Friday, December 19, 2014

Radio is still alive and well . . .

Little did I know -- or even suspect -- that my brief, twenty-two (22) minute interview on the Peter Boyles' KNUS radio show out of Denver, Colorado, on December 18, 2014, would animate just the right people to take unrelated steps which produced -- what would appear in hindsight -- to be a coordinated effort.  Peter had invited me on to talk about the Elizabeth Duke case and in the last two minutes the topic of an Article V Convention came up and how at present 33 of the 34 states needed to call such a Convention had in fact made the call.  Here is the interview:


Tuesday, December 16, 2014


Michael Stokes Paulsen, an eminent Law Professor has concluded: "The bottom line: Thirty-three states are currently in a condition of validly applying for a "general" Article V convention--just one state short of the total needed to trigger Congress's obligation to call such a convention."  How to Count to Thirty-four: the Constitutional Case for a Constitutional Convention

Upon this fine, un-impeachable, legal research and analysis the stage was set.  It would take only one of the 17 states which had yet to call for a Constitutional Convention to call for one and the die would be cast, the issue framed, and the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to be invoked to decide whether Article V had a life or not.  Simply put,  is the exact mechanism the Constitution contemplates for constitutional change no longer a viable way for the People to control their government?  To force the Supremes to decide that issue would lay bare the fraud our democracy has become for all to see.

Thus, the telephone call I received from the Black Caucus in one of those 17 States in late December set in motion a series of events which would touch the civic life of each resident of the United States.


Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Staws upon the Camel's Back

There are others besides myself who believed it was time to convene a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.  Witness the recent New York Times article: Clamor Rises to Rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, the powers-that-be -- which include the New York Times -- were fearful of what such a convention might wrought.  That is to say that the powers-that-be were fearful of what the People, lawfully assembled as envisioned by the Founding Fathers -- might decide is in their best interest at such a convention.  No more anti-democratic sentiment can be espoused.

Significantly, the New York Times perpetuates the myth that such a convention would "amend" the Constitution stating: "Rising frustration with Washington and conservative electoral victories across much of the United States are feeding a movement in favor of something America hasn’t done in 227 years: Hold a convention to rewrite the Constitution."  This of course is simply wrong.  The convention would not "rewrite the Constitution" but instead could only propose amendments to the Constitution which would then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Hardly a recipe for radical changes to a document that has served well so many for so long.

Perhaps the best argument for such a Convention is grounded in who opposes it:  Justice Antonin
Scalia, the longtime leader of the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc, who observed this summer: “Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”

My answer, Justice Scalia, is the "Wisdom of the Crowd" which is exactly what happened.