And a Good Time Was Had by All

-- well, mostly anyway -- at yesterday's peace march in DC. I heard no hard estimates, but from the looks of it there were several tens of thousands of people there. The "mostly" is that, due to poor contingency planning on my part, I missed the charter bus I'd come in on for the return home. But thanks to a fellow Green I met on the nearby New Jersey bus, who took up a collection mostly from fellow Greens, and a lift from another passenger, I had enough funds to catch a train from central NJ and ultimately arrive home, albeit much later (about 2:30 am) than I would have otherwise. An unpleasant thing that wasn't my fault was discovering the hard way that if you leave your sign outside the Corcoran (and I imagine it's similar at other museums), they'll trash it if you don't come back out quickly enough. They don't tell you this when they say you can't bring it in. I'm seriously considering spending my time at the next demo just standing outside a museum and warning people about this. In the meantime I'll have to write a complaint to my MC and USSes. I had the good luck to find some fellow fen to have lunch with. Even more encouraging for geekdom were some of the signs I saw referencing Orwell. They weren't just the usual kind mentioning his name in connection with the Patriot Act. There were also some along the lines of "WE ARE AT WAR WITH IRAN. WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH IRAN." 

A couple announcements

I can't post a lot right now, but I want everyone to know that my move went smoothly, and my new roommate appears to be totally sane. And today I installed a site meter here. If anyone wants to look for me at the peace demonstration Saturday, I'll be carrying a placard saying, "OUT in 14 days!" on one side and "Where's our Constitutional Convention?" on the other. Oh, I sang "Morning, Noon and Nighttime" to my just-ex student dentist today. 

P.S.Passional magazine has gone online. The first issue of each quarter includes my astrology column.

Making a wee move

Hello, folks. I don't have any commentary today -- just announcing that I'm moving. One floor up. You see, my roommate, Bruce, is paranoid as well as obsessive-compulsive, and it's started to cramp my style. The building manager assures me that the guy in the 2BR upstairs shouldn't cause me any problems. So I'll meet with him in a couple days to change the suite number on my lease. I was already planning to ask for 22-26 January off from work so I can be rested for the antiwar demo on the 27th. This should give me plenty of time to move everything. 

P.S.Are you wondering if anyone else has come up with any fannish wordplay since the tongue twister I included in my first post? Well, someone has: Data did, a tad. (OK, actually I came up with that.)

Government by consent of the governed, anyone?

Quote of the month: "To err is human. To find someone else to blame shows management potential." -- seen on a receptionist's cupholder. The Philadelphia Gay News has named Rick Santorum "Person of the Year" for 2006. Truly fitting. I recently received this message from Byron DeLear, Green candidate for Congress from the San Fernando Valley. I had, myself, had no idea that all these state petitions were simply being ignored by Congress. Dear Friends, Happy holidays all ~ Many of you have heard me speak about Article V of the Constitution and the mechanism created by the framers for a means to amend the Constitution outside of the Federal legislature. John DeHerrera and cc2.org have been carrying the torch on this issue and some other authors have picked up on our arguments -- the following is a solid piece regarding Article V and the obligation for Congress to make a 'people's convention' a reality. Look forward to seeing you all in the New Year! Byron De Lear Global Peace Solution GPS... positioning the world in a different way www.globalpeacesolution.org http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joel_s___061229_a_new_year_s_resolut.ht/m December 29, 2006 at 06:54:03 A New Year's Resolution for ALL Presidential Candidates by Joel S. Hirschhorn No matter how awful you think our government and political system have become, odds are you do not know about this travesty of justice, an incredible failure to honor our fabled Constitution. This failure has removed the sovereignty of we the people, and made Congress much more powerful than it should be. Let me acknowledge that even though I have been pegged as "Democracy's Mr. Fix It," until recently I too was ignorant about this blatant disregard for a key part of our Constitution. Our Founders were acutely aware of the need to create a mechanism for we the people to, when necessary, circumvent the political power of the federal government. They built in a critically important form of direct democracy that, however, our elected MISrepresentatives have refused to implement. Here it is: Article V of our Constitution specifies two distinct routes to amending our Constitution: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress..."Conventions to consider constitutional amendments should be seen as peaceful revolutions -- a remedy specified in our Constitution for addressing a national government and political system that no longer serves public interests. Congress has been so corrupted for so long that it has blatantly ignored the constitutional provision for conventions. It wants exclusive power over amending our Constitution in violation of the Constitution itself. The key point is that our Founders gave states this route to address excess federal power. All of the twenty-seven amendments thus far incorporated into the Constitution were proposed by Congress. Granted, Article V has sparse language. But clearly Congress "shall" call a convention to order when the only stated requirement is met, namely that two-thirds of state legislatures request a convention. There are NO other stated requirements. So, have state legislatures requested a convention and has Congress fulfilled its constitutional, legal responsibility and called for one? Yes, a sufficient number of state legislatures have requested a convention. With 50 states presently in the Union, there must be applications made by lawmakers in at least 34 states in order to trigger the constitutionally specified convention option. In fact, there have been over five hundred state applications requesting a convention and Congress has never called for one. All the state applications are there in the Congressional Record and Congress is ignoring them. Legally known as laches, things that are ignored on purpose. As noted in Wikipedia: "The framers of the Constitution wanted a means of sometimes bypassing a potentially unwilling Congress in the amendment-proposing process. They thought that there could be circumstances in which Congress, for self-serving reasons, would ignore valid pleas to amend the Constitution and so the framers established an alternate means of proposing change in the Constitution." Just as an example, consider that a convention might decide to alter or abandon the Electoral College system for choosing a president. What has Congress done? Congress has never obeyed Article V and certified that a national Constitutional convention must be held –remember, NOT by itself to amend the Constitution, but solely at its discretion to propose amendments – just as Congress has done in the past. Then, it would be up to state legislatures or state conventions to actually pass or not pass any proposed amendments. Congress has never even established a procedure for tracking state requests for a convention. Congress' power-grabbing behavior is by itself sufficient reason why Americans should want a convention – one possible amendment would be to amplify the language on conventions to make Congress more responsible. This point is especially important. As noted in Wikipedia, Congress has never responded to many requests from states by calling a convention, supposedly because those applications requested amendments on different subjects. However, Article V does not explicitly require that state requests must specify what amendment(s) they are interested in pursuing. Congressional inaction has contributed to the impression that states must petition for the same amendment(s). However, federal courts have never ruled on this "precedent," nor should they. We do not need any judicial decision, because Article V does not require that states specify anything other than their desire for a convention. Logically, to require states to signal in advance what they were interested in doing would create the potential for congressional refusal to call a convention. Thus, the Founders knew what they were doing when they did not require such notification. As if the illegal inactions by Congress is not enough to make your patrotic blood boil, the Supreme Court rejected hearing a case that claimed it was illegal for Congress to avoid calling a convention. In August 2006 Bill Walker filed a petition of close to 1,000 pages; he noted that 49 states had requested a convention. He correctly emphasized that "On its face, that fact alone compels Congress to call a convention, which it has not, and compels the judicial system, under its oath to support the Constitution, to enforce that document's provision and declare such inaction by Congress, unconstitutional." On October 30, 2006 the Supreme Court denied certiorari to this question in Walker v. Members of Congress (06-244). By refusing to hear the case it allowed the direct text of the United States Constitution to be vetoed with impunity by Congress. What is so disturbing is that the Supreme Court did not think it worthy or that it had a Constitutional duty to address the power of Congress by itself to veto an explicit clause and provision in our Constitution. Thus two branches of the federal government violated their sacred, sworn oath to obey the Constitution. Simply put, the refusal of Congress to issue the call for a convention even when a sufficient number of applying states exists is unconstitutional, and the refusal of the Supreme Court to rule that Congress has acted unconstitutionally was itself unconstitutional. Imagine this: Congress upholds its oath and issues a call for a Constitutional convention. The states would hold special elections for delegates; the delegates would convene and make their own rules for reaching decisions. Once all the delegates had proposed their ideas and agreed on what amendments should be ratified by the states, the convention would end. The proposed amendments would then be sent out to the states by Congress; the ratification process would begin. Once any single amendment garnered the approval of 38 states – a high hurdle– it would be amended to the Constitution. A host of electoral reforms could be enacted to rejuvenate our American democracy. If you truly believe in our constitutional republic and representative democracy with safeguards, then you must demand that every presidential candidate take a clear, unequivocal position on this Article V constitutional convention requirement. It is time for the Executive Branch to stand up for constitutional integrity. Every single one of us should demand from whoever becomes our new president in 2008 a commitment to pressure Congress for a convention. He or she should do that soon after taking office – after swearing to defend and uphold our Constitution. Should we accept anything less? How could candidates for the presidency say that a clear constitutional clause is not valid? Nor must they be allowed to do what Congress has done – simply ignore the whole Article V convention issue. Take a stand! Inaction means our Constitution will suffer three strikes and have even less credibility with the many U.S. citizens and people worldwide who already see American democracy riddled with hypocrisy. And where the hell is our mainstream news media? Is not obeying our Constitution worthy of their attention? [The subject of Constitutional conventions and many other forms of direct democracy are examined in the author's new book Delusional Democracy; check it out at www.delusionaldemocracy.com.] www.delusionaldemocracy.com Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www.delusionaldemocracy.com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution. In response I wrote the following to the Philadelpia Public Record and the Daily News: It's with amazement and outrage that I've recently learned that Congress has flouted its Constitutional obligations by refusing to call for a second Constitutional Convention. Whereas Article V of the Constitution specifies that only 2/3, or 34 of the states must petition Congress for such a convention, 49 have done so, yet Congress refuses to act. The excuse usually offered is that various petitions have been aimed at effecting various different amendments.Yet Article V never stipulates that the intended amendments be specified. It simply says that Congress "SHALL [my emphasis] call a convention to consider amendments to this constitution" whenever petitioned to do so by 2/3 of the state legislatures. We should demand that anyone proposing to run for president take a stand on this blatant flouting of the people's will. Now, I know it may be argued that the social forces simply aren't available at present to make such a campaign successful. But, if nothing else, it can serve to make people aware of the fact that our present rulers aren't even living up to the principles of self-government they're sworn to uphold. It's one thing for them to say, "If you don't like your representation, vote for someone else." It's another for them to refuse to give us the chance to change the system of representation itself in accordance with the system's own provisions.