be elected by the people in a popular vote and held to term limits of two 4 year terms. 2. Amendment for the vote of the US people not be allowed to be handled nor counted by private companies in either electronic or other means of vote counting. 3. Amendment to stop the US. government in any form to force the US. people to buy services or products of any private companies. These amendments are highly needed in order for the US people to remain free. These amendments are perhaps the most important amendments and actions taken by the US. people in US. history. Furthermore I would appreciate your stance on Article V of the US constitution. Would you be willing to present to congress your constituents concerns for these amendments and convention wanted by your state. If you do not believe that article v of the US constitution is any longer needed,then I call for you to remove said article from the US constitution further taking away one of our nations most defensive rights to control our government in case of rampant corruption which is already taking place. Sincerely: Tim Gray The Response I got : August 6 in the Year of our Lord 2007
Mr. Timothy Gray The purpose of this letter is to inform you about a new service my district staff will provide. In an effort to allow you to let me know how I can help and better represent you in Washington, my district staff will hold office hours in Hemphill on Wednesday, August 22, 2007. They will be located at the Hemphill City Hall , during the hours of 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. Throughout this day, my staff will be a valuable resource for you in your dealings with a federal agency. Additionally, if you have questions, concerns, or would like clarification with government programs like Medicare's Prescription Drug Benefit, Social Security, Veterans Benefits, please stop by.
If you have questions regarding government policy, or legislation; my legislative staff in Washington , D.C. would be happy to speak with you about any concerns or thoughts you may have. Please leave your contact information with the district staff and someone in the D.C. Office will address your questions via phone or email. It is an honor to have the opportunity to serve you in the United States House of Representatives. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Another politician that refuses to answer the question. I'd like to know when Do-Nothing Congress is going to get around to doing anything aside from voting themselves more raises and cu$hy perks, peddling influence, and refusing many common-sense, no-brainer reforms. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
I received a response (after two months) from Senator John Cornyn (TX). He obviously doesn't believe or understand that all 50 states have ALREADY made 567 requests (far in excess of the two thirds requirement). Congress is in violation of Article V. "WHENEVER" means now. There is no time limit, or any same-subject restrictions. Dear Mr. Summars: Thank you for contacting me regarding the United States Constitution. I appreciate the benefit of your comments on this matter. As our Founding Fathers expressed during the period of our nation's founding, the basis of all laws and powers are derived from the Constitution. As a member of Congress, I affirmed that I would "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.... So help me God." When a representative is elected, he or she must swear allegiance to the United States of America, its people, and it’s Constitution. As you may know, Congress may call a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution upon the application of two-thirds of state legislatures. You may be certain I will keep your suggestions in mind should two-thirds of the states propose amending the U.S. Constitution during the 110th Congress. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent all Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me. Sincerely, JOHN CORNYN United States Senator 517 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Tel: (202) 224-2934 Fax: (202) 228-2856 http://www.cornyn.senate.gov |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Ask him if he plans on being in office when his promise comes due. You may be certain I will keep your suggestions in mind should two-thirds of the states propose amending the U.S. Constitution during the 110th Congress. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
He said "should two-thirds of the states propose amending the U.S. Constitution during the 110th Congress." He's drawing a line. Two thirds of the states during the current congress. Let's give him just that. 2/3 of the states calling for a convention in 2 years. Goal or no Goal? GOAL! |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
RAHHH! THE CROWD ROARS!!! |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Micheal, |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
If you want a good goal, let's consider adding RECALL to the Constitution. California recalled their Governor ... so did Arizona. If Nancy Pelosi and the Dems can't get rid of BUSH WE THE PEOPLE can with the RECALL. A NATIONAL RECALL is what we need. How's that for a good goal? |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Here's the crux of the problem: Senator Cornyn said:
Excuse me, Senator but the Constitution says that Congress SHALL call a convention. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Here's a response from my State Senator. Unfortunately, he also believes the Supreme Court can veto the plain and simple text of the U.S. Constitution. He also believes it is only a federal issue. That is debatable, since it directly affects the 50 states that have already satisfied the two-thirds requirement; that is, all 50 states have already submitted 567 requests to make amendments. Under Chris Harris' and the Supreme Court' interpretation, an Article V Convention is essentially impossible. I do not believe that convenient interpretation is the spirit of the law. It certainly violates the clear and concise text of the U.S. Constitution. No where in Article V does it state a time limit, nor a same-subject requirement. If Congress and the Supreme Court are allowed these absurd and questionable interpretations, then the Constitution is worthless and we are no longer a nation of laws. 
Article V of the U.S. Constitution: 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. Notice the word above is plural (i.e. amendments). |
 | Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
October 7, 2007 State Senator Chris Harris Dear Senator Harris, My name is Bill Walker. I am a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention (FOAVC). I am not a resident of your great state. However, recently you responded to an inquiry by another of our co-founders Mr. Daniel Summars of Lewisville, Texas. He sent me a copy of your response to him and after studying it for a few days feel it is appropriate to respond to certain statements made in your letter. I am sending this letter to you via fax and have included a copy of the letter with this response. You state you are "fully supportive of the peoples right to enact reforms if Congress ignores valid requests to amend the Constitution." I notice you do not define what is in your mind "valid." I assume that your support therefore is not "fully" as you state. Instead it is tempered by the idea if Congress determines the applications not to be "valid" they may be ignored. Further, Congress decides what is a "valid" application. Hence, what you in fact support is not "fully...the peoples right to enact reforms" but the right of Congress to disobey the law of the Constitution. You state in your letter that there have been several hundred applications submitted to Congress. I compliment you on this knowledge. Most people do not even know that much about convention applications. To be accurate, there have been 567 applications submitted by all 50 states, all but a few submitted in the 20th Century and more than half submitted between 1960 and 1992. If you wish a full accounting, I suggets reading my web-site at www.article5.org and downloading my original brief in my first federal law suit, Walker v United States at www.article5.org/webbrief.pdf. Oh yes, and by the way, since we are being accurate, it is U.S. Constitution, not U.S. constituent (see in 1st sentence of your 2nd paragraph). Article V states that Congress shall call a convention on the application of two-thirds of the state legislatures. In their texts, many of the applications submitted by the legislatures have addressed a proposed subject. The Constitution does not require an amendment subject for an application. As stated in Federalist 85 by the author of Article V, Alexander Hamilton, the applications are a simple numeric count of states and no more. I suggest reading Federalist 85 as well as the U.S. Constitution before you assert language that does not exist in the Constitution. You state that Congress has not received enough applications that deal with the same subject matter to call a convention. This is a falsehood and a false statement. Even though the Constitution does not require amendment subjects in order to compel Congress to call a convention, at least four subjects have received sufficient support, each on their own, to cause a convention call. For your information, they are direct election of U.S. Senators, repeal of federal income tax, apportionment and balanced budget. You can view the list of states that have applied for these in the brief I have cited. By the way please do not try the old argument that because Congress passed the 17th amendment, this eliminated the applications for direct election of senators or that the applications were one short. Congress received the last application for direct election of senators in 1911. There were 31 applications submitted to Congress on this same subject. In 1911, there were only 46 states in the Union. I assume you realize that two-thirds of 46 is 30.6 or 31 applications. Finally, there is no language in the Constitution to suggest that the passage of an amendment eliminates the obligation of Congress to call a convention once the states have applied for it. Only an actual convention call can do that. You mention a federal court case in your letter. I was the plaintiff in that lawsuit, Walker v Members of Congress. I am very familiar with it and wish to correct a few statements you made. First unlike many people, you do realize the court made a ruling. The court ruled that despite the "peremptory" language of Article V (I’m quoting Hamilton here from Federalist 85 as well as the actual language used during the 1787 Convention) that Congress can decide whether to call a convention under the political question doctrine. Thus, under that doctrine Congress has a choice to obey the Constitution. If Congress does not want to obey the law of the Constitution, it does not have to. You are right the Supreme Court refused to hear my lawsuit. However, not before the government admitted for the public record that the defendants in the lawsuit (each member of Congress) had violated federal criminal law in violation of their oath of office. Not before the government admitted the obligation of Congress to call a convention was "peremptory." Finally, not before the government admitted a convention call is based on a numeric count of applying states, not same amendment subject. As all of this is public record, I am revealing nothing you probably do not already know but chose to misrepresent. The decision in Walker v Members of Congress was based on the Supreme Court ruling, Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). Before this in four rulings, the Supreme Court had specified in direct language that Congress must call an Article V Convention. In Coleman, a decision that did not even mention the convention method of amendment, the court gave Congress "exclusive" control of the entire amendatory process. This included the right of Congress to have members of the state legislatures arrested by military force and compelled to "ratify" an amendment "proposed" by Congress. Perhaps, as this fact could easily affect you personally you might understand why I tried to have this ruling overturned in appeal. This issue is absolute senator. You believe, as a loyal patriotic American the law of the Constitution is obeyed. Otherwise, you are not a loyal patriotic American and believe it can be disobeyed. There is no middle ground. The Constitution states Congress shall call a convention when the states have applied. The states have applied. Either the Constitution is obeyed or it is not. Because the convention is in fact a state power, you cannot pass it off to federal officials. Your state and 49 others made these applications, a right granted them in the Constitution and the states and the people they represent have a right to expect the Congress of the United States to obey the law of the Constitution and call a convention as that document specifies. I urge you to do what you can to see that the Constitution is obeyed. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to correct misstatements in your letter. Sincerely, Bill Walker |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
I received a phone call today (about 4PM) from Kay Bailey Hutchison's office (U.S. Senator from Texas). |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Daniel, You've gone from being ignored to receiving a phone call! It would be nice to see something in writing but at least you're on a positive trend. My email is being rejected by 3 more of my local elected officials. It's been one party rule in this county for so long their noses are in the air, not at the grindstone. 38 states applied to address the income tax situation. That sounds like "same-subject" by the required number of states. They have already stated it is to be during the "same-session". It sounds like this article is being interpreted to say the required number of states must submit a "same-subject" application in the "same-session". Your phone call may be an effort to aquire information. It sounds like a positive step. It has defined parameters that Senator Hutchison and her peers must adhere to. If the required number of states submitted an application instructing congress to call for an Article V convention she could not deny it from happening. It is the state legislatures who must submit this application. |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
January 22, 2010 Mr. Tyler Rud 744 2nd St NW Wadena, Minnesota 56482-1245 Dear Mr. Rud: Thank you for your message regarding Article V of the U.S. Constitution. I appreciate hearing from you. According to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution can be amended through one of two processes. An amendment must either pass by a vote of two-thirds in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate before being ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. The second method could occur if two-thirds of the states, or conventions within states, petition Congress for a convention. The amendments being considered through this process must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. It should be noted that the second method of amending the constitution, in which states request a convention, has never been used. I fully support Article V of the U.S. Constitution. I encourage you to also share your comments with your state representative and senator. You can use the following website for contact information for your state legislatures: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/. With best wishes. Sincerely,
JLO/wed |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
James Oberstar states that he is supports Article V, yet he joined with members of Congress (who were represented by DOJ attorney Karen D. Utiger in Walker vs Members of Congress). That was essentially a unanimous decision to continue to ignore Article V of the U.S. Constitution (http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Articles/TextOfArticleVOfTheConstitution.htm). Not a single Congress person stood up and said, "Hey! What's going on here. ALL 50 states have submitted over 700 Article V applications; far in excess of what is required per Article V.
If James Oberstar supports Article V, then why has James Oberstar and other members of Congress still refused to call an Article V Convention, since the requirements in Article V have already been satisfied? These are the slippery sort of answers we've been getting from other politicians. They either ignore the question, skirt the issue, change the subject, or try to somehow obfuscate the facts and pretend that over 700 Article V applications from ALL 50 states is somehow insufficient: http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm We're on a slippery slope when the Constitution starts to be blatantly ignored or violated, because each new subsequent violation comes easier and easier. Thanks again for trying to get a straight answer from your politicians.
Tyler, Thanks for trying! |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
 Thank you for your recent message to my U.S. Senate office. Each week, several thousand Minnesotans send me their thoughts and suggestions on legislation and important issues facing our nation. This impressive volume is a testament to the Minnesotan traditions of grassroots activism and civic participation that distinguish our state. In recent months Minnesotans have contacted my office to share their views on the economic recovery bill, health care, education, and numerous other policy issues. I appreciate hearing from each one of you because understanding your views helps me better represent all of my constituents. I closely track the concerns that are expressed in your letters and emails, and will answer them as soon as possible. My Minnesota staff is also available to handle specific services related to the federal government (such as trouble with passport applications, claims for veterans' benefits, or citizenship matters). If you are ever in Washington, D.C., I invite you to attend my weekly constituent breakfast every Wednesday from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. ET, when the Senate is in session. You can also ask my staff to arrange a tour of the Capitol. For assistance, please go to my web site http://franken.senate.gov/ or call my Minnesota office at (651) 221-1016 or Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-5641. Thanks again for writing and I look forward to continuing our conversation.
Sincerely,
P.S. To sign up to receive my email updates visit http://franken.senate.gov/ |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Sad. Al Franken didn't even address the issue. What a waste of time and paper. Tyler, Thanks for trying! |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
I am hoping that Al Franken will get back to me, even if it is B.S. The last time I emailed him it took around 2-3 weeks to get a final reply. P.S. As a Minnesotan, I want to personally apologize to the nation, that Al Franken somehow got elected to the U.S. Senate I also sent a email to Senator Amy Klobuchar about article V, still waiting for a response, Every time I have emailed her she does at least respond I also sent an email (below) to my state Senator, Dan Skogen And my state Representative, Mark Murdock What is your position on Article V of the Constitution? Do you think Congress and the Supreme Court have the right to veto and ignore the states' and the peoples' right to an Article V Convention? Already, the legislatures of ALL 50 states have made 750+ requests on things ranging from Term-Limits, Balanced-Budget-Amendment, to Tax Reform. Please let me know. Article V of the U.S. Constitution: 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. Thank you, Tyler Rud 744 2nd ST NW Wadena, MN 56482 |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Good Morning Tyler, I believe the Washington mentality has gone too far away from what our Founding Fathers wanted in our Constitution. We should have a balanced budget, Minnesota does, term limits, yes. I hope this answers your question, if not let me know. Thanks, Mark. State Representative Mark Murdock House District 10B 213 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Office: 651-296-4293 Fax: 651-296-3918 rep.mark.murdock@house.mn Please sign up for my email updates at www.house.mn/10B |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Mark Murdock, I first want to thank you for responding to me, but you never did answer my question, could you please read my question carefully and respond back to me thanks What is your position on Article V of the Constitution? Do you think Congress and the Supreme Court have the right to veto and ignore the states' and the peoples' right to an Article V Convention? Already, the legislatures of ALL 50 states have made 750+ requests on things ranging from Term-Limits, Balanced-Budget-Amendment, to Tax Reform. Please let me know. Article V of the U.S. Constitution: 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. Hey Tyler, I guess I did not make myself real clear in my first response. I support the whole Constitution. Mark. State Representative Mark Murdock House District 10B 213 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Office: 651-296-4293 Fax: 651-296-3918 rep.mark.murdock@house.mn Please sign up for my email updates at www.house.mn/10B |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
If any Congress person claims to support the Constitution of the United States, then why are they silent about the blatant violation of Article V, despite over 700 Article V applications from all 50 states? |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Dear Senator Dan Skogen, What is your position on Article V of the Constitution? Do you think Congress and the Supreme Court have the right to veto and ignore the states' and the peoples' right to an Article V Convention? Already, the legislatures of ALL 50 states have made 750+ requests on things ranging from Term-Limits, Balanced-Budget-Amendment, to Tax Reform. Please let me know. Article V of the U.S. Constitution: 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. Mr. Tyler Rud 744 2nd St NW Wadena, Minnesota 56482-1245 Dear Tyler: Thanks for your question. As your state senator, I took an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Minnesota. I support all the articles and amendments of the US and Minnesota Constitutions, including Article V of the former. The Minnesota Legislature has no authority over how Congress sets its rules regarding the acceptance of petitions from states. However, to answer your second question, neither Congress nor the U.S. Supreme Court has "veto powers." Only the President has them, and then only in regards to Congressional acts. I am not an attorney, but it appears to me that the best legal resolution available for questions of the process of Article V petitions and Congressional acceptance would be through the courts. Therefore, if citizens seek adjudication on this issue, they would need to put their challenge through the federal courts process. Thanks again for contacting me. Dan |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
Senator Dan Skogen, Therefore, if citizens seek adjudication on this issue, they would need to put their challenge through the federal courts process. That puts the ball in your court Mr. Senator. What do you intend to do about it? |
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? | ||||
|
From: Senator Debbie Stabenow <senator@stabenow.senate.gov> Subject: Re: Article V Convention To: sandrawhite333@yahoo.com Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010, 5:00 PM
|
| Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution? |
|
As usual, another politician that side-steps the issue completely, and refuses to address Article V of the Constitution. No surprise here. It's unlikely Congress will ever call an Article V Convention, because they know there will be amendments that may limit their abuse of power, such as term-limits, a balanced budget, no more automatic annual raises for Congress, campaign finance reform, etc. |