pnicholson
07-07-2010, 02:13 PM
please check it out:
two articles here on the article V convention. the first is a short video from a progressive radio station in santa barbara and an explanation of article V convention. the second is from the friends of article V convention website: foavc.org and is a copy of the lawsuit filed against every member of congress for not upholding their oath of office.
the entire list of both house of congress who neglected to refuse exclusive rights to amend the constitution is available on the website. please note that the list includes woolsey, paul, and kucinich.
from youtube:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YouTube - Byron DeLear on Article V Convention interviewed by The Nick and Paul Show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAbe_Hu8mB4) |
May 20, 2009
The purpose of the convention clause of Article V of the US Constitution is to give the people an opportunity to offer solutions to a recalcitrant Congress unwilling or unable to act. When corruption has become institutionalized into the Federal government, the States can petition for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, a process occurring outside of Washington, bypassing the entrenched corruption. Before becoming law, amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, eliminating any extreme or radical proposals.
Common sense Ideas like a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would help to root out abuse and cronyism inherent in the system today, could be introduced and seriously debated through our nations first Article V Convention. Delegates would assemble, C-SPAN would cover it, we would all get educated a little more and our representative democracy reinvigorated. There is a critical reason why the convention clause exists, and the Framers put it there not to be ignored, but to provide a "peaceful alternative to a violent revolt" during times of strong popular frustration with the Federal government.
Constitutional scholars believe we have been denied our right to a convention. To date, there have been 754 valid applications from all 50 States for an Article V Convention that have hit the doorstep of Congress, far surpassing the two-thirds threshold needed (34). The research documenting these applications was completed last year by an intrepid non-partisan group of legal experts, a retired Michigan Supreme Court Justice and impassioned citizens from every State. The Friends of Article V Convention (FOAVC.org) assert that Congress has not only failed in its non-discretionary duty to issue the call, but is purposefully quashing the convention as a perceived (and real) threat to its power.
Please check it out for yourself at Friends Of the Article V Convention (https://www.foavc.org)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from foavc.org (friends of article V convention)
Unlike Walker v United
States, each member of Congress was sued individually, that is each members of Congress was named as a
party to the lawsui (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/District%20Court%20Complaint.htm)t.Under federal law (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/2%20U.S.C.%20118.htm) this
meant each member of Congress was required individually to decide whether
or not to support the law of the Constitution as required by his oath of office (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/5%20U.S.C.%203331.htm) or declare for public record his disobedience to obeying that law
and thus refusing to obey his oath of office. If the member decided to join
against the lawsuit, it meant he was stating for the public record his
advocacy for disobeying the law of the Constitution in violation of his oath of
office as well as advocating (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Advocate.htm) altering the
Constitution, and therefore our constitutional form of government, by means
other than by formal amendment. Such advocacy violates federal criminal
law (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Violation%20of%20Oath%20of%20Office%20and%20Walker%20v%20Members%20of%20Congress.htm). Every member of Congress joined
against the lawsuit, thus voluntarily choosing to assert, as a matter of public
record, a "right" to disobey the law of the Constitution and violate their oath
of office. No member of Congress has ever
publicly repudiated his decision to establish this "right" to disobey the law of
the Constitution despite being given public opportunities to do so (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Public%20Opportunities%20by%20Federal%20Officials%20To%20Support%20Obeying%20The%20Constitution.htm). Such a "right" removes the Constitution as the
Supreme Law of the United States. Members of Congress have deliberately and
voluntarily created a totalitarian (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Totalitarian.htm) government
by ensuring there are no longer any restraints on them thus giving them absolute
political power. Comments (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Comment%208.mp3)
two articles here on the article V convention. the first is a short video from a progressive radio station in santa barbara and an explanation of article V convention. the second is from the friends of article V convention website: foavc.org and is a copy of the lawsuit filed against every member of congress for not upholding their oath of office.
the entire list of both house of congress who neglected to refuse exclusive rights to amend the constitution is available on the website. please note that the list includes woolsey, paul, and kucinich.
from youtube:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YouTube - Byron DeLear on Article V Convention interviewed by The Nick and Paul Show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAbe_Hu8mB4) |
May 20, 2009
The purpose of the convention clause of Article V of the US Constitution is to give the people an opportunity to offer solutions to a recalcitrant Congress unwilling or unable to act. When corruption has become institutionalized into the Federal government, the States can petition for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, a process occurring outside of Washington, bypassing the entrenched corruption. Before becoming law, amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, eliminating any extreme or radical proposals.
Common sense Ideas like a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would help to root out abuse and cronyism inherent in the system today, could be introduced and seriously debated through our nations first Article V Convention. Delegates would assemble, C-SPAN would cover it, we would all get educated a little more and our representative democracy reinvigorated. There is a critical reason why the convention clause exists, and the Framers put it there not to be ignored, but to provide a "peaceful alternative to a violent revolt" during times of strong popular frustration with the Federal government.
Constitutional scholars believe we have been denied our right to a convention. To date, there have been 754 valid applications from all 50 States for an Article V Convention that have hit the doorstep of Congress, far surpassing the two-thirds threshold needed (34). The research documenting these applications was completed last year by an intrepid non-partisan group of legal experts, a retired Michigan Supreme Court Justice and impassioned citizens from every State. The Friends of Article V Convention (FOAVC.org) assert that Congress has not only failed in its non-discretionary duty to issue the call, but is purposefully quashing the convention as a perceived (and real) threat to its power.
Please check it out for yourself at Friends Of the Article V Convention (https://www.foavc.org)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from foavc.org (friends of article V convention)
Unlike Walker v United
States, each member of Congress was sued individually, that is each members of Congress was named as a
party to the lawsui (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/District%20Court%20Complaint.htm)t.Under federal law (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/2%20U.S.C.%20118.htm) this
meant each member of Congress was required individually to decide whether
or not to support the law of the Constitution as required by his oath of office (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/5%20U.S.C.%203331.htm) or declare for public record his disobedience to obeying that law
and thus refusing to obey his oath of office. If the member decided to join
against the lawsuit, it meant he was stating for the public record his
advocacy for disobeying the law of the Constitution in violation of his oath of
office as well as advocating (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Advocate.htm) altering the
Constitution, and therefore our constitutional form of government, by means
other than by formal amendment. Such advocacy violates federal criminal
law (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Violation%20of%20Oath%20of%20Office%20and%20Walker%20v%20Members%20of%20Congress.htm). Every member of Congress joined
against the lawsuit, thus voluntarily choosing to assert, as a matter of public
record, a "right" to disobey the law of the Constitution and violate their oath
of office. No member of Congress has ever
publicly repudiated his decision to establish this "right" to disobey the law of
the Constitution despite being given public opportunities to do so (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Public%20Opportunities%20by%20Federal%20Officials%20To%20Support%20Obeying%20The%20Constitution.htm). Such a "right" removes the Constitution as the
Supreme Law of the United States. Members of Congress have deliberately and
voluntarily created a totalitarian (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Totalitarian.htm) government
by ensuring there are no longer any restraints on them thus giving them absolute
political power. Comments (https://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Comment%208.mp3)