Share this question

Welcome to Article V Proposals, where you can propose ideas and amendments and receive response from other members of the community. There are "Yes no votes","Custom Poll","Opinion votes"

To be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts," the people need to prepare.

2 like 0 dislike

 

In 1859 Lincoln said at a speech, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts,".  It can only be Article V of the Constitution he referred to because nothing else has those potentials.  He can only be referring to the controlling factor over amendment, Constitutional intent.

Those references would be independent of the fact that states delegates would be participating in the convention which produced the authority over the "congress and the courts" by amending their operating parameters, the Constitution.

If a Lincoln was president and saying those things, then the people that elected him were far closer to being able to define Constitutional intent to their state legislators through state petitions and delegates needed interface with legislators at Article V.

Meaning America needs to prepare.  Consider, ALL important political events have long periods of preparation.  The most important longer than a year.  Article V is more important to this nation than all the events history holds.  It is reasonable to consider it could take 5 years for the nation to be able to state, with agreement internally, that it knows what Constitutional intent is.

Five years of the current informational environment of media and internet will NOT suffice.  Current campaign finance practices continuing into Article V would certainly work against proper determination of constitutional intent.  Our vote is not secured.  Voting practices in some states and the diebold technical issue is NOT resolved.

Therefore. logically and rightfully it is proposed that Americans form a new political movement which is a simple concept.  Preparation for Article V must occur in the most robust constitutional environment possible.  Elements that are obvious constitutional attributes of national society need to be re developed to empower the people to define Constitutional intent.

The new movement is all about Article V in the above way, preparing for it.  It does not involve with partisan politics at all.  It will however vote for politicians which support Article V and preparatory Amendment.  It will also hope to be voting for the lessor of two evils perhaps, until its influence has effect.  The movement focuses on principles mostly, because that is what Constitutional intent is comprised of.

The movement uses those principles to show how all of the hot political issues are addressed constitutionally, basic rehearsals for state voting on ratifications.  They make no apology for the fact they are defining ideals.  They only point out the ideal cannot be abandoned because it is the law of the land.   The movement demands Article V, and because it is 100 years late, in violation of 5 generations of Americans rights, it needs the most robust Constitutional environment for democracy that can be created.

The Article V movement logically demands three preparatory Amendments before a general convention convenes.  Amendment that;

1)Ends the abridging of free speech

2)Reforms campaign finance

3)Secures the vote.

These are the very least that we can see done in preparation for a general convention IF ideals are to be recognized and all three preparations are absolutely Constitutional.  All this preparation does is take the nation effectively closer to its original appreciation of what the Constitution is and how it secures our rights and freedoms by assuring our unity and ability to conduct democratic processes in protecting them.

Christopher A. Brown

[email protected]

May 7, 2013

NOTE ON SITE FUNCTION:

After examining poll and vote options, I decline both for this because poll ratings have no accountability aspect and voting, even with shades of gray lacks the needed performance.

 An poll opinion that has dynamics which can be supported by text in a related hierarchy of comment is what is needed.  Such a software is conceived of here.

http://algoxy.com/poly/poll_to_post.html

Some conceptual development is complete and a portion of the needed algorhythm is defined.  I seek programmers and others to develop this concept further as a tool for rapid and effective opinion forming and agreement.

asked May 8, 2013 in California by ChristopherABrown (350 points)
edited May 9, 2013 by ChristopherABrown

2 Replys

2 like 0 dislike
Thanks for using the site to promote your ideas.  I need to stay neutral.  I hope you get a lot of positive feedback.
replyed Jun 4, 2013 by danmarks (780 points)
The idea is to get a convention.  People have been made afraid of Article V by 30+ years of misinformation.  Preparation looks to the heart of Article V because it seeks to invoke an ability to define constitutional intent by the people.  By this it can create confidence in the peoples ability to control an Article V and be the masters the framers intended.  

I too hope hope for lots of feedback but media has spent 40 years distracting Americans from constitutional principle.  Most Americans have no idea of how to proceed in discussion about the application of constitutional intent as a strategy to boost confidence and empower outreach.  This has another barrier.

There is an overt ploy by corporations and others through ALEC to subvert Article V.  They seek an unconstitutional convention and ignore constitutional intent, I'm quite sure.  The fact they present that they want an Article V is used by false social groups in forums to attack people who know a need for Article V and sincerely work for one.  They immediately, as a group, start accusing any Article V activist as coming from ALEC.  They are always totally unaccountable but are fully able to stymie efforts to promote Article V with this ploy.

Accordingly I thought of a way to test ALEC to see if they will work for constitutional intent in the only real way it can be defined, by the people.  I made a petition.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/975/440/does-alec-really-want-an-article-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

Such authority cannot be allowed to pretend it is working for an Article V unless it considers historic principals known as foundations of the constitution.  If it is false, it must be exposed.  

The capacity to foul free speech, made in defense of the constitution by these means, must be removed.  ALEC presents themselves as having association with constitutional scholars, well, let us test them to see if they are with the people.  If we show we understand the need for preparation, the intent of the constitution with free speech, democratic elections and a fair voting system; then why won't ALEC address the common sense and lawful aspects of it?  if indeed that is what they do.  Let us test them!
0 like 0 dislike

You lay out three areas that you say a preparatory amendment should address:

 

1)Ends the abridging of free speech

2)Reforms campaign finance

3)Secures the vote.

By your description of these as "preparatory", you seem to be advocating that the first round of amending would exclude all other proposals.  My opinion is that other proposals should be included.  So on that ground, I oppose your idea of a preparatory amendment if you mean that citizens should delay other reforms.
 

1)Ends the abridging of free speech

Amendment 1 already addresses this completely.  I don't know what you want to add.  "And we really mean it?"

2)Reforms campaign finance

I am not opposed to this idea, but have concerns that restrictions of this sort will be easy to circumvent.  That is why I am in favor of Approval Voting, which I think would remove the clutch or transmission from between, one the one hand, the engine of money in politics, and on the other hand, the wheels of money in politics continuing to have an effect on the voters' behavior.

3)Secures the vote.

Yes, I agree with this one.  http://articlev.org/oxwall/groups/accurate-tally

 

replyed Jun 19, 2013 by William Waugh (640 points)
Here is the draft revision I would recommend to assure that free speech serves its purpose.  To allow it to fail in America forever may mean eventual extinction for the species.

____
REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.
_____

Yes, we really mean it.  Those principals were supposed to be included in the Declaration of Independence but competition for inclusion left it out.  It was then supposed to be in the 1st Amendment, competition won again.  It has cost us dearly.  How dearly we will not know until free speech is unabridged for a period of time.

Now I'll explain why these 3 issues need to be addressed by amendment before all others.

When free speech is unabridged, you, and everyone are going to learn a number of things that are shocking.  I mean deeply shocking.  Those things are going to completely change the way you consider other needed amendment.

Limiting amendments in preparation also reduces fears of a runaway convention, not that such could happen by law, but hey, law has very little to do with what the US gov is doing these days.

With that new knowledge from robust free speech, Americans will be able to define constitutional intent.  With your preference, citizens will not be defining constitutional intent.  Elected officials in state legislations will.  I do not trust them.  Primarily because we are 100 years overdue for a reason.

It could be very likely that the elite used that time to fortify some state legislations against Article V.
You would impose a duty on Congress to "see that nothing abridges...".  That is unreasonable, as the forces of nature itself can abridge, and Congress hasn't the power to prevent that.  I stand with the First Amendment as it stands.

If you have shocking information to convey but you do not convey it because you think someone or something, other than Congress, will punish you for telling the truth, I would like to know what agency it is that threatens you so.

Are you aware of something called Duverger's Law?  It is a mathematical conclusion that plurality voting puts two parties in power almost to the exclusion of any others.  So long as a system like that is in place, those who threaten the survival of humanity as a whole, can buy those two parties and assure their unity regarding torture, war, and pollution.  I do not see advocacy of Approval Voting as a ground for citizens to fear a runaway convention.  Moreover, I see no place where the fundamental law permits you and me or anyone else to limit, before the commencement of the convention to propose amendments, the scope of those proposals.  The safeguard against the ratification of harmful proposals is the requirement that 3/4 of the States ratify.
William wrote:
"You would impose a duty on Congress to "see that nothing abridges...".

Yes.  Nothing should ever impede Americans effort to share and understand knowledge needed for survival.  Americans should always have more freedom to share amongst themselves. When we became 250m people, the public duty to assure that sharing is functional increases, not decreases.

Are you aware we just COMPLETELY lost the usenet?

Did you ever communicate on the usenet which was hosted on university servers, dedicated to free speech?

William wrote:
'That is unreasonable, as the forces of nature itself can abridge, and Congress hasn't the power to prevent that."

Congress has the duty to help protect us from nature, to compensate using the public power for the public good.

William wrote:
"I stand with the First Amendment as it stands."

You would advocate entering into an Article V without assuring the public can properly define constitutional intent?

William wrote:
"If you have shocking information to convey but you do not convey it because you think someone or something, other than Congress, will punish you for telling the truth, I would like to know what agency it is that threatens you so."

Your personalization and misrepresentation of what I said is not appreciated.  Try another way to criticize the concept of Americans sharing what they need to survive.

William wrote:
"Are you aware of something called Duverger's Law?  It is a mathematical conclusion that plurality voting puts two parties in power almost to the exclusion of any others."

Is that more important than principles?  

William wrote:
"So long as a system like that is in place, those who threaten the survival of humanity as a whole, can buy those two parties and assure their unity regarding torture, war, and pollution.  I do not see advocacy of Approval Voting as a ground for citizens to fear a runaway convention.  Moreover, I see no place where the fundamental law permits you and me or anyone else to limit, before the commencement of the convention to propose amendments, the scope of those proposals."

Your mix of parties and logical limits on the beginning preparation for addressing the greatest problems does not work.  Apples and oranges.

Preparatory amendment is about principles.  We do not sacrifice those for parties.

Logical preparation which counters the MSM deprivations, manipulations and exploitation is absolutely lawful and reasonable.  Particularly when considering the requisites for Article V were met in 1911.

The request to the clerk of congress for a count of applications will verify this and more.

William wrote:
"The safeguard against the ratification of harmful proposals is the requirement that 3/4 of the States ratify."

If the people do not know and agree on definitions of constitutional intent, that is the default which tries to assure not unconstitutional amendments are made.  It does nothing for increasing constitutionality.  

We need that specifically.

Who do you think should determine constitutional intent?
...