By the way, I want to personally give Mucho Kudos to John Culberson and his Aide, Tony Essalih. Both have been VERY accessible to those of us on the right side of the blogosphere here in Houston. I want everyone to know just how much I personally appreciate all they do, even if I DON'T happen to live in his district.

draft excerpts of our new book coming out soon….you mean GOP articles like this?

The Tool Box That Has Never Been Opened?
Article 5 of the US Constitution, the most powerful law on the books?

Did you know you can write a law and get it in the US Constitution, without the approval of Congress? God opens the ears of the oppressed.

Who will tell a black man what to do? A big government, or a small government? Accusations of racism in the country are convenient excuses, tools of division to guard against the use of political power by the People, when they come together, to bypass the wishes of elected political representatives? One day, racism will be put aside, and three fourths of the People, will agree to write the law of the land, it is not if, but when, where, how and why. You see, if they can play the race card, then Article V of the US Constitution, becomes a pipe dream, and a political fantasy, rather than a power of the People?

The Law of the Land, can be written by the People, bypassing both the elected Congress? That's what Article 5 of the US Constitution says, but how many people scare you into not talking about it? Only the people that want your power and money?

Lets look at the article:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to the US 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.
The purpose of Article V is clear, when Congress becomes corrupt, the People have a mechanism to bypass the wishes of Congress.

James Kenneth Rogers is an author of an online PDF file I read today on harvard.edu, which was referenced by the wikipedia.org website while searching the term Convention to propose amendments. While he makes the assertion that some aspects of the convention are not clear, making me wonder if college educations are a rip off, I will dispense of that arguement today.

There are two flaws in the Amendment, giving Congress the choice of ratification process when it does not initiate the amendments itself, and a process where the Citizens can initiate an Amendment, and approve it, regardless of either State or Federal elected governments. The risks of the power of the Citizens to initiate and approve amendments independent of elected represenatives unwilling to do so, could be limited by restricting voting privledges to those with high school diplomas, photo ids, or the absence of monetary or benefit assistance by public monies, who do not apply for public assistance.

The power of the Amendment process was to provide a safety mechanism when Congress ignored the wishes of the State, not when both the State and the Congress ignored the wishes of the Citizen, I must assume that the belief held was that you could not corrupt the State government, or that the citizens would be able to secure power and influence over one or the other forms of government.

There are two ways to amend the US Constitution:

1. When two thirds of both houses of Congress deem it necessary.

2. When two thirds of the States deem it necessary, and when their Secretary of States submit the same application by two thirds of the total number of States.

There should be little confusion at all regarding the ratification process, each State has a Constitution that provides the legislative process to pass law. What ever process that is, is enacted by each state, which then petitions Congress for the amendments, and ratifies the amendments. Responsibility for ratification costs would be born by the States, although there should be no prohibition for private or public financial gaurantees for counting costs, which should be written in State Constitutions.

Fifty states multiplied by point six six, equals thirty three states. That is the number of states needed to force Congress to call a Convention, and recognize such proposed amendments as new law, when ratified by three fourths of the States. That is simply a matter of an additional five states. In fact it may be simpler to simply wait until you have 38 states before applying for the Convention, it could then be approved the same day.

It is a very quick process, in any case, since much of the approval has been done prior to the introduction of the amendment. The only role Congress has in this process, is to choose the ratification process, either by state legislature, or by Convention. Since it is forced to choose, it can only choose a valid method, in the case a Convention can not be used, or the procedures or methods defined, the state legislatures are required to be used, since you can not choose a method that does not work in the presence of one that does.

A convention is simply another word for election, only instead of electing a person, you are electing an idea into law. While the first Convention used delegates, in the absence of language, and the presence of state of the art technology using verfied databases and photo id cards, one could argue that a Convention can be satisfied by holding a popular vote on the Amendments in question. There is no requirement that delegates be used, hence, a popular vote on the issue would satisfy the ratification by Convention requirement, but only if Congress approves of that method (a flaw in my view), it may opt for the State Legislature ratification method, which I assume is declared by invididual State Constitutions.

While Amendments is used as a plural, we see that this was to ensure that the process could address several issues or topics at once, not open the requirement that that all unrelated issues or topics to the amendments are on the table. For example, proposing an amendment to force voters to have high school diplomas, does not mean that the right to bear arms is in peril, since the language of the amendment is under the control of the States, and they must all agree to the same language, or Amendment. Every word of the Amendments, must be ratified by the States, you can not just pretend that you can rewrite the whole Constitution, without rewriting it.

I believe critics of the law try to squeeze in these wierd ideas that the whole Constitution can become in peril, simply through the proposal process, or that Congress can limit the power of the Amendments when it is clear in the law that the three fourths agreement of the State Legislatures are superior to the two thirds of both houses of Congress regarding the Supreme Law of the Land, and this law is meant to over ride a Congress that had taken too much power or freedom away from the People.

The real power of the law is with the ability of the People to control their local state governments. The concepts are not confusing, and by believing there is some confusion in the law, when there is not (in my opinion) the view is held out by critics and suggested by James Rogers as a reason why the process is little used, or is more often used to threaten leverage against a Congress that needs to act. While researching this article, I came across a petition to repeal the Seventeeth Amendment, since the authors feel the presence of power of the State Legislatures, is necessary to provide balance in the Congress.

I believe there is too much power concentrated in the Senate, not only should the seventeeth Amendment be repealed, the subject of the Senate could be amended so that the number of Senators should be doubled for each state, with two Senators being elected by the citizens, and two Senators to be appointed by the State Legislature. The reason for the Senate is to put the interests of the States providence over the wishes of citizens, yet citizens elect all State delegates, which makes the argument of interest, yet not worth spending more energy than necessary on the subject, in my view fifty more representatives might help more than it can impede politics today.

While you may find the seventeeth Amendment interesting, a far more powerful arguement would be to grant citizens the power by popular vote to amend the US Constitution, by revoking the power of Congress to choose the method of ratification when Amendments are applied by application or Convention, and allowing a popular vote to both initiate or ratify the amendments, when the People have lost faith in elected officials or policies.

The original idea of represenative government is simple, through peer pressure, honor, integrity, character, and demonstrated ability through resumes of positions of authority or achievement, those who have demonstrated the greatest wisdom in life, offer their services to protect the weak, and serve the public, not to rip them off, control them, or depopulate the country. Through the choice of competition, representatives who have demonstrated success in life, are selected to lead, however that process may be subverted in a modern media age, easily demonstrated by a President who bragged about championing budget surpluses, when in fact his own political party has not even bothered to write a budget this year?

When the People have lost faith in their elected delegates have proven to be either corrupt or willing to promise that which can not be delivered, in both the State or Congressional offices, or if not corrupt, perhaps not as intelligent as the general public or private business interests demonstrate. It becomes a numbers game with real risks. If three fourths of the public are high school drop outs who don't want to work, you could politically or financially bankrupt the nation with popular votes. If the nation is three fourths, highly educated, motivated, and working, then you might want that power to have more control than the elected officials who demonstrate they have no interest in honoring their campaign promises.

Should that be an amendment, any politician who makes a campaign promise, and breaks it, should have their political party subject to heavy fines?

If you listen to talk radio very often, you often hear the topic come up, what can we do? The People are not powerless, and they do not have to wait for elections to project political power. Article 5 allows three fourths of the states to simply amend the US Constitution, any time they want. This is the last safety valve to protect the People from a tyrannical government, even one they elect, and it was put in the Constitution for a reason — to use it when necessary.

The day will come, if it has not arrived, to use that tool, and Glenn Beck is wrong, the conversation or purpose of the convention can be limited to a certain amendment, and not the entire Constitution. You can hold a Constitutional Convention to add one paragraph, or just one sentence, to the US Constitution, without the approval of any political party. For example, all congressional legislation passed during the period 1 Jan 2009 through 1 Nov 2010, is rescinded, could be one sentence, added as an amendment to the US Constitution, and made law.

It also means that freedom of speech, is freedom of speech, one can talk about any subject, in order to make their case concerning holding what is called a Constitutional Convention. There is no time frame for this legal mechanism, and you can not call people anti-government, when in fact, the US Government includes the mechanism to hold a Constitutional Convention, or use baseless arguements such as the fairness doctrine, to censor people.

It also means that Presidents in the past acted illegally, because the People refused to recognize the gift and the power of the US Constitution as written? Let's be clear folks, the elected Congress has no power in the face of a Constitutional Convention held by three fourths of the states legislature. And since Congress has no power over what a Constitutional Convention can do, it has no power over what you can propose or say about such a convention.

In other words, all it takes, is 38 states in the Union, to write a few sentences on a piece of paper, and it is immediately effective, regardless of the objections of elected members of Congress, as soon as it is published? That is the ultimate political weapon, and the safety valve to prevent citizens from such things as civil wars and violence.

For example, if the global currency collapsed, all the states could call a convention, and declare that they could all issue their own currencies, in the event the US dollar collapsed.

Another scenario, you could simply rescind all legistlative actions signed into law by the US Congress, with the exception of XYZ, effective such and such date. Yet, are the media gate keepers going to remind us of this power in the US Constitution, or will the People take back the media? Now please, call the radio shows, and ask these questions about the Constutitiional Convention. I think the media gate keepers are too scared to talk about it?

You could make an amendment, effective immediately, the Executive Branch can write no laws (and it should not have that power now?). Effective immediately, for the year 2010, the United States must hold a special election, to hold an election to remove President Obama? All it takes is one sentence, signed by 38 states?

You could legalize unpopular issues, such as recreational drugs, and politicians could not be blamed. Yet would the legalization of drugs result in more violence, from people using garden tools to kill people because they have chemically altered their sense of right and wrong, affecting public safety? The increase of child abuse, and sexual disease? What about reversing Supreme Court decisions, and make abortion illegal unless in cases of medical necessity, rape, and not simply by choice?

Did you notice we are back to jobs created or saved? Yes, it is suggested, but not proven, that Rush Limaugh, saved 25,000 liberals from the mental headaches of the future, by opening their ears from their slavery and oppression, with talent on loan, from God? It also means it is suggested, but unlikely to be proven, that Rush Limbaugh saved or created millions of housing units, since we can all now live rent free, inside the head of President Obama?

Freedom is not free, it requires all you can be

:)

If surpluses came from spending cuts, since when did the President champion that cause without first tripling spending? When things are not true, you just make them up?

Other news today:

Free health care is provided by the government, not by the choice of the citizen. In other words, I should be able to go to a hospital and say, I am willing to spend $10,000 for care, beyond which you may refuse treatment. The problem is that citizens do not want to write blank checks for the medical industry who will keep spending money until one thing happens, you either get better, or die.

I don't want to live on dog food, and pay hundreds of dollars a month on health care that I may never get, or have my money go to people that do not take care of themselves, let alone talk about medical practices with legal loopholes and known risks. Health care is based on private property, and labor, not the wishes of the public.

I am not going to be a lab rat for your drug industry, you are not going to measure me, weigh me, and otherwise invade my privacy. If this were about health, the industry would offer health loans, not health insurance, people need money to live while they are sick, and they should get the credit score they deserve for investing in the medical community, not get punished with insurance rates that no one will remember, or want to.

Citizens deserve the civil right to refuse or limit participation in the medical system, and not have some politician tell them what needs to happen. No one addresses the double dipping involved with car insurance medical coverage and health insurance. Car insurance medical coverage should not be required if mandatory health insurance becomes law. Mandatory car insurance did not bring down the health care costs, they just keep spending the money, making this all make no sense?

Here's a shout out to Bill Clinton, your hoping for change, huh? No, we dont' want Hillary as President, she's too silent and does not talk about conservatism? You are of course welcome to come to your nearest Tea Party. What comes around, goes around.

Additional Information: Printing of this page, discussions of fair use, printing of excerpted materials published, or similar activities outside of the control of the author, must include the following disclaimers if anyone, organization or other legal entity decides to ignore these agreements to use this web site, they will assume all legal liabilities for any alleged purpose that could result in either real or imagined damages, by any action, to any legal entity, and will be held liable for any legal defense costs or fees, to be chosen by the author, defending the author from any resulting legal proceedings and or loss of income.
Viewing this personal web page, and or the views and expressions of the author, which may include correspondence, written, audio, and or video, material contained within or linked outside this private web site, is at your own risk, you agree not to sue the author(s) of this web site for any damages, financial or other alleged violations of the law, to include anyone who transmits or stores the information, expressed in any partial or entire library of property created, for any punishment and or purpose that does not allow the author to retain the financial value of this work, regardless of any court of law or location, if you do not agree with these terms, you may not use this private web site, printed page or the material it contains for any purpose without the express permission of the author.

The views expressed by the author or web site may or may not contain factual information, may contain errors due to typographical, grammar, or other technical communication problems not realized or imagined, or the possibility of views based on false or missing information, and not as a definitive judgment on the actions, character, or reputation of an organization, individual, or groups of individuals, all commercial proceeds associated with the distribution of the content to remain the sole possession of the original author (after taxes).

I think one big problem is that many still don't read blogs. What draws so many conservative politicians to the middle is their reliance on getting so much information out of the print media (which tends to bend toward the left I'd say). I think that's a big part of why many in Washington don't yet understand the Tea Party and why “the base” is so upset with them.
You've got the time to assemble a great selection of articles from many sources, and that includes a diverse selection of blogs as well as print media. I think if they had an aid that would do much the same for them it would serve them well. It shouldn't be too hard to do, for you (with RWN and Linkiest) and a few others have already done much of the work for them. Add in a few of regional or local interest and they could do a much better job of keeping up with the world back home and outside the beltway.