|

We The People Network's
Campaign for Freedom
#########
The Second Constitutional Convention
#########
The idea of a Second
Constitutional Convention is not new. Over the years, many individuals
and organizations have advocated such an event for a variety of causes.
The original Constitutional Convention convened on and off in various
locations, from May 25th, 1787 to September 17th, 1787 when the Constitution was signed and sent to the states for ratification.
But regardless of the participation or intention of the fifty-five
aristocrats in the formation of that document, the document in
question, the American Constitution, still belongs to the people. This
has forever been written as being fact in our original founding
document, that being the Declaration of Independence.
Take a moment to re-read the opening of that document using the above
link. Regardless of what the courts or Congress has said about the
Rights of the People, or the extent of the people's authority over
government, this document is clear.
It clearly indicates
"that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the
pursuit of happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it,
& to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such
principles, & organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.
"
And further on it reads
"it is their right, it is their duty to throw
off such government, & to provide new guards for their future
security.
"
Not much ambiguity here.
Now obviously, just telling the government to shape up, of course
accomplishes nothing. We can say we have these Rights over and over
until we are blue in the face, and quite possibly in prison, or dead.
But if you have a grass roots movement united on a single front, that
front being the Second Constitutional Convention, you might just
end up with a majority of the population speaking loudly and clearly
enough, that compliance on the part of the government becomes mandatory
by default.
Here's how it might work:
First thing is to organize at the local level on the idea of a Second
Constitutional Convention, with proposed Constitutional Amendments.
Once this catches on across the country, then move to the next step.
Delegates are elected at the local level to attend regional
Conventions. These Delegates will poll their constituencies to get an
accurate report on what the people want strengthened in the Constitution
and what they want changed about government. This report will be the message of the Delegate
at the regional Convention. The job of the regional Convention is to
debate and vote, so as to combine all the Delegates polls into one
coherent Amendment package.
These Delegates then go to the State Conventions, repeating the
process. The Amendment package that has thus been debated and voted upon,
then moves on to the National Convention.
The final Amendment package coming out of the National Convention is a
directive to Congress, to the Executive, and to the courts. According to the Declaration of Independence,
this people's directive will supersede the existing law. All that's
left after the Congress does their job, by implementing the Amendment
package, is for the states to ratify the Amendments. Once completed,
they become the law of the land.
Now, if we don't really have this Right, this Original Authority, then
we the people have been lied to. Everything taught to us about our
country and the founding fathers is a lie. Everything taught to
our children in schools about our government is a lie. The Declaration of Independence is just a piece of paper.
I don't think so.
I suspect that the government, given the political choice, would
capitulate in favor of the people, rather than risk an all-out
revolution. After all, we are talking about America here, aren't we?
Here's more on the issue that is excerpted from an article I previously wrote, and that addressed several concerns.
All the peace and
social justice
activists that I have talked to want the same things. They want what
most people want, that is, equal rights and justice for all people
everywhere, affordable education and health care, opportunity
and
quality of life, and a clean and healthy planet to live on.
Regardless of the
particular issue,
there are common threads interwoven into most, if not all, of the
issues.
These threads include, but are not limited to, government
corruption, excessive corporate power, and an unfair class-driven
election process that keeps high level political office out of the
reach of the
average working class individual. There are other fundamental
issues as well, but
these particular three go a long way toward fostering the crisis that
we the people currently face in this country.
Think about it.
Nearly every issue
that we are fighting in our many different causes can be traced back to
a common thread,
a fundamental flaw in our society. It seems logical that any
long-term solution should address these flaws. Otherwise it's like
trying to get rid of a noxious weed by picking off its leaves. The
problem is going to come back.
So how do we get at
the root?
Well you start by taking
stock in the tools you have
available.
Our most powerful tool that we collectively share is the fact that we
the people are popular sovereigns. This is the authority that we the
people declared in the Declaration of Independence. If you can get the
majority of people in this country to realize the truth, then you have
your sovereignty 'muscle'. Then you flex that
popular sovereignty muscle by calling a Constitutional
Convention and amending the Constitution.
Most left-leaning
progressives tend to
shudder whenever you mention the Constitution as something
that we
should all embrace as activists working for change. I've heard it all,
from
"the Constitution is no longer relevant", and "that authority no longer
exists", and "Constitutionalism is the
refuge of right wing extremists and gun nuts", to "the
Constitution was written by rich white men".
I also get told by
some that what I
propose is unrealistic, that I should just select a smaller issue, and
join the ranks of those "picking away at the problem"; or that what I
propose is dangerous, not only to ourselves, but to the Constitution as
well. Some say it will "put the Constitution up for grabs" because the
Convention Delegations would be filled with existing legislators who
would dominate the process.
I understand what
people are saying regarding some of the potential risks, however,
I disagree with them on many of the variables.
For instance, I
believe that in a
normal political environment,
Article V of the Constitution does indeed govern the process of
Conventions. However, in a political environment that has created a
legitimate threat to the future integrity of the rule of Constitutional
law, such as exists in this country right now, then I believe the
provisions in the Declaration of Independence are quite clear:
“We hold
these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of
happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, & to
institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such
principles,
& organizing it’s powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most
likely to effect their safety & happiness.”
The people’s
election of new delegates, not existing legislators, is
our right under the authority inferred in the preamble to the
Declaration of Independence, as well as being enumerated in the signing
statement by George Washington and William Jackson that appears just
after
the signature portion of the Constitution. It reads the following:
“Resolved,
That the preceding Constitution be laid before the United States in
Congress assembled, and that it is the opinion of this Convention, that
it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen
in each State by the People thereof, under the recommendation of its
Legislature, for their assent and ratification; and that each
Convention assenting to and ratifying the same, should give notice
thereof to the United States in Congress assembled.”
…be
submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each state by
the People thereof…
The requirement of
being “under the recommendation of it’s
Legislature” goes out the window when you have a legitimate
Constitutional crisis. The authority that is inherent to the people
under the Declaration of Independence is absolute over the government,
when We the People need it to be, in order to preserve and defend the
Constitution.
It is not just my
opinion. Numerous law professors from such
venerable institutions as Yale and Harvard, as well as past Supreme
Courts, have written in Court decisions and opinion papers that our
rights are absolute and are not subject to alteration by the
government, technically that is. The online library at WTPNet.org has
many of these documents available for download. The web address is http://www.wtpnet.org/library.html
These same documents
also assert that we the people are popular
sovereigns over our government. We the people have all the rights, the
government exists on privilege. The people’s rights are
inherent and natural rights, and
therefore absolute and not subject to alteration. The government is
only granted the privilege of
acting on our behalf. We the people have only delegated our authority,
we have not given it away.
The Constitution of
the State of California, the state in which I
reside, backs up this statement from the Declaration with
it’s
provision in Article II, Section 1:
“All
political power is inherent in the people.
Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit,
and they have the right to alter or reform it, when the public good may
require.”
One of the biggest
misconceptions in our country, is that the
Constitution is the authority that governs we the people. Not true. The
Constitution is a framework for the operation of government, nothing
more. We the people created the Constitution in order to keep our newly
created
government from recreating King George. Our authority as popular
sovereigns is declared to King George and the rest of the world in the
Declaration of Independence, our true founding document, and that which
ultimately governs the actions of we the people.
The Congress, courts,
and political
pundits can say all they want
about that only being "original authority", however the mere fact that
the Declaration of Independence sits under glass at the National
Archives attests to it’s venerated place in our national
persona.
It is this very fact that makes it so that it does not matter who wrote
it, or for what reason.
I say it again. It
doesn't matter
why it exists. What matters, is that it does exist. All we have to do
is have the courage to pick it up.
If a united movement
of the people in this country framed its campaign as one in
which we are defending not just the Constitution, but the very essence
of
what it means to be American, I know it would ignite a firestorm of
support. We would be declaring our sovereignty and independence to the
new King George.
For all intents and
purposes, George W. Bush has already smashed the
glass at the National Archives and is holding our future in one hand,
and a blazing torch in the other. If you read through the full
Declaration of Independence, George W. Bush has already mirrored, if
not exceeded, the
egregious complaints contained therein.
Do we wait until after
he really burns the document in an attempt at
rewriting history?
Do we wait until after
he has declared martial law? I think not.
As far as the risks
involved, try to look at it this way.
If we don’t
act, our government completes the transition to military
fascism. Very bad. In that case, we have failed our children.
Even if that does not
occur, say the politicians finally pull their
head out as well as pulling the troops out, we are still left with a
country that is ruled by corporate power, has a government full of
corruption, and whose fastest growing industry is the prison system.
Just a different type
of very bad.
Again I say we will
have failed our
children because right now we have in this country the one thing that
has not been
present in the history of struggle in the US. And that is, overwhelming
public dissatisfaction with the status quo, coupled with the
realization among activists from all walks, that tactics previously
successful are no longer so.
We the people are on
the brink of absolute despotism. The political
climate has never been more ripe then it is now, desperately crying for
fundamental change in a new direction. A Second Constitutional
Convention can bring us that change in a manner that guides
revolutionist energy on a positive path.
On the issue of risk
to the existing document, people are
correct. In that case it becomes logical to keep the Convention tightly
focused on the Amendment package, and to actively educate on why the
document should remain as intact as possible.
But we have to be
willing to take risk, including to the
Constitution, when it comes to the fixing of obvious errors in judgment
associated with the original. It’s like living in an
historical
building that has fallen victim to its own structural shortcomings, and not wanting to repair
the damage out of concern for having to use modern materials in
it’s
reconstruction.
Considering our
current situation
with how much the Constitution has already been trashed, as well as the
fascistic direction that we are currently heading, we the people have
very
little to lose and everything to gain from
reestablishing our popular sovereignty over our government.
New Orleans resident
and long-time
activist Curtis Muhammed said recently that he has not seen a true
movement in this country, since the true movement of the civil rights
struggle. I would agree with him, and add that we the people need to be
willing to take more risks, the same risks the pro democracy movements
in Burma anf Tibet are willing to take. We have to be willing to risk our
comfortable lifestyles and stop playing it safe, myself included.
I know I have given
you a lot to consider, so I will end this on a
good thought. To steal an overused cliché from Hollywood,
which is
nonetheless true, “All men die, but not all men truly
live!”
Peace and Solidarity,
Paul Fisher
We the People Network
return to top |
|