Re: Fw: Fwd: Article V

[Steven Moyer]

Quoted:

I believe the bottom line is that an Article V convention is a political movement or event which will only come to pass because the people of the United States demand it.

Yes, I agree with that assertion.  However, as far as charging ten dollars not "bankrupting anyone," you are incorrect.  I have less than ten dollars to my name right now.  I collect bottles and cans for their five-cent redemption value.

That's 200 cans a month MORE you want me to collect so that I can enjoy the privilege of participation in a discussion about the Constitution which is as much mine as it is yours.

This is a "classist" proposal.  You seek to involve people who have the money to participate and plan to ignore those who don't.  Shame on you!

Democracy should not be about money.  That's where this nation went wrong from the start.  Remember, people were PROPERTY ( slavery ) under the original Constitution.  For a long time it was thought that only those who owned property should be allowed to vote.  Then there was a "poll tax" to restrict voting to those who had the money.

You are going down the wrong road by charging for participation in your convention.  I urge you to reconsider.  It's a classist proposal and I reject it.

For your information, I have been advocating an Article V Convention since the early 1980's.  For many years I had the ONLY web site doing so.
( http://metamind.us/cc )

I have researched it extensively, scanned many printed documents and placed them on the Internet and been a supporter of FOAVC.  ( http://foavc.org )
I continue to advocate a convention in my writings on the Internet.

My position is that the 3/4 consent test is the thing to focus on.  What do 3/4 of us agree needs to be done?  Once we achieve that agreement, the details of how we "make it so" are much less relevant.

I have envisions software on the Internet which will help us get to that level of consensus.   Perhaps you would like to discuss my ideas with me.  If so,
please call me at 802-372-1159 or via SKYPE ( ID: stevenkentmoyer ).

Sincerely,

Steve Moyer

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 8:54 AM, <con...@aol.com> wrote:

FYI

 

From: FOAV...@aol.com
To: darre...@yahoo.com
Sent: 6/5/2010 11:32:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Fw: Fwd: Article V

 

Dear Mr. Keyes:

Many thanks for your thoughtful email. Let me attack your challenging questions as best I can:

 

1. Is Article V's convention language mandatory?

The word "shall" is repeatedly used in the constitution always as an imperative.

There is no reason to suppose that the framers intended anything different with respect to Article V. No doubt they assumed, and correctly I believe, that it was  and is within the power of Congress to call a convention any time they wish. A convention not prompted by state legislative petitions would be a "non Article V convention." Just as Congress has the power to appoint a committee or commission to perform a any specific task, it could call a convention of state delegates, specify how such delegates are to be chosen, limit their agenda and dissolve them at any time.

 

But not so an Article V convention. If 34 states ask for an Article V convention, the Congress is obligated to call an Article V convention for proposing amendmentS (plural) to the constitution. Such a convention cannot be limited by congress or by the state legislatures. The Convention sets its own agenda, the sole limitation being that it may only propose amendments to the existing constitution. It may not draft a whole new constitution, It may not pass or propose statutes or executive directions.

 

If 34 states request an Article V convention, can Congress discharge its duty by calling a "non Article V" convention with a limited agenda and congressionally mandated procedures and representation?

 

I say no. The imperative verb "shall" means that Congress must call an Article V convention, not a non-conforming facsimile.  

 

Your question regarding the meaning of the word "call" is a good one. I take the word "call" to mean that the Congress would have the obligation to set the time and place of convening and inform the state legislatures. "Call" is not synonymous with "summon." It is closer to the notion of "invite." The states are not obligated to answer the call. If they do not however, the Congress could still treat a minority represented convention as an Article V convention.

 

Thus, suppose 34 states ask for an Article V convention and only 26 states send delegates. Congress would be justified in accepting a proposed amendment from such a convention and sending it out to the states for ratification. Of course, you may say that if only 26 states attended, there is little chance that 38 states would ratify. But suppose that the amendment required the states to have unicameral 

legislatures, and that's why the state legislatures pulled their delegates home. Congress could require ratification via conventions in the states, thus circumventing the legislatures.

 

The most intriguing question in your email was whether the states could seize the initiative. I believe they can and should. That is why I have launched Convention USA. I believe the bottom line is that an Article V convention is a political movement or event which will only come to pass because the people of the United States demand it.

 

My concept of a virtual convention has a three fold objective:

1) to prove that an Article V convention would not be a 'run away' convention dominated by radicals of the left or the right or controlled by unreasonable people.

2) to actually draft, discuss, debate and decide upon specific amendments to the US Constitution which have mass appeal so as to be approved by a super majority of the people of the United States.

3) to actively support, advocate and espouse the adoption of the amendments it proposes.

 

All of which brings me to urge that you and your colleagues step up and register as Texas delegates to Convention USA. The $10 monthly dues won't bankrupt anyone. Our credit card operation is fully secured and run by PayPal, a reputable institution. Delegates my resign at any time.

 

Political activity is either financed by big money from a few people or small money from lots of people. If we can get 10, 20 or 50 thousand people to participate in Convention USA, we will get attention from the mainstream media, we will influence the election of Congressmen and Senators and we will see our proposals adopted whether Congress calls a convention or not.

 

Best wishes,

 

Thomas E. Brennan

In a message dated 6/5/2010 4:46:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, darre...@yahoo.com writes:

Judge Brennan,

 

My good friend, Kevin Thompson, recently forwarded your email to him below on to me.  Kevin and I and a few other Texas gentlemen have been discussing an amendatory convention for some time.  As an attorney and armchair constitutional scholar, I have an intense interest in this topic.  In fact, if my schedule permits I may attend the September 16 symposium in Lansing.

 

It appears from my reading on the topic that you have been one of a few leading the charge for an amendatory convention since the early 1980s.  In this light, I wanted to ask for your thoughts or some suggested readings on a few of the following questions:  Although I believe it is unlikely, could the "shall" language of Article V be interpreted as discretionary rather than mandatory - equivalent to the distinction between "may" and "must"?  If so, in the absence of Congress acting in its discretion to call a convention, could the States seize the initiative and organize themselves?

 

Furthermore, even if the "shall" language of Article V is mandatory what exactly would constitute a congressional "call" for a convention?  Since Congress has not "called" for a convention previously, it seems ambiguous as to what exactly would constitute such a "call".  Would it be a joint House/Senate resolution?  A stand alone bill?  An amendment to an unrelated bill?  A simple statement by a member on the floor that gets entered into the record?  Has there been any research or argument to define this "call"?

 

I would very much value your thoughts and any suggested resources addressing these questions.  I really appreciate the years of effort and energy you have invested in furthering the effectuation of Article V.

 

Regards,

Darren Keyes

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Kevin Thompson <ke...@kwt.info>
To: Keyes Mr. <darre...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 22, 2010 1:48:41 PM
Subject: Fwd: Article V

Begin forwarded message:

From: FOAV...@aol.com

Date: April 25, 2010 5:11:44 PM CDT

To: ke...@kwt.info

Subject: Article V

I read your piece in the Boerne Star about the Article V convention, and I want to thank you for it.

 

I am a former Chief Justice of Michigan and founder of the nation's largest accredited school of law, Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

 

I am also a founder of FOAVC, which you mentioned in your article.

 

Back in 1982, I wrote a law review article entitled "Return to Philadelphia." It's been a long battle.

 

In September, there will be a symposium on Article V at Cooley Law School. We have a number of speakers, including Federal Appeals Judge James Ryan, Duke Law Professor Paul Carrington, and Virginia House Delegate James LeMunyon.

 

I don't know if there would be a place for you on the panel, but I surely would like to invite you to attend and participate.

 

Again, thanks for your interest.

 

Thomas E. Brennan

--
"Consume less and share more."

Think virtue.  Teach virtue.  Live virtue

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us  
http://synergynation.net
http://nodes.net  ( NODES Network )

(\__/)
(='.'=)  
(")_(")

[Steven Moyer]

Bill,

Thank you for the helpful information.  I was unaware that the government was charging for the privilege of voting was a practice which ended in the 1960's.  That says something about our nation, doesn't it?  Politics is all about money in America.  What would it be about if it wasn't about money?  Good question to ponder, I think.

BTW, if the government was able to charge for voting then voting is a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT.   I think most people think of it as a right.  You might want to clarify this idea in your literature promoting your convention, that voting is a privilege and not a right.

I'm not concerned with law when I object to paying a fee to participate in an online convention.

You're right about that point.  You have a LEGAL right to charge for participation in the convention because it is a PRIVATE activity.  I grant you that. 

My main point is that it SHOULD be a PUBLIC activity, not a PRIVATE one.  Too much of our politics is private in my opinion.  Did you know that primary elections like those that are happening today in many States are PRIVATE FUNCTIONS of the political parties funded by PUBLIC monies?   Doesn't that strike you as an abuse of public power for private purpose?

Primary elections should not even exist.  There should be no mention of political parties on any ballot in association with any candidate for any office.  I have already proposed an Amendment to the Constitution to prohibit it.  We don't need parties to have politics.  Parties DISABLE the people in my opinion.  

For example, suppose your purpose in politics was to legalize marijuana and that was the only issue you really cared about very much.  What should you do?  Well, in our system you would almost immediately be corralled into one party or another.  You have already limited yourself in terms of gaining support from others who share your purpose.  Divide and conquer!

Then you will discover how you have to deal with PARTY LEADERSHIP to accomplish anything within that party.  That will further limit your effectiveness.  

Parties DISABLE progress!

UNITY is achieved through a focus on purpose.   If you purpose is to legalize marijuana then you want to unify with all those who support that purpose, regardless of their party.  But we have no easy way to do this.  There are dozens of web sites, perhaps hundreds, which share this purpose and may have membership organizations and petitions on their site.  But there is no single point of focus for the issue.  That's what we need.  That's what government could provide.  That's what an INTERNET DEMOCRACY such as I have proposed with the Synergy Nation proposal ( http://synergynation.net ) would provide the people.  We need to "come together" around specific proposals.

Here's another example:  CORPORATE DE-CHARTERING.   WE THE PEOPLE should be able to DE-CHARTER any corporation at any time through a vote on the ballot.  You don't like BP doing business in America?  Well, you can take away their charter if you get the majority of people to agree with you.  That would make certain that the corporations operate in the public interest 100 PERCENT of the time.

The central issue behind a convention is ACCESS TO POWER.  If your virtual convention is doing the work of a real convention then it is essentially the same thing.  From my perspective the PURPOSE of the activity in either case it the formation of a 3/4 consensus.

Once that is achieved the details of how the government changes are much less relevant.

Congress could pass a law.  The States could pass a law.  The Constitution could be amended through an Article V Convention.   It's the results that I'm looking for in the end.

If a State passes an initiative saying "marijuana is legal" then the purpose has been achieved.

If the Constitution is amended to make marijuana legal then the purpose has been achieved.

If the Attorney General refuses to prosecute cases of simple possession then the purpose has been achieved.  IN politics it often takes a series of small victories to collect before a grand change is realized.  That's OK, and every small change is a good result for the purpose.

I support the idea of an Article V convention and have done so for decades.  But I don't worship the idea.  It's one of many paths which can satisfy my purpose.   I want to increase the liberty of the people and restrain the tyranny of money.  I see the Government as the enforcer of an evil system, the money system, and any movement which liberates the people from that system is a good result.  Conversely, any movement which RESTRICTS the liberty of the people using the money system is a bad result.

Therefore, you attempt to charge people MONEY to participate in the convention is at odds with my purpose and I am unable to honestly support it.   I have already stood up in the public square and urged others to reject your convention because it is "classist."  Money is classist by its nature.  It isn't the amount I object to but the principle that participation in a discussion designed to come to consensus about what kind of government we want in the future shoudl be restricted based on money.

I stand in firm resolve against your convention for this reason.

Sincerely,

Steve Moyer

http://stevemoyer.us

http://metamind.us/cc

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder <fo...@isomedia.com> wrote:

Actually Steve people were charged for voting until the 24th Amendment which eliminated poll taxes. The taxes were used to pay for the costs incurred in running the election. It's only been since the 1960's that charging for elections wasn't done so the practice of not doing so is not that old.

 

Hence your example is a poor one at best and pejorative. You are mixing private and public and the law is well settled that these are two separate areas of law. What applies in the public sector may or may not apply in the private sector.

 

Your problem is you are trying to equate access with equality such that you hold equal access must be "free" or it is not equal. Simply put the law doesn't agree with you. For example private companies offer services or products. You like anyone else have equal access to them assuming you are legally allowed to (meaning if you want liquor you have to be of age and so on) but just because you have equal access doesn't automatically presume the product or service must be free, that is, you are given it. There are other  rights involved other than your own Steve. One of them is people got a right to make a living and that means they have a right to charge for their product or service.

 

Equality only goes so far. You have access to the site just like anyone else. Whether you choose to use that access is up to you and if you do then it must be under the terms and conditions established by the provider of that access. This is well settled law and unless you can show that access is discriminatory, that is it is being denied to certain individuals on the basis of race, creed... you know the scenario, you've got nothing. There is nothing the civil rights law about discrimination on the basis of inability or unwillingness to pay.

Bill Walker
FOAVC Co-founder
www.foavc.org
http://foavc.org
AVCY2KX

----- Original Message -----

From: Steven Moyer

To: Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder

Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 7:58 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: Fwd: Article V

So why don't we charge people to VOTE?  If everyone pays the same price then it is EQUAL, right?

Come on , Bill.  Honesty is a virtue.  Truthfulness is too!

Steve

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder <fo...@isomedia.com> wrote:

Sorry doesn't apply in this instance. Unlike the real convention which would have to deal with that circumstance, though the courts have long since done so, this is a private organization. The courts have long since ruled that as long as the rule is  uniformly applied it is a valid and legal rule. The rule is equally applied. All shall pay dues. Equal protection under the law.

 

Equal protection does not imply "free" Steve, merely equal.

 

 

Bill Walker
FOAVC Co-founder
www.foavc.org
http://foavc.org
AVCY2KX

----- Original Message -----

From: Steven Moyer

To: Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder

Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 12:37 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: Fwd: Article V

Sounds like you are justifying injustice, Bill.   What about "equal protection under the law?"

Do you support Ayn Rand?

Steve

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder <fo...@isomedia.com> wrote:

I haven't joined the site first of all so so much for your theory of special access. Second, there is no such thing as equal access to power as a principle. If all people had all equal power nothing would be done or there would be anarchy. Society is built on the principle of unequal power not equal power. Like it or not hierarchy exists everywhere. The plant with the best sunlight outgrows other plants; the animal with the better luck at hunting survives. The same holds true in human society; in order to survive beyond the strict individual, power as you phrase is parsed out. In a family, certain decisions are left to the male, others to the female. In employment, bosses make decisions which workers follow in order to get the job done. These bosses are in turn controlled by other bosses until the entire company is controlled by the ultimate boss---the customer. The same is true for political power---some are chosen to make decisions because all cannot do so.

 

You try to make the human situation sound bad Steve and it's not. It's simply called organization and it's existed as long as man has, indeed as long as life has. It's based on the most basic of principles: in this world you have EARN access by working for it, not expect it to be given to you simply because you exist.

 

Bill Walker
FOAVC Co-founder
www.foavc.org
http://foavc.org
AVCY2KX

----- Original Message -----

From: Steven Moyer

To: Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder

Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:08 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: Fwd: Article V

Bill,

It's the principle that I'm standing up for ... the principle of EQUAL ACCESS to the means of democracy.  If some people get special privilege because they pay a fee we have sacrificed the principle of EQUAL ACCESS TO POWER.

Be honest, Bill.  You are doing this because you WANT special access.

Shame on you!

Steve

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder <fo...@isomedia.com> wrote:

Well since you emailed me Steve on this I'll respond. First of all while I understand your view on economics and if you recall sometime back you asked me to debate you on the issue so I'm sure we clearly understand each other's views, the fact is I disagree with your position on dues for a convention either simulated in this case or for real.

 

Like it or not, a form of exchange has always existed in this world. I have something you value, trade something you value for it. Whether that exchange is called money, gold, rocks, horses, blankets, bamboo or whatever, it is economy. Indeed, if you consider it a moment, NOT to have economy is evil for it means that however gathered one person could ultimately have all and everyone else have none and have no peaceful means whereby they can obtain any without the use of violence, force and ultimately murder in order to obtain that which they require in order to survive. Economy provides the means not only to obtain goods and services but the motivation to produce those goods and services as they provide the means and reason for doing so in that they enable the producer to obtain a method whereby he in turn can obtain goods and services he does not personally own.

 

So much for basic economic theory. The point is you state you now live on bottle caps. I seriously doubt that as you have a telephone, freely use the Internet, consume food (and I know this because you are still alive) and so on. You have income Steve. Perhaps not much but you have income. The fact you lack funds is your own problem. There is nothing to say you can't skip lunches if you want to express your views in this convention. That is your free choice and if you are unwilling to make it, then you as a result of your personal decision, suffer whatever consequences result; in this case non participation in a specific Internet web site.

 

The site requires a certain amount of funds each month to exist. It is required because the ISP provider charges for the service of being on the Internet. Perhaps the site also has a webmaster and others all of whom charge for their services in one manner or another. To defray these expenses, the site charges money. Those who do not wish to spend their money in that manner do not have to. Those that do, will.

 

But there is nothing wrong with charging for something when it costs funds to do it at all. The same problem will face the real convention and it may end up charging delegates for attending. A convention cannot tax or legislate and there is no obligation either from or to Congress or the states to finance in any manner such a convention. Indeed, if Congress were to finance, it could control and that is the last thing anyone wants.

 

The 1787 convention was financed this way and it seems to have come out alright. Most of the state legislatures did not have professional legislators in those days; men served without pay as a matter of public service. The legislatures, to my knowledge, did not pay those it sent to the Convention; they paid their own way and expenses as a matter of public service. The same will most likely be true this time which is one reason I've always favored a virtual convention (for real) as opposed to a physical one because of lack of funds.

 

For these reasons I believe you are incorrect in opposing funds be charged to be part of the convention particularly when the funds are for the purpose of maintaining the existence of the site itself.

 

Bill Walker
FOAVC Co-founder
www.foavc.org
http://foavc.org
AVCY2KX

----- Original Message -----

From: Steven Moyer

To: Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder

Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 8:21 AM

Subject: Fwd: Fw: Fwd: Article V

[Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder]

Well, actually no as to voting being a privilege. The "right" to vote with actual language was finally added to the Constitution with the 15th Amendment in 1870. Before that technically there was no right to vote in the Constitution with actual specific language though it would be very hard to convince anyone that right didn't exist under the 9th Amendment.