Campaign Begins to Stop Congress’ Brazen Violation of the Constitution
Dear Friends ~
Please find below the Friends of the Article V Convention's (www.FOAVC.org ) debut press release.
There are Constitutional mechanisms made available by the Framers to the people to address a runaway Federal government. Article V in the US Constitution is one of these tools, but sadly, has not been allowed to see the light of day because Congress simply refuses to obey the direct language of the Supreme Law of the land. We are asking Congress to call the convention, and allow to be heard the decentralized solutions to our current Federal form of concentrated power that has institutionalized corruption.
Please consider joining this non-partisan maverick group of Americans at: http://foavc.org/membership.htm
Sincerely ~
Byron De Lear
Campaign Begins to Stop Congress’ Brazen Violation of the Constitution
In letters to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the newly formed national organization Friends of the Article V Convention declared its challenge to Congress. “The time has come to stop playing games with the U.S. Constitution and respect the rights of Americans,” said FOAVC founder and National Press Secretary Joel S. Hirschhorn, a former senior congressional staffer.
FOAVC told Pelosi and Reid that Congress has a legal obligation to call a convention and that it is initiating a national campaign to build public pressure on Congress for a convention. "The one and only requirement specified in Article V for a convention is that two-thirds of state legislatures apply for a convention. With over 500 applications from all 50 states on record with the Congress that sole requirement has been more than met. Congress has never passed any law to expand or further specify requirements for an Article V convention, meaning the language in Article V prevails,” said FOAVC.
“Congress has cheated Americans by not obeying Article V of the Constitution. Members of Congress are violating their oath of office to faithfully obey the Constitution,” said Hirschhorn, “and we must hold them accountable.”
“Members of Congress seem more effective as lawbreakers than lawmakers,” added California congressional candidate Byron De Lear and an FOAVC founder. “If Congress can silently and unilaterally ignore or veto one part of the Constitution, then it can disobey any part of it,” said De Lear.
Thomas E. Brennan, former Chief Justice, State of Michigan, and an FOAVC founder has said publicly that a convention “is necessary, desirable, and feasible.” The convention option “is to be taken seriously…it is not a joke, nor an illusion. It would bring a new, responsible dimension to American politics,” said Brennan.
“Operating outside the control of the federal government convention delegates could, like members of Congress, consider any constitutional amendments they deem necessary to address unresolved national problems – and that’s what frightens politicians,” noted Hirschhorn.
De Lear said, “Congress can’t have it both ways. Give Americans its first Article V convention or propose a constitutional amendment to remove the convention option.” FOAVC reminded Pelosi and Reid that Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower supported use of the convention option. “Sadly, no current Democratic or Republican presidential candidate has done likewise, especially mavericks like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and ‘champion of the Constitution’ Ron Paul,” noted De Lear.
The non-partisan FOAVC at www.foavc.org urges Americans and state legislatures to demand that Congress obey the Constitution, respect states’ rights, and announce the first Article V convention. FOAVC does not support any specific constitutional amendment, though it invites groups advocating specific reforms that might be achieved through amendments to become Affiliate Members.
[edited for style by admin]
Technorati Tags: 
Hey Hank,
Thanks for replying to the Friends of Article V Convention's (FOAVC) debut press release.
You said, "And Byron, no offense meant, but couldn't the website of your self-proclaimed "maverick group" use a few more white males to diversify the masthead?"
It may SEEM that there are six white guys, but you know, I think several of the founders of FOAVC actually consider themselves to be "activist contrarian women of color" ;)
Among the co-founders of FOAVC, there is one with Latino heritage, and one with Jewish heritage, but there are many female members and members that are men and women of color, and I know there are leadership positions available for members in which case the org is open to people who want to be involved.
That's really where it is -- the people who were motivated to start FOAVC did so, without prejudice, and as it stands, the people who join and volunteer will be the people that move it forward.
There isn't anything about the politics of FOAVC that push any particular race and/or gender related issues, because it's essentially a non-partisan political doctrine and constitutional question that's being delt with.
I actively encourage men and women of color to become members of FOAVC, and have succeeded at doing so.
The issue you raise regarding a runaway "constitutional convention" is moot due to the decentralized nature of the way the Framers designed Article V.
Simply, a runaway won't happen -- this has all been propaganda and fear-mongering to prevent the people from having their convention, I'll explain below.
Hank said, "When I was a very young political person I was warned against a constitutional convention for the simple reason that the crooks and criminals would descend on it like a plague and all sorts of nasty things would result. You want to instill extra-judicial detention, suspension of Habeas and Guantanamo in the constitution?"
As a point of clarification, the term "constitutional convention" is unconstitutional and found nowhere in the document. We try to steer clear from using this term as it's misleading and legally inaccurate.
The correct term is "amendatory convention", "convention" or "Article V Convention", as FOAVC uses. This is not merely semantics, as the term "constitutional convention" implies a potential rewriting of the entire document, i.e. a new constitution. The kind of thing you were warned about when you were "a very young political person".
Article V only provides for a means to amend the Constitution, not throw it away for a new one. In this, the term "Article V Convention" describes exactly what it is, namely, a method by which the US Constitution can be amended outside of the central Federal legislature; Congress.
An effective decentralized (the States) check and balance upon the Fed.
The first key point here is that we can only add to the document, starting with the 28th amendment -- not throw it away.
The second point to remember is that Article V actually provides a way to check and balance an out of control Federal government through the convention clause.
Hank, the cause of the Friends of the Article V Convention org is relevant to the Green Party in the same way IRV is.
In Federal politics, the GP is currently positioned as an political outsider as contrasted with dems and repubs; the establishment.
Any action that succeeds in unpacking the establishment hegemony, an Article V Convention (AVC) for example, will naturally benefit the political aspirations of any non-establishment actor, i.e. the GP -- not unlike the indirect benefits of IRV upon the GP's viability as a third political pole.
But let me address your fears about something like an amendment making the swastika our official seal, or putting the suspension of Habeas in the Constitution.
There has been a lot of talk about thresholds lately, and these higher thresholds combined with the decentralized nature of Article V, protects against extreme political ideas from ever actually becoming amendments to the Constitution.
Here's the Article V flowchart: how an AVC could successfully amend the US Constitution outside of Congress.
First of all, 2/3 rds of the state legislatures must petition for a convention per Article V. This requirement has already been met.
Secondly, "Congress must call a convention" -- this is without debate, peremptory language, as A. Hamilton explains in Federalist 85.
Thirdly, the convention generates a roster of potential amendments, on the good side of things, possibly including the kinds of amendments that Congress won't ever consider, as the modern political animal sadly finds it terribly difficult to vote to undermine their own concentrations of power, hence the reason the convention clause has never been allowed to see the light of day. For example, these possible amendments could include electoral reform, guaranteeing independent verification of ballot results, standardizing the American voting experience and preventing private ownership or maintenance of electronic voting machines or do away with the machines all together, as the "Secure Our Vote" amendment. On the bad side of things, the changes you were warned about could be suggested as proposed amendments but the voting threshold of making constitutional changes is decentralized and at 75%, which would make any extreme ideas non-starters, which I'll explain below.
Fourth, the roster of proposed amendments then goes to the State legislatures for ratification -- any ideas that are perceived to be even slightly partisan are immediately non-starters, because 3/4 ths of all the red states and blue states must ratify the proposed amendment to make into law. In other words, to get 75% of the States (red states and blue states) to agree to something, the only amendments that could succeed at this process would be the ones to be perceived as completely non-partisan, no-brainer type amendments that would never have a chance at passing the Corporate-handled Congress. A no-brainer amendment like electoral reform, paper ballots etc.
There is no argument that holds water to counter the call for *public* elections, instead of *privatized* ones.
This might be the kind of idea generated by the AVC, essentially acting as a decentralized political idea factory or think tank -- that if well placed and clearly to be seen as serving the interests of all Americans, then becomes the law of the land.
A think-tank with teeth.
Thanks for checking it out, a do join if interested!
http://www.foavc.org/membership.htm
Sincerely, Byron