Picture of Daniel Summars
Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Saturday, 5 February 2011, 01:49 PM
 

NOTE: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
Perhaps it's time to find out.

Please write your state and federal politicians and post their responses (or lack-of any response) here in this forum
.

That will help us to build a Grade-Card database showing all Congress persons' position on our right to an Article V Convention. We need everyone's help, because politicians typically won't respond to questions from people outside their district or state. NOTE: Multiple responses from several people for the same Congress persons are welcome and encouraged, because it will help confirm the facts.
Thank you!


I wrote my Senators (Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R- TX) and Senator John Cornyn (R- TX) ) and Representative (Representative Michael Burgess (R - 26)) on 01-July-2007. I'm still awaiting a reply. Please feel free to use the template letter below.

Dear Senator / Representative [insert name here],

What is your position on Article V of the Constitution?

(1) Do you think Congress and the Supreme Court have the right to veto and ignore the states' and the peoples' right to an Article V Convention? Already, the legislatures of ALL 50 states have made over
400+ requests on things ranging from Term-Limits, Balanced-Budget-Amendment, to Tax Reform. Isn't the Constitution the "Supreme Law of the Land"?

(2) Do you believe Congress is currently obligated (per Article V) to call a convention now, since ALL 50 states have already submitted
400+ Article V applications? If not, then what law allows Congress to ignore Article V of the Constitution of the United States?

Please let me know.

Also, are you aware of these original copies of the
400+ requests from ALL 50 states (http://FOAVC.ORG/file.php/1/Amendments)?

Thank you,

[Your Name]
[Your E-Mail Address]
[Your Address]
http://FOAVC.ORG

WW Fishing for Ideas
eRe: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Sunday, 1 July 2007, 03:21 PM
 

Thank you, Daniel, for providing the form letter above.  I have sent it via email to Senators Bayh and Lugar on 7-1-2007.  I have yet to receive a reply.  Perhaps because it does not include a pay raise.

Administrator1 - Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Administrator NumberTwo - Sunday, 1 July 2007, 03:29 PM
 

Michael wrote: Perhaps because it does not include a pay raise.
__________________________________________
Hey Michael, 
That's about it. By the way, did you know Congress just gave itself its 9th raise (between 1997 and 2007)?

So, how are things goin' there in Indiana.
Did you ever get that complete list of local governments?
If not, check this out:  http://www.statelocalgov.net/

Michael, Thanks for contacting your Congress persons.
It will be interesting to hear Evan Bayh's and Richard Lugar's response (if any).
I also haven't heard from my Congress persons either.
If the majority of Congress persons support Article V, then it seems to me the Supreme Court will have a hard time ignoring Article V. And if the majority of Congress persons oppose Article V, then the majority of Congress is violating the Constitution.  Unfortunately, there are some Amendments that most (if not all) in Congress will never allow (e.g. Term-Limits, Balanced Budget, One-Purpose-Per-BILL, Campaign Finance Reform, Tax Reform, Election Reform, Ethics Reform, Forfeited Pensions upon conviction of a felony, etc.).   It is because too many (if not all) politicians of both parties in Congress are so corrupt and irresponsible, they are unlikely to ever allow any common-sense, no-brainer reforms that may even remotely reduce the politicians' power, or reduce their opportunities for self-gain, or reduce the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies (enjoying a cuShy 90% re-election rate). 

WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Wednesday, 1 August 2007, 06:08 PM
 

Yes!  That is what's so frustrating about this amendment thing.  If government wants to amend the constitution, government amends the constitution!  Just like that. 

Someone pointed out that the 16th amendment was ratified by a republican congress, yet it was (so called) ratified by the states during Woodrow Wilson's presidency,  six years later.  And many state documents pertaining to the state's ratification are unsubstanciated.  The wording of the law was changed in the state's version and considered a radification of the 16th amendment. 

The wording of the amendment cannot be changed.  It must be ratified by the states as presented to the states.

Serious examination of the state's ratification of the 16th amendment must be undertaken before an article V convention takes place. 

Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Thursday, 2 August 2007, 08:12 AM
 

Yes, it is very frustrating. It is only one of many ways revealing how arrogant and irresponsible our politicians have become. Congress thinks only they are allowed to make admendments, and are ignoring 567 requests by ALL 50 state legislatures to make amendments.  That is a violation of the Constitution and the Supreme Court that also chose to ignore the states' constitutional right clearly stated in Article V of the Constitution.  That's why I believe we need to build a list (i.e. an Article V Grade Card) of politicians that either support or oppose the citizens' constitutional right to an Article V Convention.  Then, come election 2008, we'll know exactly who to stop re-electing.  Congress will continue to ignore the Constitution as long as we repeatedly reward them for it; letting them enjoy a cu$hy 90% to 95% re-election rate since 1996. One thing is for certain.  Federal and State politicians will NEVER take the citizens of the nation seriously as long as the citizens (200 million eligible voters) repeatedly reward politicians by repeatedly re-electing them and blindly pulling the party lever; empowering the two-party duopoly's stranglehold. 
Especially those that oppose our constitutional right to an Article V Convention.
By the way, many of the states' legislatures have requested tax reforms (among a number of different reforms), but Congress ignores them.  Congress ignores anything that may even remotely reduce their power, opportunities for self-gain (e.g. campaign finance reform), or the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies. They have stacked the deck, making it very difficult to unseat; giving enormous advantages to the incumbent, and raising many barriers to challengers; even blocking access to the ballots for many third party and independents.

By the way, my Congress persons (Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Sen. John Cornyn, and Rep. Micheal Burgess) still have not responded to the letter above. It would be interesting to know what they think when people all over start asking them why they are ignoring our Constitutional right; clearly spelled out in Article V ?

WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Sunday, 1 July 2007, 05:59 PM
 

http://www.cityofknox.net/ 

This is an interesting city in the county of Starke, in northern Indiana.  It's a small city, 3000+ people.  The county seat of Starke.  Starke County has a population of around 27,100.

It's not a bad place to live...  I take that back.  Austrialia sounds good to me now.

This mayor and this city/county government wouldn't have the slightest idea what Article V of the U.S. Constitution is.  They are more concerned with the height of the grass in the neighbor's yard.  They are really involved with manipulation the property tax while accumulating as much property as they can via an E.D.I.T. income tax.

They use this tax to buy property but they never let go of it.  They just keep taking our payroll taxes to fund the purchase of property and the property sits, unproductive.  It's considered an asset by the local government and no taxes are paid on this property.

Hmmm.

My home is next to an extinct glove manufacturing plant.  The "Pariso Glove Factory" produced knitted gloves for the automobile manufacturing plants in this area. 

A union convinced the workforce to insist on higher wages and the "Pariso Glove Factory" was out a' bidnes in just 2 years.  A shame.  The government sold the assetts to pay back taxes and the government still holds the property some 15 years later.

If any Article V convention were to be held, it must be held by people who are NOT lawyers, who are NOT politicians.  The First Article V Convention should be held by delegates chosen by a random selection from a pool of valid SSN's.

We must first validate the ssn's, or find another way of validating the ratification process.

Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Monday, 2 July 2007, 09:18 AM
 

Property taxes are too high, and getting higher in many places.
My property tax on my modest middle-class home is $310 per month.
That's more than the monthly electricity bill, which has doubled (14.7 cents per KWH) in the past two years.

Your story about the "Pariso Glove Factory" is a story that is playing out all across the nation for decades.  The corpocrisy and corporatism is yet another manifestation of unchecked greed.  It's not a global village. It's global pillage.  Some corporations are essentially given tax breaks for moving out of the country.  And then there's war profiteering . . . much of which is non-competitive (i.e. no bid) cost+plus contracts by corporations. It's hard not to see it as a corporatized war.  Since Halliburton's old CEO, buckshot Cheney got into office, Halliburton has received a 600% increase in government contracts (including $10 billion in Pentagon contracts).  In return, Halliburton has delivered gas-price gouging, contaminated food & water to our troops, a consistent pattern of over-charging, hiring 3rd world laborers and Iraqis, and (according to the Hightower report) paying them as little as $5 per day while billing the government (us taxpayers) $55 per day.  Meanwhile, Halliburton's 2006 profits were $2,348,000,000.00  (an increase of 368%).  Also, federal investigators found $10 billion in waste and overcharges by various contractors, and Halliburton was responsible for $2.7 billion of those over-charges.

Corpocrisy and corporatism is rampant and just another manifestation of unchecked greed.  They are selling us out, and we're selling ourselves out by repeatedly rewarding their puppets (i.e. politicians) by repeatedly re-electing them.

WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Wednesday, 4 July 2007, 09:06 AM
 

http://smokytown.typepad.com/smokytown/2000/05/index.html

A little piece of the history of Starke County, Indiana.

WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Monday, 2 July 2007, 04:04 PM
 

Below is a reply to the form letter I sent to Senator Evan Bayh asking for his position on an Article V convention.

Dear Mr. Densmore :

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding next year's proposed federal Budget. I appreciate hearing your thoughts and understand your concerns on this issue.

 

As you may know, on March 23, 2007 the Senate passed, with my support, a budget resolution which funds our nation's priorities, provides tax relief to middle class families and restores fiscal responsibility to our budget process. Increasing debt and deficits are very troubling to me, and they will have a lasting impact on America 's future unless the President and Congress begin to seriously address our nation's fiscal challenges.

 

The Senate budget resolution would balance the budget by fiscal year 2012 by adhering to the Pay-As-You-Go rule, which requires that the cost of any increase in entitlement spending or tax cut be offset by reductions in other entitlements or increases in other taxes.  At the same time, the Senate budget allows for significant increases for our most important domestic priorities, including the Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Medicare, education, and veterans' healthcare.

During consideration of the budget, I joined five other Democrats in offering an amendment to make permanent a number of middle-class tax cuts. The amendment, which passed the Senate by 97-1, made permanent the 10% tax bracket, child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, adoption tax credit, dependent care credit, employer provided child care credit, and EITC combat pay. I will continue to work hard in Washington to provide the tax relief American families need.

 

It is also troubling to me that the federal government is now borrowing billions each year from foreign creditors, such as the Chinese and Japanese Central banks. The growing indebtedness of our country to foreign competitors raises troubling questions of American independence and the ability of foreign countries to influence our economic and trade policies in ways that might not be in our national interest. In order to avoid this threat to our national interest, I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact sound fiscal policies that do not pass today's burden on to our children and grandchildren.

 

I will fight to make sure we keep our promises with essential federal programs like Social Security and Medicare, which provide critical support for our nation's elderly. I also support the need to make critical investments in our children, which is why I support additional funding for education and job training. The tax code should also be fair, which is why I have supported the extensions of the middle-class tax cuts such as the marriage penalty relief and child tax credit provisions.

 

Now is a time for tough choices. With the baby boom retirement looming and the continued costs of the War on Terror, we cannot afford to waste taxpayer money on ineffective federal programs or corporate subsidies. For that reason, I will work in a bipartisan manner with my colleagues to reduce unnecessary spending and close unfair tax loopholes.

 

Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that the information I have provided is helpful. My website, http://bayh.senate.gov , can provide additional details about legislation and state projects, and you can also sign up to receive my monthly e-newsletter, The Bayh Bulletin , by clicking on the link at the top of my homepage. I value your input and hope you will continue to keep me informed of the issues important to you.




Office of Senator Evan Bayh
(202) 224-5623
Russell 463
Washington, D.C. 20510

 
WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Monday, 2 July 2007, 04:29 PM
 

I am waiting for replies from Rep. Joe Donnally, and Senator Richard Lugar.

Administrator1 - Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Administrator NumberTwo - Monday, 2 July 2007, 05:06 PM
 

Senator Evan Bayh did not even answer your question.
Just more evidence that our politicians are ignoring us.
Senator Evan Bayh is either ignoring the question or never read your question.
This is common. They just send back a form letter (if anything).

I suspect we will get a lot of that sort of thing.
Perhaps we'll just record his response as REFUSED TO RESPOND.
However, if I get one like that from one of my Congress persons, I'm going to keep bugging them until they answer the question. 
Perhaps the problem is that they do not want voters to know that they are in favor of violating the constitution.

WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Tuesday, 3 July 2007, 04:15 PM
 

http://wethepeoplecongress.org/index.php

Go to the link where V tries to serve a petition!

mms://media.sitestream.com/wethepeople_sitestream_com/open/V-in-DC-high.wmv

Watch this video and you will see what is in store for anyone requesting an answer.

Picture of James Buels
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by James Buels - Tuesday, 3 July 2007, 07:42 PM
 
It is obvious to me that Congress has no intention of responding to the people's wishes for an Article V Convention. Therefore, I propose that we BYPASS Congress and call a convention ourselves through our state legislatures, or, failiing that, by conducting an online election of delegates to the Convention and the selection of a site for it. Why not? If our so-called "elected representatives" insist on ignoring their "constituents," I don't think we have any other choice short of outright revolution.
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Thursday, 2 August 2007, 08:13 AM
 

Michael Densmore, Thanks for the links. 

James Buels, I think you are right. That's why we need to also contact our state politicians too.  Afterall, the legislatures of all 50 states have already submitted 567 requests.

Also, here is another VERY simple thing we can ALL do:

Stop Repeat Offenders.
Don't Re-Elect Them.
Don't Reward Them for being
irresponsible.

That's one thing that will help to disrupt the cycle of government FOR-SALE.
But that is not enough.
The people need to apply pressure in many ways.
The government won't become responsible until the voters do too.
That requires education.
In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount.
We're going to get our education:
(a) the smart, responsible way,
(b) or the hard, painful way (again).
In fact, if people look closely at the world population growing by 249,000 per day, and the loss of arable land, and the dangers of global warming, our education may be even more painful than any of us expect.

Picture of James Buels
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by James Buels - Tuesday, 3 July 2007, 11:36 PM
 
Michael, I'm afraid you are far more optimistic than I am. I don't think that simply electing another politician to this or that office will have much of an effect at this point. Our national capital, and some of our state capitals, are so corrupt that new electees are forced to either conform to the prevailing corrupt system or are ostracized by the other "representatives." Ostracized, they are unable to be effective in the "legislative body" of which they are a member. No. if we want change we have to "think outside the box," and be prepared to take unfamiliar directions.

I find it difficult to understand, after the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, that Americans can have any confidence anymore in "voting!" Voting for what? For whom? I doubt that the 2008 presidential elections will even take place! All the Bush junta needs is another "terrorist attack," or "pandemic," or other "national emergency" (to be defined by the "Chief Executive" alone) to declare martial law and dispose of what is left of the Constitution! Elections? Why, the country already has the benefit of the Indispensable men - the chosen of God! Why replace them? We should all reverently bow before them and kiss their robes!

Wake up America! What we are dealing with here is a mortal threat not only to the survival of the country, but to the survival of all Americans. We are dealing not with a Calvin Coolidge, but with a Napoleon Bonaparte! The people in power, even most of those in Congress, have no regard for the Constitution or for the well-being of American citizens. They are like eighteenth-century French aristocrats. They don't know anything about the stuggles of the "sans coulottes" (us) and don't want to know. They speak a different language: the language of wealth, power and influence, and they have utter, complete contempt for the people. There can be no reform of them, or the system of which they are a part. We, the people, have to rebuild this government from the bottom up, or, if you prefer, from the Constitution down, and we had better not count on the help of any of them to do it!
WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Monday, 27 August 2007, 05:42 PM
 
by James Buels - Tuesday, 3 July 2007, 08:42 PM

It is obvious to me that Congress has no intention of responding to the people's wishes for an Article V Convention. Therefore, I propose that we BYPASS Congress and call a convention ourselves through our state legislatures, or, failiing that, by conducting an online election of delegates to the Convention and the selection of a site for it. Why not? If our so-called "elected representatives" insist on ignoring their "constituents," I don't think we have any other choice short of outright revolution.

This is a statement overlooked but is the ultimate truth to Article V!

I agree with James when he says:

 I propose that we BYPASS Congress and call a convention ourselves through our state legislatures

Article V allows the people/states to override and be equal to the federal government.  There is no reason why his words should not be valid.

Picture of Robert Fireovid
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Robert Fireovid - Monday, 27 August 2007, 07:37 PM
 
Ditto
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Monday, 27 August 2007, 10:22 PM
 

The prerequisite has already been met for an Article V Convention.

However, If the state legislatures of two-thirds of all 50 states submit their requests again (now), Congress will have very little choice but to call an Article Convention now.  If Congress refuses, then they are all committing a felony and, beyond a shadow of a doubt, directly defying the Constitution that each swore to uphold. 

In my opinion, Congress is already in violation of the Constitution.  But if we can get two-thirds of all state legislatures to resubmit their requests for amendments (e.g. all request one or more no-brainer, common-sense amendments, such a TERM-LIMITs, or campaign finance, tax reform, or something that the majority of ALL Americans and state legislatures want, or even one or more most all know they do not want, just so it can fail to ever be ratified), then Congress persons won't just be risking their cu$hy, coveted incumbences. They will be risking incarceration for committing a felony for violating the U.S. Constitution.  

Even if NO amendments are ratified, I think an Article V Convention would be very beneficial to raise awareness, increase education, and help preserve our right to an Article V Convention.

Lastly, another way to get Do-Nothing Congress' attention is please stop repelatedly rewarding and re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way, corrupt, incumbent politicians.  Stop re-electing and rewarding incumbent politicians with a 90% to 95% re-election rate (since 1996).  


   Stop Repeat Offenders.
   Don't Reward Them.
   Don't Re-Elect Them!

No Irresponsible Incumbent Politicians



Picture of Steven Moyer
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Steven Moyer - Tuesday, 28 August 2007, 06:51 PM
 
I agree with you in regard to the value of a Convention as a forum to raise public awareness and bring forth specific proposals. Even if no amendments are ratified, it is still a worthy democratic exercise.

I would like to suggest that we poll the State legislators on what they would like investigated. That's an easy enough thing to do through email and we might find that a consensus begins to emerge about how Congress has failed to do its duty and provide the people with good information on how their government has been performing recently.

A proposal for an "Accountability Amendment" might permit the States to initiate investigations of the Federal government.

How would it work? That's a mystery to me, but a Convention could address the question of how to begin investigations at the behest of the States.

I'm simply looking at it from a practical political perspective and asking myself: what might State Legislators ( Republican and Democrat ) agree is necessary to preserve our Constitutional Republic?

Steve Moyer
WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Wednesday, 11 July 2007, 12:30 PM
 

Below is a reply to the form letter from the Governer of Indiana, Mitch Daniels:

Dear Mr. Densmore,

Thank you for contacting Governor Daniels with your concerns. He appreciates the time you took to share your thoughts and views.

However, you stated in your letter that you wished to know the opinions of members of Congress for your information-gathering. As you likely know, Governor Daniels is Governor of the state and does not have influence on federal matters. He is not a member of Congress. If you need the information, I can obtain that from him, but wanted to ensure that you had gone to the proper place to find your information. I would presume that it would be more helpful for you to contact your federal members of Congress for their information.

Thank you for your active citizenship.

Sincerely,
Suzi Spahr

Director of Constituent Services, Office of the Governor

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This E-mail and any attachments are confidential and may
be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of this E-mail or any attachment is
prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please
notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and
delete this copy from your system. Thank you.

WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Thursday, 5 July 2007, 12:55 PM
 

, but wanted to ensure that you had gone to the proper place to find your information.

Do you think she really meant to say that?

Administrator1 - Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Administrator NumberTwo - Thursday, 2 August 2007, 08:17 AM
 

Michael, It appears politicians don't want to answer the question.
We'll just have to put them down as OPPOSED or REFUSED TO ANSWER.
My Representative and Senators still haven't responded.
Thus, we need to get state legislatures to demand it.
Already, all 50 states have made 567 requests.
If all 50 states come together to make the request simultaneously, it will be difficult for Congress to ignore it.

WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Saturday, 7 July 2007, 04:32 PM
 

I know.

We have to think outside the box.  We, at http://www.article-5.org must forge the framwork that will be used to select the delegates to an article V convention.

We have to set the framework in stone and ask people to join in support of it.

Is there a structure in place for selecting delegates for an article V convention?

Administrator1 - Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Administrator NumberTwo - Saturday, 7 July 2007, 07:25 PM
 
WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Sunday, 8 July 2007, 01:09 PM
 

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/fulltext/hr1343.htm
Georgia General Assembly rescinds it's outstanding applications in favor of general call for convention to propose one or many ammendments

http://www.in.gov/legislative/session/manual/chap04/index.html#ratifyingconstitution
form letters from Indiana Bill Drafting manual
http://www.in.gov/legislative/session/manual/PDF/

A JOINT RESOLUTION directing the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States concerning...

I found this manual but I can't find any specific legislation from Indiana to call for a constitutional convention!  Are there any from Indiana and where I can find them?

Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Wednesday, 11 July 2007, 12:41 PM
 

Michael,

That's interesting.  Thanks for the links.


Michael Densmore wrote:  I found this manual but I can't find any specific legislation from Indiana to call for a constitutional convention!  Are there any from Indiana and where I can find them?


Here's a list of most, the subject of each, and when it occurred.
Below is 14 just for the state of Indiana alone . . .

APPLICATIONS SUBJECT--STATE BY STATE:
Date / State    / Subject         / Location
1967 / Indiana / Apportionment / 113 Cong. Rec. 6384 (1967)
1967 / Indiana / Apportionment / 113 Cong. Rec. 6766 (1967)
1957 / Indiana / Balanced budget / 103 Cong. Rec. 6475 (1957)
1976 / Indiana / Balanced budget / 122 Cong. Rec. 931 (1976)
1976 / Indiana / Balanced budget / 122 Cong. Rec. 1400 (1976)
1979 / Indiana / Balanced budget / 125 Cong. Rec. 9188 (1979)
1979 / Indiana / Balanced budget / 125 Cong. Rec. 9368 (1979)
1907 / Indiana / Direct election of senators / 45 Cong. Rec. 7114 (1910) (1907)
1952 / Indiana / Limited taxation / 98 Cong. Rec. 1056 (1952)
1957 / Indiana / Limited taxation / 103 Cong. Rec. 6474 (1957)
1957 / Indiana / Mode of amendment / 103 Cong. Rec. 6471 (1957)
1957 / Indiana / Presidential electors / 103 Cong. Rec. 6473 (1957)
1977 / Indiana / Re: 1973 app; right to life /123 Cong. Rec. 4797 (1977)
1957 / Indiana / Treaty procedures / 103 Cong. Rec. 6472 (1957)


P.S. My Senators (Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn) and Representative (Michael Burgess) STILL have not responded with their position on Article V of the Constitution.

Picture of Christopher Brown
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Christopher Brown - Friday, 13 July 2007, 09:23 AM
 
After reading this thread I'm nuder the impression that actions supporting "Article V of the Constitution" are viewed as obscure or outdated, superseded political mechanisms by officials and the public in normally confused response.

Here is what must be a valid explanation for this lack of function.

Media has distorted the individuals political roles, their power. By the distortion, the power of the individual citizen is diminished.

My point is that each citizens daily needs ultimately are at stake. As corporations and government collude, wittingly or unwittingly, the time grows closer where our survival can and will be compromised.

Article V of the Constitution may be a method to regain control over governmental and corporate impacts on our need and survival. However, compelling the citizens in a MAJORITY to take part in Article V of the Constitution action is a task that can only be conducted from a position which is occupied by potentially criminal elements, MEDIA. Television, radio, film, print media ....... all of it must be considered suspect.

With the preceding logic I would presume to assert that our official representatives position basically has little meaning, and that they know it, which is why they don't answer inquiry on the matter.

Now is the test of the meaning of these words. If they accurately describe a situation, will those reading be able to discern that accuracy and act accordingly? Can they define that action, share it amongst themselves, determine its validity and unify to act effectively?
Picture of Daniel Summars
Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Friday, 13 July 2007, 10:51 AM
 

Christopher Brown,
You make very good points about the media. The media, sadly, is failing us too.

What many supporters of an Article V Convention don't yet realize is that their goal may never materialize unless enough voters also do one very important thing:

  • Stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible and corrupt incumbent politicians that oppose our right to an Article V Convention (not the only violation of our Constitutional rights).
  • Stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible and corrupt incumbent politicians with a 90% to 95% re-election rate since 1996.

That is the most important leverage voters have, and repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians only empowers them to grow increasingly irresponsible and corrupt. Even if all your choices stink, re-electing the incumbent allows them to grow more powerful and corrupt.

Education is needed, and voters will get their education:

  1. the smart, responsible, peaceful way,
  2. or the hard, and painful way (again; some hard lessons are already in the pipe-line).

It's that simple really, but very elusive because blind party loyalties and wallowing in the distracting and destructive partisan-warfare allows corruption to grow and grow, as the federal government continues to grow and grow to nightmare proportions, becoming increasingly wasteful and fiscally and morally bankrupt.  Government won't become more responsible and accountable until the voters do too.  Voters must pressure their state and local governments also to demand that the federal government (Congress) adhere to the Constitution and call an Article V Convention, because it is all too clear that our federal politicians and Do-Nothing Congress will not even remotely consider any amendments that may even slightly reduce the incumbent politicians' power, reduce their opportunities for self-gain, and/or reduce the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies (and the numerous unfair advantages they have bestowed upon themselves; not to mention they just gave themselves their 9th raise in since 1997).

Picture of Christopher Brown
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Christopher Brown - Friday, 13 July 2007, 02:07 PM
 
Greetings Daniel,

As far as I can tell the media is the key to the entire issue. Every issue we can think of. Any cause any American might have.

Of course you are right on about rewarding politicians with votes while they don't support an Article V Convention. Does FOAVC have a page listing the status of politicians on the Article V Convention matter?

There is a very good chance that no issue will gain enough support from voters until the media is taken over. Seriously, taken over.

The neglect and malfesance is seriously endangering all of our lives. In support of Article V Convention I suggest that a preliminary unity project be organized by FOAVC. Here is a very crude draft of the basic idea.

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

It is not quite complete, so we should talk abou that aspect later. You should get the basic idea.

Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Sunday, 15 July 2007, 05:02 AM
 
Hello Christopher,

Christopher Brown wrote:
As far as I can tell the media is the key to the entire issue. Every issue we can think of. Any cause any American might have.

First of all, I think your document is a good idea. 
The media is very irresponsible.  I'm certainly sick and tired of hearing about Paris Hilton, Rosie O'Donnell, Britney Spears, etc.  The Main Stream Media (MSM) is barely better than one of those cheap tabloid magazines you see on the shelf at the grocery store check-out counter. 

When that crap comes on, I change the channel (usually to the Science Channel, History Channel, or Discovery Channel) or turn the TV OFF completely.  Yes, the MSM news is truly pathetic.  Just yesterday I was in a discussion with a friend and I told him that a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more in year 2004),  90% of all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money, and Congress has enjoyed a 90% to 95% re-election rate since 1996.   He said, why am I hearing this from you?  Where did you find that information?   Why is it the MSM doesn't tell us these things?

I answered: Because the Main Stream Media News is bought-and-paid-for by a very few that abuse vast wealth and power to control it just like our bought-and-paid-for politicians in Congress and their puppeteers that use vast wealth and power to control and influence government.  

Also, too many voters empower and reward them for it by repeatedly re-electing them, or watching their News/Radio stations.    There are some vastly wealthy individuals that own FOX News and CNN News.  You can clearly see the bias in their news reporting.  Certain individuals at each News station epitomize those News channels values.  BOTH are pathetic in many ways by what and how they choose to report (or fail to report).  Think back to the 1960s.  What News station had the guts to report the sexual escapades of JFK?  None.  Meanwhile, JFK had the secret service bringing prostitutes to his hotel rooms.  The MSM also fuels the petty, distracting, destructive partisan-warfare too.  During elections, they should not be partisan, but the clearly are in subtle ways that helps decide elections. 

Thus, I support lawsuits against this type of irresponsibility by the MSM.  Especially for those examples above and some of the examples in your docuement.  We must stop rewarding the MSM and irresponsible incumbent politicians by blindly patronizing their [dis]services, and stop rewarding corrupt politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.  In fact, some nation-wide boycotts may get their attention faster than anything.  But can the voters organize to do such a thing.  After all, most voters don't even know who their senators or representative are.   And look at the voters of New Orleans. They re-elected William Jefferson!?!  What's up with that?   Never mind that he was caught red-handed by the FBI years earlier with $90K of bribe money neatly packaged in $10K packets of aluminum foil hidden in his freezer, and the whole thing was recorded on video. Jefferson even joked at the time that "it's not like we're being video taped".  OOOpppps! 

Christopher Brown wrote:
Of course you are right on about rewarding politicians with votes while they don't support an Article V Convention. Does FOAVC have a page listing the status of politicians on the Article V Convention matter?


Yes.  This page is for that very purpose, and we have a datbase to store those responses.  We will soon have a page listing those responses.   So far, NO one has posted a response from any politician with a YES vote that they support Article V.  Member Michael Densmore (see above) got a response, but his senator (Evan Bayh) did not even answer the one simple question (see form letter above). Evan Bayh is either ignoring the question or never read the question. This will be common. Too many of our politicians are so arrogant that they think they can just send back a form letter (if anything), totally avoiding the issue of Article V, or totally ignoring us and sending no response whatsoever.  Thus, we will put those politicians down in the database as REFUSED or FAILED to respond to the question on their postion on Article V.  We will display that database as soon.  However, so far, we've only received one response, and it ignored the question.

Christopher Brown wrote:
There is a very good chance that no issue will gain enough support from voters until the media is taken over. Seriously, taken over.


Well, I have constitional concerns about taking over the media, but I totally support enforcement of laws to maintain accountability, prevent dissemination of false information (e.g. reporting invalid election results, etc.), displaying offensive activities on stations where people do not expect it (e.g. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction), hiding information from the public to protect politicians, etc.  There should be stiff fines for these violations and irresponsibility.  The MSM is a pathetic, but our growing number of pressing problems will require action on many fronts.  We should be critical of the MSM, but to be taken over is possibly a larger crime than the fact that the MSM is bought-and-paid-for like too many incumbent politicians in our FOR-SALE government. 


Christopher Brown wrote:
The neglect and malfesance is seriously endangering all of our lives. In support of Article V Convention I suggest that a preliminary unity project be organized by FOAVC. Here is a very crude draft of the basic idea.
http://algoxy.com/poly/media_lawsuit.html

I agree 1000% about the seriousness of the problems facing the nation; growing dangerously in number and severity.  I fear we will soon be in for a bumpy ride.  I think the first signs will be increased economic instability.  It may be too late already.  Like the Titantic, it's hard to change course at the very last moment.  We very badly need action as soon as possible . . . before it is too late . . . before the majority of us have to learn our lesson the hard and painful way (again).
Picture of Christopher Brown
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Christopher Brown - Sunday, 15 July 2007, 11:08 PM
 
Daniel,

So glad you are able to take this discussion into the fundaments of Constitutionality. Thank you sincerely


Christopher Brown wrote:
There is a very good chance that no issue will gain enough support from voters until the media is taken over. Seriously, taken over.

Daniel Summars wrote:
Well, I have constitutional concerns about taking over the media, but I totally support enforcement of laws to maintain accountability, prevent dissemination of false information (e.g. reporting invalid election results, etc.), displaying offensive activities on stations where people do not expect it (e.g. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction), hiding information from the public to protect politicians, etc. There should be stiff fines for these violations and irresponsibility. The MSM is a pathetic, but our growing number of pressing problems will require action on many fronts. We should be critical of the MSM, but to be taken over is possibly a larger crime than the fact that the MSM is bought-and-paid-for like too many incumbent politicians in our FOR-SALE government.

Christopher replies:
Glad to see that you've noticed the basics. When I say taken over, I mean that corporations have abused it so badly, and there is so much collusion between government and the media that the democracy cannot function. When I say "taken over", I mean that the potential for that is ended, removed permanently by shutting television down as we know it until it can be shown that it will not happen any longer. Newscasts would be determined by randomly selected committees who overview raw reports. Random selection of committees would be from historically registered members of organizations with a top down priority relating to our existence on the planet. Peace and environmental organizations would be a top choice, and courts will have to logically agree to this if they are founded in the Constitution and social contracts preceding it.

Peace and environmental purposes are selected for obvious fundamental reasons. War goes directly against life and environment supports life.

Please, allow me to explain.

The Declaration of Independence guarantees life as a preliminary principal of these United States. The Constitution reinforces that with first amendment rights, although this is not well articulated and basically unknown with the language carried, but fully implied. The simple philosophical logic in the explanation will be obvious. Let me premise this with a historical fact. Law is based in philosophy.

This information comes from the Indigenous people of this continent who spent a good deal of time communicating with the founders and this information should be fundamental to basis of the next Article V Convention;

The greater meaning of free speech:
Through free speech an understanding can be created; that understanding can lead to, forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love; protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Indigenous people of this continent had experimented with over 400 forms of self governance before colonization in the millennium before that tumultuous event. The founders were astounded at the depth of understanding that was inherent with their spiritual leaders. They have tremendous insight into human spirituality and instinct because of their religions which include practices of working directly with the human unconscious mind. Our psychologists can barely recognize such exists and controls us in most ways. Only the most honest will.

Hopefully you can see that Constitutionally everything I propose is fundamentally founded. It is so fundamental it may be viewed as alien, that does not change the fact of its veracity and if we abandon that veracity we are relinquishing sacred ideals. I cannot see violating basic rights to uphold lesser ones. One such court decision which does this is the 1895 decision which gave freedom of speech to corporations. This goes fundamentally against the premises of protecting the individual at the root of the Constitution.



People are addicted to TV. And because they are addicted they think they have a right to be misinformed if they want to be. I say fine, if that is the case, relinquish the right to vote because a person that badly misinformed cannot possible vote properly with regard to upholding our Constitution.

Basically our humanity has been subverted by television, and this has happened in no small way.

Seriously, ............ it is that bad and some of the examples you cite indicate this somewhat.

But let me go to fundamantal information.
Do you realize that the manipulation is so severe that one in 50 political activists knows what BCCI is, and it's implications? I wonder if you could tell me why that is true?
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Tuesday, 17 July 2007, 08:47 AM
 

Hello Christopher,

Yes, the Main Stream Media (MSM) is not only missing an opportunity to help society in many ways, but actually doing harm at times.

BCCI?  You mean the Bank of Credit and Commerce International?

Why do so few know about it?
Because the MSM refuses to tell us certain things.
However, the internet is a different story, and that is chaning things.
The MSM is looking increasingly ridiculous as more and more people bypass the MSM and go to the internet to find out about things.  That's why some oppressive nations are restricting access to the internet.  Of course, it has to be researched carefully. The internet is like the wild west.  Sources should be scrutinized carefully for credibility.

Yes, the MSM refuses to report on many important issues.
Especially with regard to government, the Federal Reserve, excessive money printing, pork-barrel, waste, politicians, Do-Nothing Congress, corruption within government, Congress giving itself its 9th raise between 1997 and 2007, unfair taxation, government FOR-SALE, rampant campaign finance fraud, violations of the constitution, etc., etc., etc., etc. 

Likewise with Article V of the Constitution, and Congress' refusal to call an Article V Convention as required when 2/3 of the states have requested amendments (all 50 states have made 567 requests).

It is one of the best kept secrets in the nation.
The politicians refuse to reveal their postion on Article V and the media refuses to report on it. 

There are many good reasons why the MSM is getting so much criticism.  They are not reporting the truth, and much of it is deceit by omission.

Picture of Christopher Brown
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Christopher Brown - Friday, 3 August 2007, 08:40 AM
 


Daniel Summars wrote:
Yes, the Main Stream Media (MSM) is not only missing an opportunity to help society in many ways, but actually doing harm at times.



Christopher replies:
A great deal of harm. Society does not even know the difference between its wants and needs. A society that does not know its needs well, is doomed.


Daniel Summars wrote:
BCCI? You mean the Bank of Credit and Commerce International?


Why do so few know about it?
Because the MSM refuses to tell us certain things.


Christopher replies:
"Because the MSM refuses to tell us certain things." It is far worse than that Daniel. There are elements that use the MSM to obscure real events, which creates the convenience for the MSM to NOT tell us certain things. The elements provide distractions so the MSN can say their avoidance of those certain things is somehow justified.

In the case of BCCI it was OJ Simpson. A few months before the Congressional hearings were to happen, Nicole was murdered. For almost 3 years our TV's were filled with that and NOBODY heard about BBCI!

Tell me, if you had the choice, if you want a man to fight hard for his innocence; do you make him innocent or guilty? Logically an innocent man will fight harder and longer to prove the truth of innocence than a guilty man will to prove a lie as the truth.

If you think that murder is below the infiltrators I present 9-11. Thousands were murdered and the official explanation is nonsense. The Twin Towers were built to demolish. I prove this here.

    http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Only those capable of believing such who also have experience with construction and high explosives will know for certain, but that doesn't change the fact that everything everybody else believes in DOES NOT EXPLAIN, free fall, total pulverization, 1000's of square cut smooth column ends, superfine dust forming pyroclastic flows and 60 ton structural assemblies flying 100's of feet from the building. My site does provide a feasible, realistic explanation for those things, which must and DO have an explanation.


Daniel Summars wrote:
However, the internet is a different story, and that is changing things.


Christopher replies:
http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/Topics/57.htm
"The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) launched the DARPA Internet Program."

Daniel, it is illogical that an agency of the US government, which is infiltrated, would create something that would help the people prevail in their choice of freedom and liberty.

There was a time in the beginning when it had a structure that would lend to change, but no longer. Ever since the usenet was replaced by .com, it now serves corporate and long term interests of the infiltrated government.

A simple observation. You are in Texas I am in California. Our agreement, not being of the same constituency is just about meaningless. This is only possible with the internet.

FOAVC must promote CITIZENS BAND RADIO and shut down commercial television. Do you see the logic here?

Daniel Summars wrote:
Likewise with Article V of the Constitution, and Congress' refusal to call an Article V Convention as required when 2/3 of the states have requested amendments (all 50 states have made 567 requests).

It is one of the best kept secrets in the nation.
The politicians refuse to reveal their position on
Article V and the media refuses to report on it.


Christopher replies:
That is NEGLECT, MALFEASANCE and it "IS" ENDANGERING us. Do you agree?

Picture of Jacob Henderson
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Jacob Henderson - Wednesday, 18 July 2007, 05:47 PM
 
I have a response from Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana:

Dear Mr. Henderson:

Thank you for contacting Senator Bayh about Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Your correspondence has been forwarded to me, a legislative correspondent.

As you may know, Article V states that on the "Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments". Although many states have applied for a convention, this clause has never successfully been invoked. This method has come close on several occasions including an instance when only one State was needed before the Senate responded and passed an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators. Other instances include a petition drive for a constitutional limit on income tax rates, another to limit the Supreme Court's legislative apportionment decisions, and finally, a proposal for a balanced budget amendment.

Because this clause has not been invoked, the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions. However, arguments exist that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States, there would be a response by Congress.

Again, thank you for contacting Senator Bayh about this question. I hope the information given in this response has been helpful. Please continue to keep him informed on the topics that are important to you in the future.

Sincerely,

David J. Ziemba

Legislative Correspondent




WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Thursday, 2 August 2007, 03:37 PM
 

Thank you Jacob!  three cheers!

Picture of Fred Gohlke
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Fred Gohlke - Wednesday, 18 July 2007, 08:07 PM
 
Thank you, very much, Mr. Henderson.

I'm glad to see that Senator Bayh's office was responsive to the issue you asked about. It constitutes an acknowledgment of Article V, and I think that's a worthwhile step in a slow, slow process.

Sincerely,

Fred

Picture of Jacob Henderson
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Jacob Henderson - Wednesday, 18 July 2007, 09:13 PM
 
From what the "legislative correspondent" said, it looks like a Article V Constitutional Convention has nearly been called three times, but only when a state put a lot of pressure on the Federal Government. So, I think, the question is Will we have enough clout when the time comes? I suggest a full partnership with MoveOn.org as our goals are extremely similar, if not one in the same. In fact, it might be an idea if we could band all of these like-minded organizations together into some sort of Union for Change...
Picture of Christopher Brown
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Christopher Brown - Wednesday, 18 July 2007, 11:00 PM
 
Excellent effort Jacob Henderson!

Your senator is actually quite responsive and helpful. It's OK that it comes from a LEGIS. CORR. They know more detail and history.

Jacob Henderson wrote:
I have a response from Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana:

--- this clause has never successfully been invoked. This method has come close on several occasions including an instance when only one State was needed before the Senate responded and passed an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators.--------

Christopher wrote:
This indicates that many states consider election reform to be a high priority. I consider the present system unworkable in a number of ways and feel that a time for democratic initiative, which the compulsion to Article V Convention is, to be a natural. And, .. history shows it is. When was "only one state needed" is something I wonder.

-----Other instances include a petition drive for a constitutional limit on income tax rates, another to limit the Supreme Court's legislative apportionment decisions, and finally, a proposal for a balanced budget amendment.-----

Christopher wrote:
All hot issues historically. Something we can depend on for general support, if we could generally ask for it or find a place to gather it.

-----Because this clause has not been invoked, the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions. However, arguments exist that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States, there would be a response by Congress.------

Christopher wrote:
Key words, "authentic national movement". I think the issue of media necessity is well underlined. The question is how to compel it to act in the citizens interest. All indications are that media is working against citizens and the Constitution.

An issue that dispenses with apathy is needed. One that all citizens can relate to, the spearhead. definition of the issue and dissemination of that are primary.

The many organizations need but to find common ground. Establishment of priority.
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Thursday, 2 August 2007, 08:14 AM
 

Hello Jacob Henderson and Michael Densmore,

Thank you both very much for getting a response.
I think Senator Bayh acknowledges our right to an Article V Convention, but does not understand that the state legislatures of all 50 states have already made 567 requests.  Thus, this means the database will have an additional detail.  The Senator/Representative does not believe two-thirds of the states have already requested amendments.   I find it facscinating that a Congress person is not aware that far more than 2/3 of all 50 states have already made 567 requests for amendments.  In fact, over 2/3 have made requests since year 1911.  

It seems fairly obvious that the bought-and-paid-for politicians in our FOR-SALE, Do-Nothing Congress are vehemently opposed to an Article V Convention, or any badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms that may even remotely reduce their power, reduce their opportunities for self-gain, or reduce the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.

(Edited by Administrator NumberTwo - original submission Wednesday, 18 July 2007, 11:54 PM)

Picture of Christopher Brown
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Christopher Brown - Friday, 3 August 2007, 08:41 AM
 

Daniel Summars wrote:
"all 50 states have already made 567 requests.

far more than 2/3 of all 50 states have already made 567 requests for amendments. In fact, over 2/3 have made requests since year 1911."


Christopher Brown wrote:
Am I mistaken or does the Article V Convention have to occur within a single convention of congress?



110th Congress to Convene on Jan. 4, 2007
The First Session of the 110th U.S. Congress will convene on Jan. 4, 2007. All new and returning members will be sworn in by reciting the following oath of office, as required by Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Thursday, 19 July 2007, 07:37 AM
 

Christopher,

Thank you for displaying that pledge. Perhaps our Congress persons should review their promise?  Perhaps one of the duties of being a Senator/Representative should be awareness of all 567 requests of Article V Convention . . .


523 (as of 1972) of 567 STATE APPLICATIONS FOR A CONVENTION

Below is a table summarizing all applications in the Congressional Record for an amendment convention showing the date of the application, the state applying, the subject matter and the location in the Congressional Record of the application. The source of this material is the ABA Report of 1972 as well as the federal Judge Bruce Van Sickle article reference in our legal material.


#    Date    State           Subject                                      Location                                                       
1 1789   Virginia        General                                      1 Annals of Congress 248 (J Gales ed. 1789)                    
2 1789   New York        General                                      1 Annals of Congress 248 (J Gales ed. 1789)                    
3 1790   Rhode Island    General                                      1 Annals of Congress 1103 (J Gales ed. 1790)                   
4 1899   Texas           General                                      33 Cong. Rec. 219 (1899)                                       
5 1899   Texas           General                                      33 Cong. Rec. 280 (1899)             

    :    . . . MORE . . .                  :                                                  :

519 1987   Utah            Taxation on debts                            133 Cong. Rec. 4183 (1987)                                     
520 1987   Utah            Taxation on debts                            133 Cong. Rec. 7728 (1987)                                     
521 1989   South Dakota    Limited congressional terms                  135 Cong. Rec. 3233 (1989)                                     
522 1989   South Dakota    Limited congressional terms                  135 Cong. Rec. 232 (1989)                                      
523 1989   Idaho           Limited taxation                             135 Cong. Rec. 998 (1989)  

No, the Convention does not have to occur in one single Convention. That is, an Article V Convention is required anytime 2/3 of the state legislatures or 2/3 of both houses of Congress call for it.

I fear if Congress is allowed to ignore Article V much longer, it will become only one of many parts of our Constitution that are usurped from the citizens of the nation.

Picture of Christopher Brown
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Christopher Brown - Thursday, 19 July 2007, 10:32 AM
 
Daniel Summars wrote:
No, the Convention does not have to occur in one single Convention. That is, an Article V Convention is required anytime 2/3 of the state legislatures or 2/3 of both houses of Congress call for it.

I fear if Congress is allowed to ignore Article V much longer, it will become only one of many parts of our Constitution that are usurped from the citizens of the nation.




Christopher replies:

Wow!
So the ommission of the time period in the language of Article V as it is written allows the accumulation over time of requests for Convention outside the period of Congress convening whenever the requests are made?

The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

IX basically supports what I define. Is that the same as what you understand?
Picture of Jacob Henderson
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Jacob Henderson - Thursday, 19 July 2007, 11:03 AM
 
The problem with that omission of a time period is that congress can use the Supreme Court to rule a time period against all of us.

So, we will need a pretty convincing argument to get out of this...
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Thursday, 2 August 2007, 08:15 AM
 

Jacob Henderson wrote:  The problem with that omission of a time period is that congress can use the Supreme Court to rule a time period against all of us.


Perhaps. And that is an increasingly poor reason, because it is becoming fairly ridiculous when you consider that the state legislatures of ALL 50 states have made 385 of the total of 567 requests only since 1960.  

After a while, the argument of a time-period to avoid a convention becomes increasingly ridiculous and resembling an obvious conflict of interest.  That is, it is all too obvious that Congress' and the Supreme Court are merely using the perceived ambiguity (i.e. no time-period) to maintain their stranglehold on power to deny the citizens their Constitutional right to make amendments that Congress is very unlikely to ever address, due to obvious conflicts of interest. 

Power corrupts, which is the reason for Article V.  But, if Article V can be ignored, then other things will be ignored.  Corruption and abuse of power is always trying to take root and grow. History shows us this over and over.  You'd think we'd eventually learn that we can never start down that slippery slope.  Thus, growing corruption is the end result, and that is what we have today, and it will most definitely grow worse if allowed.  Already, our government is FOR-SALE.  Government is controlled by a few with vast wealth and power, as evidenced by the fact that 83% of all federal campaign donations come from only a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters, and the remaining 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters have no equal voice; especially since too many voters are apparently addicted to repeatedly rewarding politicians for all of it by repeatedly re-electing them and rewarding incumbent politicians with 90% to 95% re-election rates since 1996.  Government is essentially FOR-SALE, and increasingly controlled and influenced by a few that abuse vast wealth and power. There's no crime in being wealthy, but government shouldn't be FOR-SALE.  The voters will regret and suffer the painful consequences of it for many years (already in the pipeline), and it can get worse if allowed to grow more corrupt, irresponsible, unaccountable, and essentially fiscally and morally bankrupt.

So 385 requests by over 2/3 of the 50 states have occurred only since 1960.   That is (on average) about 8 states per year for the last 47 years.  For the total 567 requests, that is (on average) 2.58 states per year for the last 220 years.   The Supreme Court is ruling against the spirit of Article V.  What does it have to be for the Supreme Court to rule in the spirit of the law?   50 requests by all 50 states on the same day?  same hour? same second?  Was the lack of a time frame in Article V intentional.  Or did the founders simply mean that a queue of requests by 2/3 of the states, regardless of when they requests were submitted, is a sufficient trigger for a Convention?

It seems only fair that an ambiguity (if any) in Article V should work in favor of the citizens.   After all . . .


 Christopher Brown wrote:  The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


So, any ambiguity (if any, which is debatable) in Article V can "not be construed to deny or disparage" the people.  Also, there is significant precedent to support the argument that ambuguities are usually interpreted in favor of the spirit of the law.

The ambiguity (if any) should not allow politicians to interpret in their own favor, when the politicians have an obvious conflict of interest, and are obviously and historically opposed to any amendments or reforms that may even remotely reduce their power, opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.   

Sadly, Congress can vote itself a raise in a heart-beat (i.g. 9 raises between 1997 and 2007 while our troops go without body armor, adequate medical care, and promised benefits), but Congress can not ever get around to passing any badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer laws regarding campaign finance reform, election reform, tax reform, lobby reform, ethics reform, elimination of pork-barrel/waste/graft, or immigration reform (failing to enforce existing laws and essentially choosing to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other); allowing a continued influx of illegal aliens by the millions, over-running our schools, hospitals, ERs, healthcare systems, border patrol, law enforcement (e.g. 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens), insurance,  welfare (e.g. 32% of all illegal aliens receive welfare), and even voting in our elections; not to mention the untold cost of displaced jobs, disease, and crime (homicide estimates range from 3.6 to 12 homicides per day).
Picture of Christopher Brown
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Christopher Brown - Thursday, 19 July 2007, 12:59 PM
 
Daniel Summars wrote:
Jacob Henderson wrote: The problem with that omission of a time period is that congress can use the Supreme Court to rule a time period against all of us.

Perhaps. And that is an increasingly poor reason, because it is becoming fairly ridiculous when you consider that the state legislatures of ALL 50 states have made 385 of the total of 567 requests only since 1960.

Christopher replies to Daniel:
Jacobs point is well made to any who have seen the performance of the courts, any of them, in recent years. They, are not following laws nor the Constitution either. We cannot depend on them.

Accordingly I'll reply to Jacob's post in a fashion which is comprehensive to almost everything that has been written here and also in the thread started by Joel Hirschhorn and linked below.

All that is not really addressed in this post is the nature of the issues that are collectively of the highest priority in gaining Article V performance from Congress and the Senate whether we know it or not. Only because "we the people" haven't determined it yet. Basicallly I'm trying to define with concrete steps the beginning of the people doing exactly that


Jacob Henderson wrote:
The problem with that omission of a time period is that congress can use the Supreme Court to rule a time period against all of us.

So, we will need a pretty convincing argument to get out of this...


Christopher replies:
Yes Jacob. That has become clear with the evolution of this discussion. Really two threads here are getting close and closer to serving the same purpose, at best.

Consider what is said here.
http://www.article-5.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=44

Then the response from Senator Evan Bayh's office.

----Because this clause has not been invoked, the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions. However, arguments exist that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States, there would be a response by Congress.------

THEN THIS FROM MY EARLIER POST
Christopher wrote:
Key words, "authentic national movement". I think the issue of media necessity is well underlined. The question is how to compel it to act in the citizens interest. All indications are that media is working against citizens and the Constitution.

It is very clear that we are going to have to do something extraordinary to develop the impetus in the public to get anything done.

At the thread linked above the term "umbrella" is mentioned. I equate that term, for our purposes, to refer to priorities commonly defined and accepted.

I refer to what Joel Hirschhorn has written at the thread linked above. It is really very good, comprehensive to the fundamental problem we face.

Joel Hirschhorn wrote:
Realistically, reaching consensus will be resisted by many reform-groups that would not be selected as the priority, solidarity option. One cannot ignore the considerable egos of activists that have energetically created a web group, and that have attained supporters – though rarely in significant numbers. They sincerely believe that their strategy is the best one and having relatively few supporters does not deter them. Many are as opposed to alternative reform strategies as those in the status quo establishment, but not all. Most celebrate their long shot status with a religious zeal bordering on obsession. We need passion for a solidarity strategy.


Christopher replies:
So consensus is what Evan Bayh's office indirectly identifies with, "authentic national movement". I propose that the interested public need to practice "movement" and develop its very rusty skills. I propose that in practice we utilize an online petition as a place for people to gather. The people themselves are the target of this petition. Simply to exercise their natural right to agree. That we start with universally acceptable agreements just to get the process of agreement started, to bridge across previously created gaps and differences that media has broadened with manipulation and exploitation. That our petitions have stages of deepening commitment from the people that elicit more and more true activism from them working towards an "authentic national movement" and use technology to do it. We will separate ourselves from this stigma

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/internet.asp

by identifying it and that we do not expect anything official from our preliminary petitions. That we understand "slactivism"

http://www.snopes.com/info/glossary.asp#slack

and are working away from it towards higher functions.

Accordingly IF we were to do such a thing its final purpose be stating from the beginning all the way to the final actions that compel elected representatives to take action within ONE convention of congress to conduct Article V procedures.

I think we need a message board that allows polling for our own purpose IF we are going to attempt something comprehensive. I suggest we use,

http://www.hostingphpbb.com/

to develop the language used in the first petition here.

http://www.petitiononline.com/petition.html

Any who are in favor of this action to "weave an umbrella" of understanding and agreement, please post suggestions regarding HOW to get the full membership of
FOAVC involved.








Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Thursday, 19 July 2007, 01:15 PM
 
And don't forget to record your vote for an Article V Convention here too.
Picture of Christopher Brown
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Christopher Brown - Thursday, 19 July 2007, 01:36 PM
 
Daniel Summars wrote:
And don't forget to record your vote for an Article V Convention here too.


Christopher replies:
I propose that FOAVC members commit to a certain amount of outreach once a petition for support in the creation of an "authentic national movement" by posting on message boards or any number of other methods of expanding the American call for Article V Convention.

So far there are 24 yes votes on that page. We need 24 million.

I'm ready to make some youtube video that expresses what we decide the "umbrella of priorities" we are going to gather under will be.

Got strategy?
Administrator1 - Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Administrator NumberTwo - Thursday, 19 July 2007, 03:27 PM
 

Christopher,
You're absolutely right.
We're open to more ideas.
Some YouTube videos would be great.
Here's a few videos and audios some people have already done.

WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Thursday, 19 July 2007, 05:39 PM
 

It is my understanding that a request from the state legislatures calling a convention under article V need no specific amendment attached to it.  The petition is to simply instruct the congress to bring forth a convention with delegates selected via popular vote.  Congress must sanction the conception of this convention and nothing more.  The discussion of certain amendments is irrelevant now because the election of delegates will provide the many possibilities and that is long after the evocation of an Article V convention has been ordered.

History and this website exposes the challenge it is to evoke an Article V convention.  Senator Evan Bayh did not respond to our enquiry.  Some person did, and his name wasn't Evan Bayh.  A response from Evan Bayh would carry forward a plan that would eventually get him re-elected, to a higher post.  A plan conceived by Evan Bayh in response to www.Article-5.org 's inquiries would include progress reports, stratagies, documentation of discussions, decimination of information, adds, speeches supporting the recognition of any of the 3 pieces of legislation mentioned by the person responding to our enquiry.

If Evan Bayh was seriously considering the need for an Article V convention what better place to start than in his own state?  There's a whole trainload of reporters following him around.  His plan would surely include them!

Selecting delegates is simple.  Too simple to be credible if random support is used as it's vehicle.  No credance would be given to anyone who proclaimed themselves to be a delegate to a national convention.  But if Evan Bayh were to speak from Indianapolis to his state about the history and intent and the blatant ignorance of Article V of the U.S. Constitution...  Then I would say I had a response from a Senator from Indiana, Evan Bayh.

Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Thursday, 19 July 2007, 11:22 PM
 

Michael Densmore,

Yep, that's right . . . states don't even have to propose a specific amendment to request the calling of an Article V Convention.
You're probably right that Evan Bayh didn't even know about his own response letter. 

I still haven't heard from my Senators (Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn) or Representative (Michael Burgess).  
I guess they have more important things to do, such as:

  • votin' on some pork-barrel, corporate welfare, graft, etc.
  • votin' themselves another raise (the 9th rai$e in 10 years),
  • votin' themselves some more cu$hy perk$ and benefits, 
  • finding new ways to waste tax dollars,
  • ignoring wide-open borders being overrun by millions of illegal aliens annually for decades, costing American citizens $70 to $300 billion annually in net losses,
  • pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other, 
  • enjoying their cu$hy 90% to 95% re-election rates,
  • Gerrymandering,
  • pandering and peddling influence,
  • ignoring our energy vulnerabilities, despite the Department Of Energy's $26 billion annual budget,
  • running up the $8.9 trillion National Debt, and excessive money printing,
  • spending the surpluses from Social Security now $12.8 trillion in the hole,
  • mismanaging/ignoring the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guranty Corp), now $450 billion in the hole,
  • hiding $90K of bribe money in the freezer,
  • growing government ever larger to nightmare proportions, while ignoring the nations' pressing problems growing in number and severity,
  • occupying Iraq indefinitely (not to mention no WMD and hundreds of blunders by the Executive Branch),
  • or any number of other irresponsible and corrupt activitites . . .

. . . just about anything other than providing body armor, adequate medical care, or promised beneifits for our troops, or numerous other badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms or amendments regardless of the hundreds (567) of times ALL 50 states request it.

Picture of Jacob Henderson
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Jacob Henderson - Thursday, 19 July 2007, 09:29 PM
 
I recently read a book entitled Dark Ages America by Morris Berman. The book lists many of the problems that are listed by Daniel above, and concludes the modern America has many of the same problems as now deceased nations did (Rome, pre-Revolution France, etc) before they fell. Morris believes, as I do, that we have reached a point of no return, and that our government will have to be "rebooted," that is, rebuilt from the ground up.

Your congressmen will be no help at all. They are only interested in keeping their power. And I fear any major march in favor of an Article V Convention will be ignored, or worse, met with hoses and dogs. Some of you may consider me paranoid, but this is what all governments do: preserve their own existence through any means necessary. That means we will have to be prepared to defy the thing we have called our government since we were born.

See this: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/8111
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Friday, 3 August 2007, 08:15 AM
 
Mr. Jacob Henderson,

Mr. Jacob Henderson wrote: Some of you may consider me paranoid, ...

I do not think you are paranoid.  Not one tiny bit.  I think you are very perceptive.  Too bad there are more as perceptive as you are   If I had to make a bet, I think we're going to have to learn the hard way (again).
Yet, no matter how much evidence exists to raise concern, we are dismissed as dooms-day, chicken-littles.  

The only reason I continue to try is because it is logical. We don't know 100% for certain that our demise is already in the pipe-line.  And doing nothing will most certainly spell our demise.  Thus, trying is the only logical action.  However, preparation is logical too.  That's why I've paid off the mortgages on my homes.  When the next Great Depression occurs, foreclosures will be rampant. My advice is "own your own home; free and clear".

Mr. Jacob Henderson wrote: . . .
but this is what all governments do: preserve their own existence through any means necessary.

Again, you get it.  Yet we are often considered cynical.  It's not cynical if it is true.  Our government is corrupt because that is always what all governments do.  It's a simple fact of human nature.  And we need to admit and thoroughly understand it if we are ever to deal with it adequately.

Otherwise, we'll simply be one of thousands of nations that dissappeared into oblivion.  If the roots of corruption are allowed to take firm hold, undoing the damage becomes increasingly unlikely.

If I had to make a guess, this is where we are headed.

It is a cycle and there's no guarantee that we'll survive the next iteration.
http://one-simple-idea.com/HistoricalCycle0.gif
Especially when slumbering voters keep rewarding irresponsbile incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them, and letting them enjoy their 90% to 95% re-election rates since 1996.

The only hope in turning it around, which won't be easy, is Education, Transparency, Accountability, and voters have got to stop rewarding irresponsible by repeatedly re-electing them. They must take off their partisan blinders and stop empowering irresponsible incumbent politicians based on blind party loyalties. The blind partisanship and partisan warfare is carefully cultivated by politicians. It is extremely effective and seductive. It taps into the voters' laziness and tendencies to lazily blame the OTHER party, rather than ever consider that politicains of BOTH parties are about equally irresponsible and unaccountable.   It's a death of a thousand cuts, and we are doing it to ourselves.  Unfortunately, coming generations for many generations to come will suffer the consequences. Especially with the massive debt heaped upon them ($42 trillion of nation wide debt). 

Mr. Jacob Henderson wrote:

See this: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/8111

Yes, I've read that. 

Joel writes:  I have long asserted that Americans live in a delusional democracy . . .

He's absolutely correct.
When will it end?
When it finally becomes too painful.
And some unavodiable pain and misery is already on the way.
But the most dangerous factor is because too few care.
The most difficult component of the following formula is Conscience (i.e. virtue, caring, morals):
http://one-simple-idea.com/Responsibility1.jpg

Thus, we have growing corruption, among many problems growing in number and severity.  Congress hasn't a clue. They are only intersted in gettin' theirs, fillin' their own pockets, and their own security.

We've been crappin' in our own nest for a long time.
How much longer before the branch it all rests upon snaps?
Or will it merely be a slow and gradual demise?

Congress' approval ratings are very low (in the mid 20%) range, but voters are so thoroughly brainwashed to pull the party lever, there's little hope of ousting the thoroughly corrupt, and Congress will continue to enjoy a very cu$hy 90% to 95% re-election rate since 1996.

You're right.  Congress won't reform itself.
The voters have a simple solution.
Don't vote for them.
Especially those opposing our Constitutional right to an Article V Convention.
But too many voters are too brainwashed to pull the party-lever.
And 40% to 50% of 200 million eligible voters don't even vote.
It comes back to Conscience (i.e. virtue, caring, and morals).
People won't be so apathetic and complacent when they are hungry and homeless, but by that time, it's too late.
Picture of Jacob Henderson
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Jacob Henderson - Friday, 20 July 2007, 12:45 PM
 
That one-simple-idea is a good site. It puts all the variables out on the table that most of us forget when we are arguing with a neocon relative.

The internet is the best tool of democracy that exists. See http://www.unity08.com/

It's a start.

Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Saturday, 23 January 2010, 04:06 PM
 

My U.S. senators (Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R- TX)  and Senator John Cornyn (R- TX) ) and U.S. Representative (Representative Michael Burgess (R - 26)) still have not answered the simple question above (i.e. their position on Article V of the Constitution).

We have received very few responses to the question above.
Is that:

  • because so few people are asking there politicians?
  • or, because politicians (state and federal) refuse to answer it?  

We want to build a list of all responses.
So, if you get no response, we want to know that too.
We want to post a table of ALL response letters.
If you get a response, please post it here, or E-Mail it to us.

Thank you!

WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: A reply from Indiana State Senator: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Weary Willie - Tuesday, 24 July 2007, 07:59 PM
 
Dear Michael,

Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding Article V of the
Constitution.  Your thoughts and concerns are a valuable guide to my
work as your state senator.

While I acknowledge your opinions on this issue, the Article V
Convention is out of my jurisdiction as an Indiana State Senator.  I do
not have the authority to consider or vote on this issue. Nevertheless,
I strongly encourage you to get in touch with our Indiana federal
representatives:

Congressman Joe Donnelly
Longworth House Office Building 1218
Washington, D.C.   20515
202/225-3915

Senator Evan Bayh
463 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.   20510
202/224-5623

Senator Richard Lugar
306 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.   20510
202/224-4814

Again, thank you for writing me.  If I may be of further assistance on a
state matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Ed Charbonneau
State Senator, District 5

Anne Swords Hendrix
Legislative Assistant
Office of Senator Richard D. Bray
Office of Senator Edward E. Charbonneau
200 Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232-9840
ahendrix@iga.in.gov
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael L. Densmore [mailto:mld@mchsi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 9:22 AM
To: s5@ai.org
Subject: Email Your Legislator

Name:   Michael L. Densmore
Email:  mld@mchsi.com

Address:  5 South Cleveland Street
City:     Knox
State:    IN
Zip:      46534
Email Updates:

Comment :

Dear Senator Heinold,

What is your position on Article V of the Constitution?
Do you think Congress and the Supreme Court have the right to vetoand
ignore the states' and the peoples' right to an Article VConvention?
Already, the legislatures of ALL 50 states have made 567requests on
things ranging from Term-Limits,Balanced-Budget-Amendment, to Tax
Reform.

Please let me know.  I am helping the Friends of the Article VConvention
(FOAVC) to  build an Article-V-Grade-Card database, and weneed to know
which Congress persons oppose the U.S. Citizens'constitutional right to
an Article V Convention.
 
Thank you,
Michael L. Densmore
--
Sent to Senator Vic  Heinold
Picture of Jacob Henderson
Re: A reply from Indiana State Senator: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Jacob Henderson - Tuesday, 24 July 2007, 04:51 PM
 
So have we got a response from Joe Donnelly or Richard Lugar yet?
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: A reply from Indiana State Senator: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Tuesday, 14 August 2007, 10:37 PM
 
I FAXed my U.S. senators and representative, and still have not received a response from any of them.  Strange. 
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Monday, 6 August 2007, 02:02 PM
 
Sent another E-Mail (via their own web-sites) to each of my U.S. senators (Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R- TX)  and Senator John Cornyn (R- TX) ) and Representative (Representative Michael Burgess (R - 26)) on 02-Aug-2007.  I sent one previously 01-Jul-2007 but never received any responses from any of them.

Also sent (on 02-AUG-2007) E-Mails to my Texas State Senator (Chris Harris) and State Representative (Tan Parker). 

After all, the state legislatures can demand a convention since all 50 states have made 567 requests to make amendments (far more than the two-thirds of all states required by Article V of the U.S. Constitution).

Administrator1 - Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Administrator NumberTwo - Thursday, 23 August 2007, 01:27 AM
 
I sent this letter to my local congressman and state senior senator from Texas.

Mr. Louis Gohmert

I have a great concern over Article V of the US constitution.
Article v gives the US people a right to have their representatives tell congress that their constituents wish to hold a convention to amend our constitution without oversight of the president of the United States.
Since the late 1800's through 1980's
all 50 states have submitted their wish to hold such a convention 567 times, only 2/3rds of states were needed.
In 2004 the US supreme court ruled that they can just ignore the citizens right to do so.
My concern is because our constitution needs some amendments that congress will not adhere to nor like.

1. Amendment to change the Supreme courts sitting judges way of holding office, they should be elected by the people in a popular vote and held to term limits of two 4 year terms.
2. Amendment for the vote of the US people not be allowed to be handled nor counted by private companies in either electronic or other means of vote counting.
3. Amendment to stop the US. government in any form to force the US. people to buy services or products of any private companies.

These amendments are highly needed in order for the US people to remain free.
These amendments are perhaps the most important amendments and actions taken by the US. people in US. history.
 Furthermore I would appreciate your stance on Article V of the US constitution.
Would you be willing to present to congress your constituents concerns for these amendments and convention wanted by your state.
If you do not believe that article v of the US constitution is any longer needed,then I call for you to remove said article from the US constitution further taking away one of our nations most defensive rights to control our government in case of rampant corruption which is already taking place.

Sincerely: Tim Gray

The Response I got :

August 6 in the Year of our Lord 2007

Mr. Timothy Gray

Dear Mr. Gray,

The purpose of this letter is to inform you about a new service my district staff will provide. In an effort to allow you to let me know how I can help and better represent you in Washington, my district staff will hold office hours in Hemphill on Wednesday, August 22, 2007. They will be located at the Hemphill City Hall , during the hours of 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. Throughout this day, my staff will be a valuable resource for you in your dealings with a federal agency. Additionally, if you have questions, concerns, or would like clarification with government programs like Medicare's Prescription Drug Benefit, Social Security, Veterans Benefits, please stop by.

If you have questions regarding government policy, or legislation; my legislative staff in Washington , D.C. would be happy to speak with you about any concerns or thoughts you may have. Please leave your contact information with the district staff and someone in the D.C. Office will address your questions via phone or email. It is an honor to have the opportunity to serve you in the United States House of Representatives.

With kindest regards, I am

Very Truly Yours,
Hon. Louie Gohmert


Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
by Daniel Summars - Thursday, 23 August 2007, 11:22 AM
 

Another politician that refuses to answer the question.
Imagine that. But why should we expect anything different from any politician that would VOTE as follows.
Louie Gohmert voted:

  • NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) {heck no!  Transparency would make corruption and abuse more difficult; can't have that!} 
  • YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006) {this is probably a 4th Amendment violation}
  • Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006) 
  • Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)  {but no money to build it; and why did Republicans wait until late 2006 to do it, when they had 20 years to act on it?}
  • Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)  {No?  Yet, Congress just received its 9th raise in 10 years! How greedy is that?}
  • Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005) {Warren Buffet acknowledged, capital gains are taxed at only 15%, while a secretary making $60K per year is taxed at 21%; what's fair about that?}
  • Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) {more corporate welfare and waste}
  • Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007) {I'm not big on Unions, but shouldn't people have that right?}

    I'd like to know when Do-Nothing Congress is going to get around to doing anything aside from voting themselves more raises and cu$hy perks, peddling influence, and refusing many common-sense, no-brainer reforms.

    This is just aothher of many politicians that refuse to answer the question.
    To date, we have only receives ONE answer from Evan Bayh, who does not believe that the 567 requests by all 50 states satisfies the requirements of Article V of the Constitution. 

  • Administrator1 - Daniel Summars
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Administrator NumberTwo - Wednesday, 5 September 2007, 04:51 PM
     

    I received a response (after two months) from Senator John Cornyn (TX).
    He obviously doesn't believe or understand that all 50 states have ALREADY made 567 requests (far in excess of the two thirds requirement). Congress is in violation of Article V.  "WHENEVER" means now. There is no time limit, or any same-subject restrictions. 

    Dear Mr. Summars:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding the United States Constitution. I appreciate the benefit of your comments on this matter.

    As our Founding Fathers expressed during the period of our nation's founding, the basis of all laws and powers are derived from the Constitution. As a member of Congress, I affirmed that I would "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.... So help me God." When a representative is elected, he or she must swear allegiance to the United States of America, its people, and it’s Constitution.

    As you may know, Congress may call a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution upon the application of two-thirds of state legislatures. You may be certain I will keep your suggestions in mind should two-thirds of the states propose amending the U.S. Constitution during the 110th Congress.
    I appreciate having the opportunity to represent all Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

    Sincerely,

    JOHN CORNYN
    United States Senator

    517 Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510
    Tel: (202) 224-2934
    Fax: (202) 228-2856
    http://www.cornyn.senate.gov
    WW Fishing for Ideas
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Weary Willie - Wednesday, 5 September 2007, 06:54 PM
     

    Ask him if he plans on being in office when his promise comes due.

    You may be certain I will keep your suggestions in mind should two-thirds of the states propose amending the U.S. Constitution during the 110th Congress.

    WW Fishing for Ideas
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Weary Willie - Wednesday, 5 September 2007, 07:46 PM
     

    He said

    "should two-thirds of the states propose amending the U.S. Constitution during the 110th Congress."

    He's drawing a line.  Two thirds of the states during the current congress.

    Let's give him just that.

    2/3 of the states calling for a convention in 2 years.

    Goal or no Goal?

    GOAL!

    WW Fishing for Ideas
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Weary Willie - Wednesday, 5 September 2007, 07:50 PM
     

    RAHHH!  THE CROWD ROARS!!!

    Picture of Daniel Summars
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Daniel Summars - Wednesday, 5 September 2007, 09:18 PM
     

    Micheal,
    I sent John Cornyn another E-Mail stating (again) that "ALL 50 states have already submitted 567 applications" and "Why hasn't Congress called a convention?"
    It will probably be another two months before I get a response (if any).

    Picture of Steven Moyer
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Steven Moyer - Wednesday, 5 September 2007, 09:39 PM
     
    If you want a good goal, let's consider adding RECALL to the Constitution. California recalled their Governor ... so did Arizona. If Nancy Pelosi and the Dems can't get rid of BUSH
    WE THE PEOPLE can with the RECALL.

    A NATIONAL RECALL is what we need. How's that for a good goal?
    WW Fishing for Ideas
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Weary Willie - Thursday, 6 September 2007, 02:02 PM
     

    To be able to recall any politician elected to any position.

    Excellent Idea!

    Picture of Steven Moyer
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Steven Moyer - Wednesday, 5 September 2007, 09:36 PM
     
    Here's the crux of the problem:

    Senator Cornyn said:

    "Congress may call a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution upon the application of two-thirds of state legislatures. "


    Excuse me, Senator but the Constitution says that Congress SHALL call a convention.
    Picture of Daniel Summars
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Daniel Summars - Thursday, 6 September 2007, 10:53 AM
     

    Precisely. I'm not sure these Congress persons are really this:

    • ignorant
    • arrogant
    • corrupt
    • illiterate
    • FOR-SALE
    • dishonest
    • or all of the above

    Yes, I think a RECALL option is an excellent idea for an amendment.

    Picture of Daniel Summars
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Daniel Summars - Thursday, 4 October 2007, 10:23 AM
     


    Here's a response from my State Senator.
    Unfortunately, he also believes the Supreme Court can veto the plain and simple text of the U.S. Constitution.  He also believes it is only a federal issue.  That is debatable, since it directly affects the 50 states that have already satisfied the two-thirds requirement; that is, all 50 states have already submitted 567 requests to make amendments.  Under Chris Harris' and the Supreme Court' interpretation, an Article V Convention is essentially impossible.  I do not believe that convenient interpretation is the spirit of the law. It certainly violates the clear and concise text of the U.S. Constitution. No where in Article V does it state a time limit, nor a same-subject requirement. If Congress and the Supreme Court are allowed these absurd and questionable interpretations, then the Constitution is worthless and we are no longer a nation of laws.
    Letter from Texas State Senator



    Article V of the U.S. 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; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


    Notice the word above is plural (i.e. amendments).
    Where does it say amendment requests must be same-subject?
    Where does it say anything about a time-limit?
    What part of whenever and shall don't they understand?

    In fact, I would strongly argue that same-subject was NEVER the intented meaning, because such a restriction is too onerous; too ridiculous; too oppressive.  It is ridiculous to draw the conclusion that all states must file same-subject amendments simultaneously; that is, to do the same thing all at the same time. That is like trying to herd cats. It's impossible. And Congress and the Supreme Court know it and have chosen to violate the Constitution in not only the direct text, but the spirit of the law too. 

    Picture of Bill Walker
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Bill Walker - Friday, 12 October 2007, 08:06 AM
     

    October 7, 2007

    State Senator Chris Harris
    522 South Edmonds
    Suite 200
    Lewisville, Texas, 75067

    Dear Senator Harris,

    My name is Bill Walker. I am a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention (FOAVC). I am not a resident of your great state. However, recently you responded to an inquiry by another of our co-founders Mr. Daniel Summars of Lewisville, Texas. He sent me a copy of your response to him and after studying it for a few days feel it is appropriate to respond to certain statements made in your letter. I am sending this letter to you via fax and have included a copy of the letter with this response.

    You state you are "fully supportive of the peoples right to enact reforms if Congress ignores valid requests to amend the Constitution." I notice you do not define what is in your mind "valid." I assume that your support therefore is not "fully" as you state. Instead it is tempered by the idea if Congress determines the applications not to be "valid" they may be ignored. Further, Congress decides what is a "valid" application. Hence, what you in fact support is not "fully...the peoples right to enact reforms" but the right of Congress to disobey the law of the Constitution.

    You state in your letter that there have been several hundred applications submitted to Congress. I compliment you on this knowledge. Most people do not even know that much about convention applications. To be accurate, there have been 567 applications submitted by all 50 states, all but a few submitted in the 20th Century and more than half submitted between 1960 and 1992. If you wish a full accounting, I suggets reading my web-site at  www.article5.org and downloading my original brief in my first federal law suit, Walker v United States at  www.article5.org/webbrief.pdfOh yes, and by the way, since we are being accurate, it is U.S. Constitution, not U.S. constituent  (see in 1st sentence of your 2nd paragraph).

    Article V states that Congress shall call a convention on the application of two-thirds of the state legislatures. In their texts, many of the applications submitted by the legislatures have addressed a proposed subject. The Constitution does not require an amendment subject for an application. As stated in Federalist 85 by the author of Article V, Alexander Hamilton, the applications are a simple numeric count of states and no more. I suggest reading Federalist 85 as well as the U.S. Constitution before you assert language that does not exist in the Constitution.

    You state that Congress has not received enough applications that deal with the same subject matter to call a convention. This is a falsehood and a false statement. Even though the Constitution does not require amendment subjects in order to compel Congress to call a convention, at least four subjects have received sufficient support, each on their own, to cause a convention call. For your information, they are direct election of U.S. Senators, repeal of federal income tax, apportionment and balanced budget. You can view the list of states that have applied for these in the brief I have cited. By the way please do not try the old argument that because Congress passed the 17th amendment, this eliminated the applications for direct election of senators or that the applications were one short. Congress received the last application for direct election of senators in 1911. There were 31 applications submitted to Congress on this same subject. In 1911, there were only 46 states in the Union. I assume you realize that two-thirds of 46 is 30.6 or 31 applications. Finally, there is no language in the Constitution to suggest that the passage of an amendment eliminates the obligation of Congress to call a convention once the states have applied for it. Only an actual convention call can do that.

    You mention a federal court case in your letter. I was the plaintiff in that lawsuit, Walker v Members of Congress. I am very familiar with it and wish to correct a few statements you made. First unlike many people, you do realize the court made a ruling. The court ruled that despite the "peremptory" language of Article V (I’m quoting Hamilton here from Federalist 85 as well as the actual language used during the 1787 Convention) that Congress can decide whether to call a convention under the political question doctrine. Thus, under that doctrine Congress has a choice to obey the Constitution. If Congress does not want to obey the law of the Constitution, it does not have to. You are right the Supreme Court refused to hear my lawsuit. However, not before the government admitted for the public record that the defendants in the lawsuit (each member of Congress) had violated federal criminal law in violation of their oath of office. Not before the government admitted the obligation of Congress to call a convention was "peremptory." Finally, not before the government admitted a convention call is based on a numeric count of applying states, not same amendment subject. As all of this is public record, I am revealing nothing you probably do not already know but chose to misrepresent.

    The decision in Walker v Members of Congress was based on the Supreme Court ruling, Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). Before this in four rulings, the Supreme Court had specified in direct language that Congress must call an Article V Convention. In Coleman, a decision that did not even mention the convention method of amendment, the court gave Congress "exclusive" control of the entire amendatory process. This included the right of Congress to have members of the state legislatures arrested by military force and compelled to "ratify" an amendment "proposed" by Congress. Perhaps, as this fact could easily affect you personally you might understand why I tried to have this ruling overturned in appeal.

    This issue is absolute senator. You believe, as a loyal patriotic American the law of the Constitution is obeyed. Otherwise, you are not a loyal patriotic American and believe it can be disobeyed. There is no middle ground. The Constitution states Congress shall call a convention when the states have applied. The states have applied. Either the Constitution is obeyed or it is not. Because the convention is in fact a state power, you cannot pass it off to federal officials. Your state and 49 others made these applications, a right granted them in the Constitution and the states and the people they represent have a right to expect the Congress of the United States to obey the law of the Constitution and call a convention as that document specifies. I urge you to do what you can to see that the Constitution is obeyed.

    Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to correct misstatements in your letter.

    Sincerely,

    Bill Walker

    FOAVC co-founder
    FOAVC@isomedia.com
    Cc: Daniel Summars

    Picture of Daniel Summars
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Daniel Summars - Friday, 5 October 2007, 05:21 PM
     

    I received a phone call today (about 4PM) from Kay Bailey Hutchison's office (U.S. Senator from Texas).
    The woman (not Kay Bailey Hutchison) stated that the reason Congress has not called a convention is because two-thirds of the states have not submitted requests for an amendment of the same language (i.e. same-subject).  Arguing that Article V states "amendments", not "same-subject amendments" with a staff member is futile, so that's all there is to it.  I'm very curious as to why a phone call from a staff member was chosen over a letter?  Is it possible some Congress persons do not want it on record (in writing) what their position is?

    WW Fishing for Ideas
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Weary Willie - Saturday, 6 October 2007, 08:14 PM
     

    Daniel,

    You've gone from being ignored to receiving a phone call!  It would be nice to see something in writing but at least you're on a positive trend. 

    My email is being rejected by 3 more of my local elected officials.  It's been one party rule in this county for so long their noses are in the air, not at the grindstone.

    38 states applied to address the income tax situation.  That sounds like "same-subject" by the required number of states.  They have already stated it is to be during the "same-session".  It sounds like this article is being interpreted to say the required number of states must submit a "same-subject" application in the "same-session". 

    Your phone call may be an effort to aquire information.  It sounds like a positive step.   It has defined parameters that Senator Hutchison and her peers must adhere to.  If the required number of states submitted an application instructing congress to call for an Article V convention she could not deny it from happening.

    It is the state legislatures who must submit this application. 

    Picture of Tyler Rud
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Tyler Rud - Saturday, 23 January 2010, 05:11 PM
     

    January 22, 2010

    Mr. Tyler Rud

    744 2nd St NW

    Wadena, Minnesota 56482-1245

    Dear Mr. Rud:

     Thank you for your message regarding Article V of the U.S. Constitution. I appreciate hearing from you.

     According to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution can be amended through one of two processes. An amendment must either pass by a vote of two-thirds in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate before being ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. The second method could occur if two-thirds of the states, or conventions within states, petition Congress for a convention. The amendments being considered through this process must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. It should be noted that the second method of amending the constitution, in which states request a convention, has never been used.

     I fully support Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

     I encourage you to also share your comments with your state representative and senator. You can use the following website for contact information for your state legislatures: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/.

     With best wishes.

    Sincerely,

    James L. Oberstar, M.C.

    JLO/wed

    Picture of Daniel Summars
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Daniel Summars - Monday, 25 January 2010, 07:09 PM
     
    James Oberstar states that he is supports Article V, yet he joined with members of Congress (who were represented by DOJ attorney Karen D. Utiger in Walker vs Members of Congress). That was essentially a unanimous decision to continue to ignore Article V of the U.S. Constitution (http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Articles/TextOfArticleVOfTheConstitution.htm).  Not a single Congress person stood up and said, "Hey! What's going on here. ALL 50 states have submitted over 700 Article V applications; far in excess of what is required per Article V.

    If James Oberstar supports Article V, then why has James Oberstar and other members of Congress still refused to call an Article V Convention, since the requirements in Article V have already been satisfied?

    These are the slippery sort of answers we've been getting from other politicians.
    They either ignore the question, skirt the issue, change the subject, or try to somehow obfuscate the facts and pretend that over 700 Article V applications from ALL 50 states is somehow insufficient:  http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm 

    We're on a slippery slope when the Constitution starts to be blatantly ignored or violated, because each new subsequent violation comes easier and easier.
    Thanks again for trying to get a straight answer from your politicians.
    • TABLE 01:   750 Amendments by ALL 50 States (sorted by Year and/or Sequence)

    • TABLE 02:   750 Amendments by ALL 50 States and Total Applications Per Issue

    • TABLE 03:   180 Balanced Budget/General Amendments by 39 Different States

    • TABLE 04:   135 Apportionment/General Amendments by 35 Different States

    • TABLE 05:   750 Amendments by ALL 50 States (sorted by State)

    • TABLE 06:   167 Amendments by 36 Different States (sorted by State) in 7 years from 1963 to 1969

    • TABLE 07:     57 Amendments by 38 Different States (sorted by State) in 7 years from 1965 to 1971

    • Images  of  Article V  Amendment Applications

    Tyler, Thanks for trying!

    Picture of Tyler Rud
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Tyler Rud - Monday, 25 January 2010, 01:02 AM
     
    Office of Sen. Al Franken

    Thank you for your recent message to my U.S. Senate office. Each week, several thousand Minnesotans send me their thoughts and suggestions on legislation and important issues facing our nation. This impressive volume is a testament to the Minnesotan traditions of grassroots activism and civic participation that distinguish our state.

    In recent months Minnesotans have contacted my office to share their views on the economic recovery bill, health care, education, and numerous other policy issues. I appreciate hearing from each one of you because understanding your views helps me better represent all of my constituents. I closely track the concerns that are expressed in your letters and emails, and will answer them as soon as possible.

    My Minnesota staff is also available to handle specific services related to the federal government (such as trouble with passport applications, claims for veterans' benefits, or citizenship matters). If you are ever in Washington, D.C., I invite you to attend my weekly constituent breakfast every Wednesday from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. ET, when the Senate is in session. You can also ask my staff to arrange a tour of the Capitol. For assistance, please go to my web site http://franken.senate.gov/ or call my Minnesota office at (651) 221-1016 or Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-5641.

    Thanks again for writing and I look forward to continuing our conversation.


    Sincerely,
    Signature
    Al Franken
    United States Senator


    P.S. To sign up to receive my email updates visit http://franken.senate.gov/

    Picture of Daniel Summars
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Daniel Summars - Monday, 25 January 2010, 07:09 PM
     
    Sad.
    Al Franken didn't even address the issue.
    What a waste of time and paper.
    Tyler, Thanks for trying!
    Picture of Tyler Rud
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Tyler Rud - Tuesday, 26 January 2010, 02:18 AM
     
    I am hoping that Al Franken will get back to me, even if it is B.S. The last time I emailed him it took around 2-3 weeks to get a final reply.

    P.S. As a Minnesotan, I want to personally apologize to the nation, that Al Franken somehow got elected to the U.S. Senate

    I also sent a email to Senator Amy Klobuchar about article V, still waiting for a response, Every time I have emailed her she does at least respond

    I also sent an email (below) to my state Senator, Dan Skogen
    And my state Representative, Mark Murdock

    What is your position on Article V of the Constitution?

    Do you think Congress and the Supreme Court have the right to veto
    and ignore the states' and the peoples' right to an Article V
    Convention? Already, the legislatures of ALL 50 states have made 750+
    requests on things ranging from Term-Limits,
    Balanced-Budget-Amendment, to Tax Reform.

    Please let me know.

    Article V of the U.S. 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; provided that no amendment which may
    be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall
    in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section
    of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be
    deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


    Thank you,

    Tyler Rud
    744 2nd ST NW
    Wadena, MN 56482

    Picture of Tyler Rud
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Tyler Rud - Thursday, 28 January 2010, 10:26 AM
     
    Good Morning Tyler,
    I believe the Washington mentality has gone too far away from what our Founding Fathers wanted in our Constitution. We should have a balanced budget, Minnesota does, term limits, yes. I hope this answers your question, if not let me know.
    Thanks,
    Mark.




    State Representative Mark Murdock
    House District 10B
    213 State Office Building
    St. Paul, MN 55155
    Office: 651-296-4293
    Fax: 651-296-3918
    rep.mark.murdock@house.mn

    Please sign up for my email updates at www.house.mn/10B
    Picture of Tyler Rud
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Tyler Rud - Monday, 1 February 2010, 03:00 PM
     
    Mark Murdock,

    I first want to thank you for responding to me, but you never did
    answer my question, could you please read my question carefully and
    respond back to me thanks


    What is your position on Article V of the Constitution?

    Do you think Congress and the Supreme Court have the right to veto
    and ignore the states' and the peoples' right to an Article V
    Convention? Already, the legislatures of ALL 50 states have made 750+
    requests on things ranging from Term-Limits,
    Balanced-Budget-Amendment, to Tax Reform.

    Please let me know.

    Article V of the U.S. 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; provided that no amendment which may
    be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall
    in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section
    of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be
    deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


    Hey Tyler,
    I guess I did not make myself real clear in my first response. I support the whole Constitution.
    Mark.




    State Representative Mark Murdock
    House District 10B
    213 State Office Building
    St. Paul, MN 55155
    Office: 651-296-4293
    Fax: 651-296-3918
    rep.mark.murdock@house.mn

    Please sign up for my email updates at www.house.mn/10B
    Picture of FOAVC Administrator
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by FOAVC Administrator - Friday, 5 February 2010, 07:35 AM
     

    If any Congress person claims to support the Constitution of the United States, then why are they silent about the blatant violation of Article V, despite over 700 Article V applications from all 50 states? 

    Tyler, thanks for trying.  Though Mark Murdock claims to support the "whole constitution", his response seems to indicate that he does not believe Congress is required to call a Convention?   

    Yet, another (of many) slippery and evasive response to a very simple question.

    Picture of Tyler Rud
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Tyler Rud - Thursday, 18 February 2010, 11:34 PM
     
    Dear Senator Dan Skogen,

    What is your position on Article V of the Constitution?

    Do you think Congress and the Supreme Court have the right to veto
    and ignore the states' and the peoples' right to an Article V
    Convention? Already, the legislatures of ALL 50 states have made 750+
    requests on things ranging from Term-Limits,
    Balanced-Budget-Amendment, to Tax Reform.

    Please let me know.

    Article V of the U.S. 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; provided that no amendment which may
    be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall
    in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section
    of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be
    deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.



    Mr. Tyler Rud
    744 2nd St NW
    Wadena, Minnesota 56482-1245

    Dear Tyler:

    Thanks for your question.
    As your state senator, I took an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Minnesota. I support all the articles and amendments of the US and Minnesota Constitutions, including Article V of the former.
    The Minnesota Legislature has no authority over how Congress sets its rules regarding the acceptance of petitions from states. However, to answer your second question, neither Congress nor the U.S. Supreme Court has "veto powers." Only the President has them, and then only in regards to Congressional acts.
    I am not an attorney, but it appears to me that the best legal resolution available for questions of the process of Article V petitions and Congressional acceptance would be through the courts. Therefore, if citizens seek adjudication on this issue, they would need to put their challenge through the federal courts process.

    Thanks again for contacting me.

    Dan
    WW Fishing for Ideas
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Weary Willie - Sunday, 21 February 2010, 06:22 PM
     

    Senator Dan Skogen,
    You stated:

    Therefore, if citizens seek adjudication on this issue, they would need to put their challenge through the federal courts process.

    This was tried and information relating to the case in front of the supreme court is available at Foavc.org.  The citizen bringing the case forward was found to have no standing and the case was dismissed.  The Judges opinion was that the States must bring this case to the supreme court.

    That puts the ball in your court Mr. Senator.  What do you  intend to do about it?

    Picture of FOAVC Administrator
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by FOAVC Administrator - Saturday, 24 April 2010, 08:22 AM
     
    From: Senator Debbie Stabenow <senator@stabenow.senate.gov>
    Subject: Re: Article V Convention
    To: sandrawhite333@yahoo.com
    Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010, 5:00 PM

    United States Senator Debbie Stabenow - Michigan

    April 15, 2010

    Sandra White
    7120 Ready Rd
    Po Box 243

    South Rockwood, MI 48179

    Dear Sandra,

    Thank you for contacting me about ensuring the constitutional authority of legislation passed by Congress. I understand your concerns. 

    As you know, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) introduced the Enumerated Powers Act (S.1319) on June 22, 2009. This bill would require every act of Congress to contain language explaining the specific constitutional authority from which it draws its legal basis. Currently, this legislation is pending before the Senate Rules Committee, of which I am not a member. If this or similar legislation should come before me for a vote I will keep your strong views in mind. 

    Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed about issues of concern to you and your family.

    Sincerely,

    Debbie Stabenow
    United States Senator

     

    U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow
    The United States Senate • Washington, DC 20510
    stabenow.senate.gov

    Picture of Daniel Summars
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Daniel Summars - Saturday, 24 April 2010, 08:29 AM
     

    As usual, another politician that side-steps the issue completely, and refuses to address Article V of the Constitution.  No surprise here.  It's unlikely Congress will ever call an Article V Convention, because they know there will be amendments that may limit their abuse of power, such as term-limits, a balanced budget, no more automatic annual raises for Congress, campaign finance reform, etc.

    Picture of Frank Jerome
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by Frank Jerome - Saturday, 4 December 2010, 11:13 AM
     

    No, but I know my Congressional Rep and Senators positions on the Constitution which is to completely ignore it. Why would I ever want representatives so completely ignorant of the Constitution, who repeatedly support legislation that undermines it to represent me at a Constitutional Convention?

    I am not insane enough to imagine that they will suddenly become cognizant and supportive of a document that they take an oath of office to uphold and then repeatedly demonstrate that they have absolutely no desire to support. My efforts will best be spent working to get each and every one of them out of office at the earliest possible point and replaced with someone who is willing to adhere to their oath of office.

    This can only come when more of us are operating from a framework of being informed as to the limited nature of our Federal government and the sovereign nature of the States and individual citizens. Personally, I am looking for a Constitutionally sound replacement not the support of politicians who obviously have no intention of upholding the integrity of their oath of office.

    Picture of FOAVC Administrator
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by FOAVC Administrator - Sunday, 5 December 2010, 12:07 PM
     
    Frank Jerome wrote: Why would I ever want representatives so completely ignorant of the Constitution, who repeatedly support legislation that undermines it to represent me at a Constitutional Convention?

    Jerome, That is a good question. The answer is, delegates for a Article V Convention are not necessarily members of Congress. In fact, according to 7.3 below, the Constitution prohibits member of Congress from holding other offices (such as being a delegate to an Article V Convention).

    See 7.X in the FOAVC FAQ:

    (7.1)
    QUESTION:   How will delegates be chosen for an Article V Convention?

     
    ßback   ANSWER:   Delegates will be elected to their positions of office. In Hawke v Smith (253 U.S. 221 (1920)) the Supreme Court addressed the issue when it discussed ratification conventions saying: "Both method of ratification, by Legislatures or conventions, call for action by deliberative assemblages representative of the people..."

    The court thus defined what the word "conventions" mean in the text of the Constitution: deliberative assemblages representative of the people, and equates that with legislatures, all of whom are representatives elected by the people of the state.

    Beyond this, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause as well as Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution make it clear that all citizens are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must be citizens of the United States and that they must be elected to that office. The Fourteenth Amendment creates two citizenships for all citizens of the United States: citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside or, state citizenship. Citizens, whether elected to Congress or to an Article V Convention receive, as a result of that election, the privilege to offer amendments to the Constitution and therefore the 14th Amendment requires that both sets of citizens, members of Congress and delegates to a convention must receive equal protection under the law. This means as members of Congress are elected and receive the privilege to offer amendment proposals, delegates who are given the same privilege to offer amendment proposals, must also be elected.


    (7.3) QUESTION:   Would delegates be  already elected officials such as current members of Congress, sitting governors or state legislators?

     
    ßback   ANSWER:    No. Neither sitting governors, state legislators or members of Congress could not be delegates to a convention and retain their current office. Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution is plain on the matter. No member of Congress may hold another civil office and no person holding any office in the United States may be a member of Congress and hold the other office. The principle is well established as many members of Congress as well as presidential candidates have held other civil offices before being elected and, as required by the Constitution, were required to resign before assuming their office in Congress or the office of president.

    This clause of the Constitution does not prevent a member of Congress, sitting governors or members of state legislatures from seeking the office of convention delegate like any other citizen, but they would be required to resign that office upon election as a delegate.


    Picture of FOAVC Administrator
    Re: Do you know your Congress persons' position on Article V of the Constitution?
    by FOAVC Administrator - Saturday, 5 February 2011, 01:45 PM
     
    Here's a response from my federal representative for Texas, 26th District.
    Notice how this Congress person also dances around the question, without ever answering the question?
    Why do most (if not all) Congress persons do that?



    Dear Ms. Summars:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for an Article V Constitutional Convention. I appreciate hearing from you.

    You wrote of your support for an Article V Constitutional Convention, which would provide for the following:

    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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    In other words, amendments to the U.S. Constitution may be approved by two-thirds of the Congress or proposed by a Constitutional convention. According to Article V, Congress must call for an amendment-proposing convention, "on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States", and therefore 34 state legislatures would have to submit applications. Once an Article V convention has proposed amendments, then each of those amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38 states, in order to become a part of the Constitution. While many applications for constitutional conventions have been made by the states, none of them has ever succeeded, and all amendments to the Constitution were made by Congress,


    While the process to amend the Constitution is difficult, if not almost impossible, I share your concerns for issues that are affecting our nation and require the immediate attention of Congress. In the Midterm elections of 2010, the American people made it clear, they want less spending,
    more border security, and tax reform. That is why one of the first actions taken by the Republican majority in the House of Representative was to cut our own budget by 5%. This means that every Representative's office, every House Committee and every House Leadership office will receive 5% less than they received in 2010. The Members Representational Allowance (MRA), which is the technical name for the amount of funding each office receives, is used to pay staff salaries, pay for the rent of our district offices, respond and send mail to constituents, and pay for office supplies, among other things. Since the beginning of our current economic recession, many American families have had to learn how to balance their budgets with less money and it is only right that Congress, which is paid for by these families, should have to do the same. This is only step one, however, in a long line of steps of getting our nation's unsustainable deficit fixed. As the 112th Congress continues over the coming months, I assure you that Republicans will work ensure that our budget is balanced because that is what the American people have sent us to Washington, D.C. to do.

    I strongly support a balanced federal budget and will continue to work towards achieve a balanced budget as soon as possible. I am an original cosponsor to House Joint Resolution 1, The Balanced Budget Amendment. H.J. Res. 1 is a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance the budget.


    You also wrote of your support for reforming the Fourteenth Amendment. As you may know, H.R. 140 was introduced by Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) on January 5, 2011. If passed, this bill would no longer allow babies born in the United States to automatically become citizens if their parents are in the country illegally. Under current federal law, based on recent interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court, if one is born in the United States then they are a citizen.

    Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution states that:


    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."


    This is sometimes referred to as the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution, though the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been a debated issue over time. During my tenure in Congress, I have supported legislative proposals that would change the status quo and, under certain conditions, would not automatically grant citizenship to children born to parents illegally in the country.


    I am aware of the immense importance the immigration debate holds on the state of Texas. Now more than ever, as America faces the threat of terrorism, we must ensure that our nation's borders are secure. As a member of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, I have been working with my colleagues to address the problems in our current policy.

    For these reasons I have chosen to join Congressman King in co-sponsoring this legislation. H.R. 140 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. While I am not a member of this Committee, as a co-sponsor of H.R. 140, I can assure you that I will support this legislation.


    Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the U.S. House of Representatives. Please feel free to visit my website (www.house.gov/burgess) or contact me with any future concerns.

    Sincerely,

    Michael C. Burgess, M.D.
    Member of Congress



    I responded to Rep. Michael Burgess (below), but doubt we'll ever get an answer to the our one simple question . . .

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Daniel Summars
    Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 6:26 PM
    Subject: From Congressman Burgess (Article V of the U.S. Constitution)

    Dear Mr. Burgess,

    You wrote below:

    Mr. Burgess wrote: While many applications for constitutional conventions have been made by the states, none of them has ever succeeded, and all amendments to the Constitution were made by Congress, . . .

    That is ONLY because Congress is violating Article V by refusing to call an Article V Convention, as clearly required by Article V.

    ALL 50 states have ALREADY submitted over 400 Article V Applications (far in excess of the 34 needed to require Congress to call an Article V Convention).

    Eventually, as the federal government continues to grow increasingly bloated, wasteful, and corrupt, the chances increase that at least one state legislator will finally sue Congress for their blatant violation of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

    What part of the following 143 words of Article V do you not understand?

    Article V of the U.S. 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; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


    So, what is your logic that Congress is not required to call an Article V Convention, when ALL 50 states have ALREADY submitted over 400 Article V Applications?

    Where in the 143 words of Article V, or any law, or any court cases, is there anything that supports Congress' failure to obey Article V of the U.S. Constitution?
    What law trumps the Supreme Law of the Land?
    Where in Article V, or any law, or any court cases, is there anything about any "same amendment issue" requirements, or any "expiration time-limits" for Article V applications?

    Here's the list of over 400 Article V applications from the National Records And Archives Administration:

    Hundreds of Article V Applications from all 50 states (click on links below to view an image and click on the image to enlarge it (depending on browser); NOTE: CR=Congressional Record, Pg=Page, Yr=Year):

    1. General Annals of Congress 1 (J. Gales Ed.) Pg 00029 Yr 1789-NY-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued to: Page 00030)
    2. General Annals of Congress 1 (J. Gales Ed.) Pg 00257 Yr 1789-VA-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued 259, 261)
    3. Journal HR 022 Pg 00227 Yr 1832-GA-Nullification;
    4. CG 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1860-DE-Slavery; 1
    5. CG 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1860-AR-Slavery; 1
    6. CG 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1860-TN-Slavery; 1
    7. CG 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-KY-Slavery; 1
    8. CG 036 Pg 00680 Yr 1861-NJ-Slavery
    9. CG 037 Pg 00773 Yr 1861-KY-Slavery
    10. CG 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-NJ-Slavery; 1
    11. CG 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-IN-Slavery; 1
    12. CG 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-IL-Slavery; 1
    13. CG 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1861-OH-Slavery; 1
    14. CG 036 Pg 01270 Yr 1861-KY-Slavery
    15. CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1863-DE-Peaceful Resolution to Civil War; 1
    16. CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1863-KY-Slavery; Reaffirming Application of 1861; 1
    17. CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1864-OR-Peaceful Resolution to Civil War; 1
    18. CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1867-NC-Reducing Effects of Emancipation; 1
    19. CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1893-NE-Direct Election of Senators; 1
    20. CR 024 Pg 01603 Yr 1893-NE-Direct Election of Senators
    21. CR 0?? Pg ????? Yr 1899-PA-Direct Election of Senators; 1
    22. CR 033 Pg 00219 Yr 1899-TX-General Call for an Article V Convention
    23. CR 033 Pg 00930 Yr 1900-PA-Direct Election of Senators
    24. CR 033 Pg 00971 Yr 1900-PA-Direct Election of Senators
    25. CR 034 Pg 02560 Yr 1901-MN-Direct Election of Senators
    26. CR 034 Pg 02615 Yr 1901-MN-Direct Election of Senators
    27. CR 034 Pg 02680 Yr 1901-MN-Direct Election of Senators
    28. CR 035 Pg 00112 Yr 1901-NV-Direct Election of Senators
    29. CR 035 Pg 00112 Yr 1901-OR-Direct Election of Senators
    30. CR 035 Pg 00112 Yr 1901-CO-Direct Election of Senators
    31. CR 035 Pg 00117 Yr 1901-MI-Direct Election of Senators
    32. CR 035 Pg 00117 Yr 1901-OR-Direct Election of Senators
    33. CR 035 Pg 00208 Yr 1901-MT-Direct Election of Senators (continued to: Page 00209)
    34. CR 035 Pg 01779 Yr 1901-NE-Direct Election of Senators
    35. CR 035 Pg 02344 Yr 1902-TN-Direct Election of Senators
    36. CR 035 Pg 02707 Yr 1902-TN-Direct Election of Senators
    37. CR 037 Pg 00024 Yr 1903-NV-Direct Election of Senators
    38. CR 037 Pg 00276 Yr 1903-WI-Direct Election of Senators
    39. CR 038 Pg 04959 Yr 1904-IA-Direct Election of Senators
    40. CR 039 Pg 02447 Yr 1905-MT-Direct Election of Senators
    41. CR 040 Pg 00138 Yr 1905-MO-Direct Election of Senators
    42. CR 041 Pg 02497 Yr 1907-SD-Direct Election of Senators
    43. CR 041 Pg 03011 Yr 1907-DE-Anti-Polygamy
    44. CR 041 Pg 03072 Yr 1907-KS-General Call for an Article V Convention
    45. CR 042 Pg 00163 Yr 1907-NV-Direct Election of Senators
    46. CR 042 Pg 00164 Yr 1907-IL-Direct Election of Senators
    47. CR 042 Pg 00164 Yr 1907-NJ-Direct Election of Senators
    48. CR 042 Pg 00359 Yr 1907-IL-Direct Election of Senators
    49. CR 042 Pg 00894 Yr 1908-OK-Direct Election of Senators
    50. CR 042 Pg 00895 Yr 1908-WI-Direct Election of Senators
    51. CR 042 Pg 00895 Yr 1908-NV-Direct Election of Senators
    52. CR 042 Pg 00895 Yr 1908-IA-Direct Election of Senators
    53. CR 042 Pg 05906 Yr 1908-LA-Direct Election of Senators
    54. CR 042 Pg 05906 Yr 1908-LA-General Call for an Article V Convention
    55. CR 043 Pg 02025 Yr 1909-OR-Direct Election of Senators
    56. CR 043 Pg 02065 Yr 1909-OR-Direct Election of Senators
    57. CR 043 Pg 02071 Yr 1909-OR-Direct Election of Senators
    58. CR 043 Pg 02115 Yr 1909-OR-Direct Election of Senators
    59. CR 043 Pg 02667 Yr 1909-SD-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Page 02688)
    60. CR 043 Pg 02668 Yr 1909-SD-Direct Election of Senators
    61. CR 043 Pg 02670 Yr 1909-SD-Anti-Polygamy
    62. CR 043 Pg 04339 Yr 1911-ME-Direct Election of Senators
    63. CR 045 Pg 07113 Yr 1910-AR-Direct Election of Senators
    64. CR 045 Pg 07113 Yr 1910-CO-Direct Election of Senators
    65. CR 045 Pg 07113 Yr 1910-CO-General Call for an Article V Convention
    66. CR 045 Pg 07114 Yr 1910-IA-Direct Election of Senators
    67. CR 045 Pg 07114 Yr 1910-IA-General Call for an Article V Convention
    68. CR 045 Pg 07114 Yr 1910-ID-General Call for an Article V Convention
    69. CR 045 Pg 07114 Yr 1910-IN-Direct Election of Senators
    70. CR 045 Pg 07114 Yr 1910-IN-General Call for an Article V Convention
    71. CR 045 Pg 07114 Yr 1910-IL-Direct Election of Senators (continued: Page 07114)
    72. CR 045 Pg 07114 Yr 1910-IL-General Call for an Article V Convention
    73. CR 045 Pg 07115 Yr 1910-KY-Direct Election of Senators
    74. CR 045 Pg 07115 Yr 1910-KS-Direct Election of Senators
    75. CR 045 Pg 07115 Yr 1910-KS-General Call for an Article V Convention
    76. CR 045 Pg 07115 Yr 1910-LA-General Call for an Article V Convention
    77. CR 045 Pg 07115 Yr 1910-LA-Direct Election of Senators
    78. CR 045 Pg 07116 Yr 1910-MN-Direct Election of Senators

    79. . . . more (over 400+ applications) . . .