



If you truly believe in our constitutional republic and representative democracy with safeguards, then you must demand that every presidential candidate take a clear, unequivocal position on this Article V constitutional convention requirement. It is time for the Executive Branch to stand up for constitutional integrity. Every single one of us should demand from whoever becomes our new president in 2008 a commitment to pressure Congress for a convention. He or she should do that soon after taking office â€“ after swearing to defend and uphold our Constitution. Should we accept anything less?



How could candidates for the presidency say that a clear constitutional clause is not valid? Nor must they be allowed to do what Congress has done â€“ simply ignore the whole Article V convention issue. Take a stand! Inaction means our Constitution will suffer three strikes and have even less credibility with the many U.S. citizens and people worldwide who already see American democracy riddled with hypocrisy.



And where the hell is our mainstream news media? Is not obeying our Constitution worthy of their attention?



[The subject of Constitutional conventions and many other forms of direct democracy are examined in the authorâ€™s new book Delusional Democracy; check it out at he states would hold special elections for delegates; the delegates would convene and make their own rules for reaching decisions. Once all the delegates had proposed their ideas and agreed on what amendments should be ratified by the states, the convention would end. The proposed amendments would then be sent out to the states by Congress; the ratification process would begin. Once any single amendment garnered the approval of 38 states â€“ a high hurdle â€“ it would be amended to the Constitution. A host of electoral reforms could be enacted to rejuvenate our American democracy.If you truly believe in our constitutional republic and representative democracy with safeguards, then you must demand that every presidential candidate take a clear, unequivocal position on this Article V constitutional convention requirement. It is time for the Executive Branch to stand up for constitutional integrity. Every single one of us should demand from whoever becomes our new president in 2008 a commitment to pressure Congress for a convention. He or she should do that soon after taking office â€“ after swearing to defend and uphold our Constitution. Should we accept anything less?How could candidates for the presidency say that a clear constitutional clause is not valid? Nor must they be allowed to do what Congress has done â€“ simply ignore the whole Article V convention issue. Take a stand! Inaction means our Constitution will suffer three strikes and have even less credibility with the many U.S. citizens and people worldwide who already see American democracy riddled with hypocrisy.And where the hell is our mainstream news media? Is not obeying our Constitution worthy of their attention?[The subject of Constitutional conventions and many other forms of direct democracy are examined in the authorâ€™s new book Delusional Democracy; check it out at www.delusionaldem

Congress has never responded to many requests from states by calling a convention, supposedly because those applications requested amendments on different subjects. However, Article V does not explicitly require that state requests must specify what amendment(s) they are interested in pursuing. Congressional inaction has contributed to the impression that states must petition for the same amendment(s). However, federal courts have never ruled on this "precedent," nor should they. We do not need any judicial decision, because Article V does not require that states specify anything other than their desire for a convention. Logically, to require states to signal in advance what they were interested in doing would create the potential for congressional refusal to call a convention. Thus, the Founders knew what they were doing when they did not require such notification.As if the illegal inactions by Congress is not enough to make your patrotic blood boil, the Supreme Court rejected hearing a case that claimed it was illegal for Congress to avoid calling a convention. In August 2006 Bill Walker filed a petition of close to 1,000 pages; he noted that 49 states had requested a convention. He correctly emphasized that â€œOn its face, that fact alone compels Congress to call a convention, which it has not, and compels the judicial system, under its oath to support the Constitution, to enforce that documentâ€™s provision and declare such inaction by Congress, unconstitutional.â€On October 30, 2006 the Supreme Court denied certiorari to this question in Walker v. Members of Congress (06-244). By refusing to hear the case it allowed the direct text of the United States Constitution to be vetoed with impunity by Congress. What is so disturbing is that the Supreme Court did not think it worthy or that it had a Constitutional duty to address the power of Congress by itself to veto an explicit clause and provision in our Constitution. Thus two branches of the federal government violated their sacred, sworn oath to obey the Constitution. Simply put, the refusal of Congress to issue the call for a convention even when a sufficient number of applying states exists is unconstitutional, and the refusal of the Supreme Court to rule that Congress has acted unconstitutionally was itself unconstitutional.Imagine this: Congress upholds its oath and issues a call for a Constitutional convention. T