• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fixing the USA without using guns

Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
30
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Highly Respected Conservative Embraces Article V Convention Option

Joel S. Hirschhorn

No matter what else he has done, what conservative radio host and author Mark Levin does in his new book The Liberty Amendments has made him a hero for me. For many years I have been writing articles on the wisdom of using something in the US Constitution that I believe offers the only constitutional path to urgently needed reforms of the political system. I also co-founded the national nonpartisan group Friends of the Article V Convention. Mark Levin has become the most notable, highly visible person to also come out loudly, advocating the first time use of the Article V convention option.

The good news is that someone who commands significant media attention has recognized both the wisdom and need for using what the Founders had the good sense to give us. He forcefully makes the case for a convention of state delegates that would have the same constitutional authority as Congress has for proposing constitutional amendments. And just like all the amendments that now exist and which originated with Congress, those coming from a convention would still have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Levin recognizes that this high hurdle pretty much rules out truly nutty amendments, from either a conservative or liberal perspective, from ever becoming a reality. Nor can a convention totally rewrite our Constitution.

Most importantly, as I and others have repeatedly said for years, Levin has come to the conclusion that rather fear an amendment convention Americans should more fear sticking with the current corrupt, dysfunctional government system that has brought the US down into what I called a delusional democracy. Levin like so many others sees no hope to fundamentally fix our system by voting either for Republicans or Democrats, because of what I call a two-party plutocracy ruled by rich, powerful and corporate elites dedicated to maintaining the status quo.

Elections now are the instrument for sustaining the status quo, not reforming the system itself. People need to understand that there have been many years when one of the two major parties controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress, including two years under President Obama, four years under President George W. Bush, two years under President Clinton, and four years under President Carter, for example. Even with such dominance, neither party truly reformed the system or loosened the grip of rich and powerful elites, nor did Supreme Court decisions. Politicians keep lying and breaking promises. More than 40 percent of political campaign contributions now come from the top 0.01 percent, the super-rich. For nearly all Americans the choice is not between elections and an amendment convention. The choice is between continuing to make stupid decisions or use what the Founders gave us. Mark Levin has seen the light and now we need many millions of Americans to also get smart.

Now for the bad news. Levin’s new book presents the case for a large number of specific constitutional amendments. History has shown that many earlier attempts to use the convention option that were based on advocacy for specific amendments all failed. I happened to like most of Levin’s amendments. But the sad fact is that no matter how sensible any specific amendment may appear to most people, there will always be many people and groups willing to fight against it. The historic result has been that the process of using the convention option has gone down to failure because of opposition to specific amendments. In other words, the key to success is placing far more emphasis on the process offered by the Constitution to get systemic, core reforms through the states, recognizing that Congress will never propose true, fundamental reforms.

Moreover, Levin has not paid much needed attention to the ugly reality that there has already been a sufficient number of state applications to Congress for a convention (two-thirds of states), but Congress has intentionally violated the Constitution by not calling for the first convention, as Article V requires. Friends of the Article V Convention has presented a wealth of data, analysis and information on this reality. Someone with so much celebrity as Levin needs to forcefully inform the public and his many supporters that Congress has long stood in the way of using the convention option, obviously because it fears sharing the power to propose amendments. This holds for both Republican and Democratic members of Congress.

The battle for fixing and, indeed, saving the US, in other words, requires fighting on two fronts. First, convince many millions of Americans that the convention strategy is now what is needed. Second, also convince the public that Congress must be made to honor and obey the Constitution, and the individual oaths of office all members take. For too long Congress has ignored the states, not even creating an official mechanism for counting state applications for a convention.

Like so many others, David Limbaugh had written against using the convention option, but now he admits: “Like Mark, I was originally skeptical of the idea that we should support the calling of a constitutional convention in an effort to rein in the federal government and restore the power of the states and our individual liberties. But that's because I hadn't fully explored what that process would entail.” We need many more people on the right and left to rethink their positions.

But already, soon after initial attention to Levin’s new book, many people are posting very negative and poorly informed positions against using the convention option on websites. If these people have any critical thinking skills, then they should realize that rather than fearing a convention, they should fear the status quo and continued national decline because of the awful two-party plutocracy that feeds the thirst for power among both Democrats and Republicans. There has been an incredible amount of brain washing from the right and left against using the convention option. Look at what we have now: a truly delusional democracy with each branch of the federal government failing, robbing citizens of their money, liberty and hope.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through his Delusional Democracy book website.]
Delusional Democracy
 
The United States would never have won freedom from British rule throwing only rotten fruit.

They used guns.

Same logic applies today.

Terse words and mass media will have no effect on corrupt leaders.

Soapbox, ballot box, cartridge box, in that order.
 
The United States would never have won freedom from British rule throwing only rotten fruit.

They used guns.

Same logic applies today.

Terse words and mass media will have no effect on corrupt leaders.

Soapbox, ballot box, cartridge box, in that order.

You forgot the Jury Box.

Though slow-acting, it can be very effective in holding government within its constitutional limitations, as Jefferson noted.

Trouble is that it requires an informed and active citizenry.....
 
You forgot the Jury Box.

Though slow-acting, it can be very effective in holding government within its constitutional limitations, as Jefferson noted.

Trouble is that it requires an informed and active citizenry.....

Ah, you are right - I was too lazy to use Google.

Thanks.
 
Perhaps the most sobering statement in the OP:
Elections now are the instrument for sustaining the status quo, not reforming the system itself.
Heading out today to get both books.
 
I heard about this a couple of weeks ago. I agree the Article V approach would be a good way to go and likely the only way to significant tax code reform. The question remains that if the states decide to flush the pentagon and start over, will the current administration step down or would they have to be removed?
 
I find the idea of Article V intriguing like SMTA said
I've long thought that the cartridge box was going to be the only solution
It might just be a crack pipe dream to believe that the Republic can be saved
but hey stranger things have happened?
 
Rather than some willy nilly shotgun approach can you conceive of one single
amendment that would right the ship, some sure fire method of limiting government to the duties outlined in the Constitution?

Do away with personal and corporate taxation and mandate a balanced budget?
 
Rather than some willy nilly shotgun approach can you conceive of one single
amendment that would right the ship, some sure fire method of limiting government to the duties outlined in the Constitution?

Do away with personal and corporate taxation and mandate a balanced budget?

Those didn't exist at the federal level until direct taxation was added to the Constitution.
 
so all we've gotta do is repeal the 16th and and un-bastardize the commerce clause?
 
Rather than some willy nilly shotgun approach can you conceive of one single
amendment that would right the ship, some sure fire method of limiting government to the duties outlined in the Constitution?

Do away with personal and corporate taxation and mandate a balanced budget?
Go back and slap Madison for fighting so hard (and rationally) in Federalist #41 for the current language of the general welfare clause and winning. :( Would that he had relented and they'd rewritten the clause so it couldn't be reinterpreted at will (the major objection he successfully argued could never happen - but which sadly has, over and over, and over again..). That, or include the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist #41 as an amendment in its own right.

End corporate and personal income taxes, most definitely.
Implement term limits so no one can make a career of the federal government.
 
kill all the lawyers? ;)
 
Go back and slap Madison for fighting so hard (and rationally) in Federalist #41 for the current language of the general welfare clause and winning. :( Would that he had relented and they'd rewritten the clause so it couldn't be reinterpreted at will (the major objection he successfully argued could never happen - but which sadly has, over and over, and over again..). That, or include the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist #41 as an amendment in its own right.

End corporate and personal income taxes, most definitely.
Implement term limits so no one can make a career of the federal government.

Regarding taxes, I favor something like the European tax on stock market transactions.

Further, I think any corporation can make direct contributions to any political candidate, party or cause, but those contributions shall be recorded and TAXED at a rate sufficient to discourage said contributions.
 
Regarding taxes, I favor something like the European tax on stock market transactions.

Further, I think any corporation can make direct contributions to any political candidate, party or cause, but those contributions shall be recorded and TAXED at a rate sufficient to discourage said contributions.
Hmm. I can honestly say I've never heard of such a tax proposal. Intriguing (and I hate taxes) :)
 
I'm gonna go with Ms Rand on this one:
If you use a government service you pay for it.
 
What if I told you this would result in a doubling of our GDP
retirement of the entire public debt and
a doubling of the standard if living for the average middle-class family?
No it is real, the only thing is can you really do it?
 
Go back and slap Madison for fighting so hard (and rationally) in Federalist #41 for the current language of the general welfare clause and winning. :( Would that he had relented and they'd rewritten the clause so it couldn't be reinterpreted at will (the major objection he successfully argued could never happen - but which sadly has, over and over, and over again..). That, or include the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist #41 as an amendment in its own right.

End corporate and personal income taxes, most definitely.
Implement term limits so no one can make a career of the federal government.

Yep, how anyone can read Federalist Paper #41 and still misinterpret the clause to allow all kinds of shenanigans is, as Madison stated, an absurdity.
 
Yep, how anyone can read Federalist Paper #41 and still misinterpret the clause to allow all kinds of shenanigans is, as Madison stated, an absurdity.
And you try reason it with anyone today and the most vehement response you receive are two glassy eyes and a sophomoric "Huh?"
 
kill all the lawyers? ;)
This?

What if I told you this would result in a doubling of our GDP
retirement of the entire public debt and
a doubling of the standard if living for the average middle-class family?
No it is real, the only thing is can you really do it?
If you did, they'd probably just haul your dairy air into court and sue you for loss of income. ;)
 
I heard about this a couple of weeks ago. I agree the Article V approach would be a good way to go and likely the only way to significant tax code reform. The question remains that if the states decide to flush the pentagon and start over, will the current administration step down or would they have to be removed?
We need to flush the entire capitol, twice; it's a long way to the next nearest sewer.
 
Hmm. I can honestly say I've never heard of such a tax proposal. Intriguing (and I hate taxes) :)

I think just before the Occupy Wall Street thing got going last year, some group of nurses, of all people, like American Nurses Association or something, proposed a small tax (1%?) on financial transactions on stock market transactions. It turns out several European countries have similar arrangements.

In the age of computer driven trading on the stock market, the potential revenue would be in the billions a year, all just a few cents at a time.

Sounds like a good idea to me, but you don't hear many people talk about it. It's politically incorrect, as the Wall Street folks don't like it.
 
If our politics ever dissolve into an armed conflict, if left vs right is settled with bullets and not with votes, then America and democratic rule, has failed. The whole point of voting is so that our politics can change without violence. If we want to make a fundamental change to this country, of course amending the constitution is the way to do it.
 
orjgyh.jpg
 
If our politics ever dissolve into an armed conflict, if left vs right is settled with bullets and not with votes, then America and democratic rule, has failed. The whole point of voting is so that our politics can change without violence. If we want to make a fundamental change to this country, of course amending the constitution is the way to do it.

If the existing constitution is not being honored by the government, what makes you think that an amended one would be?
 
Back
Top Bottom