I just testified before the House Judiciary Committee of the Rhode Island State Legislature, in support of a resolution introduced by Representative David Segal. Segal's resolution would exercise Rhode Island's right under the United States Constitution to demand that Congress call a convention "for proposing amendments" to the United States constitution. There has never before been such a convention, but I was very happy to testify in support of Segal's resolution.
The push for a convention is not a step lightly taken. Ours is the world's oldest continuous (written) constitutional government. There is plainly something our framers got right.
Yet it is impossible for any fair minded soul, whether Democratic or Republican, to look at the current state of the American democracy and not believe that something has gone profoundly wrong. Our framers intended a Congress "dependent upon the people alone." We have evolved a Congress dependent upon campaign funders. That competing, and indeed corrupting, dependency has destroyed Congress's ability to answer its first obligation fairly. It has distracted Congress from the demands that this democracy makes upon it, and fundamentally weakened America's trust in this the most important branch of the Framers' design.
Congress will not end this distraction until it fundamentally changes the way its elections get funded. But can it? Does it have the will? Could anyone imagine it will have the will after the full effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United -- empowering even more corporate power in all elections -- kicks in?
That's the question that Segal's resolution begs: Is a body so deeply addicted to the current system capable of changing that system? Can we trust the victim of a dependency to free itself from that dependency?
More and more are coming to believe that the answer is no. That this system has so entrenched an economy of corruption -- not the corruption of bribes, but a corruption of the sole dependency our framers envisioned, upon the People -- that only outsiders can now change it. And our framers gave one kind of outsider -- state legislatures -- that power. Segal and others now believe that it is legislatures that have the responsibility to exercise it.
Segal's proposal was opposed by the ACLU. Speaking on behalf of the organization, Steve Brown told the committee:
I'm not sure it's in the best interest of this country to be spending hours, days, weeks, and months discussing some of the most controversial issues in this country as to whether they should be part of our constitution. Regardless of whether it is a red state or a blue state ... this is not how legislatures in the 50 states should be debating very controversial issues.I'll confess I was a bit shocked when I heard this well known and successful defender of liberty deny to "the People" the liberty to determine their own government. I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU. But if that organization now represents the idea that the only people entitled to determine what the Constitution means are five justices of the Supreme Court (preferably counseled by lawyers like Brown), then perhaps it is time I rethink whether I should be carrying that card.
The ACLU of course supported the decision of the Court in Citizens United. They consider it sacrilege to now argue to change a rule that recognized a protected liberty interest.
But there was nothing in the original Constitution that said anything about the liberty of corporations (as distinct from "the Press") to engage in politics. And there was plainly something in the original constitution that spoke of the liberty of "We, the People," through their representatives, to deliberate about the scope and limits of our Constitution. To now entrench the former, and unmentioned, liberty by arguing that we should never (or at least for "the next two hundred years," as Brown put it) exercise the latter, clearly intended, liberty is to turn the Constitution on its head.
Our Constitution was not made for lawyers. It was not to be trusted exclusively to judges. Yet somehow we have allowed a professional class of "civil libertarians" and judges to claim to themselves alone the right to say what our fundamental law should be. This is not just contrary to American traditions. It is destructive of democracy. The "Right of the People to alter" their government, as the Declaration of Independence declares, is "unalienable," and even if it's not, we certainly never alienated it to judges, or Congress alone.
As I began the drive back to Boston after my testimony, I heard a familiar voice on the radio. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, was defending democracy on the Internet. Sure, Wales acknowledged, the Internet revealed all the problems with democracy in real space. But as he concluded, "I say having people talking to each other about real issues is always good for democracy."
One would think. Unless of course one were from a professional class keen to keep "real issues" far from the dirty hands of "the people."
That is not my class. And I hope Rhode Islanders will tell their representatives, that is not their class either.
You can read Segal's resolution here, and read more about the call for a convention at CallAConvention.org.
Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lessig
@alipes who said..."3) The Article V Convention cannot propose a new constitution, it can only propose amendments to the one we have. By holding a convention we'll re-establish order and safegaurds against the current chaos."......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
don't make absolute statements that you cannot back up....
There is, however, the concept of the Amendment Convention as noted in Article 5. The power or limits of such a convention are unknown because there has never been one. It is thought, however, that a Convention would be able to propose any change to the Constitution it decided to, including full replacement.
if you have anything which contradicts the above statement i would like to see it....
The power/limits of convention delegates are exactly same as the power/limits of members of Congress. There is absolutely nothing unknown about the Article V Convention except what amendment proposals will be on the table once it adjourns. Delegates must be chosen as members of Congress are, by the people of their states. The Supreme court has either directly or indirectly ruled on all these issues in over 208 cases regarding this matter in all its particulars. Check foavc.org or article5.org for more info.
I still agree with Ellis that the Constitution is not there to provide 'all the answers', but to provide a framework to resolve the questions - the problem is not with the Constitution, as far as I can tell, the problem lies with the Politics of Money.
@MAH1952: And what was this about That is why there was no direct election of Senators? The only office elected through the Electoral College is the Presidency, and last time I checked, the President is not a sitting senator!!
"For all mental processes fail to grasp reality itself, and in order to represent it, to hold it at all, they are driven to the use of symbols. But all symbolism harbors the curse of mediacy: it is bound to obscure what it seeks to reveal." ~Ernst Cassirer.
http://www.scottpotter.net/documents/The%20Prophets%20of%20Revolution.pdf
(pdf)
http://www.scottpotter.net/media/mp3/podintro-full-score.mp3
(mp3, 4-min)
http://www.scottpotter.net/media/mp3/intro-full.mp3
(mp3, 13-min)”
Direct democracy is the only true way for governance of, by and for the people. Is it possible? Why not? The way our political/social/economic system is now run means corruption is all but guaranteed. When a candidate has to come up with X amount just to be considered a candidate, should tell you that it is money that runs our "democracy".
In that blurt I refered to how "Most folk most times are perfectly happy to, as I tweet it, contribute comment #4385 for a total of 6712 ... which is kinda sad, I think." Here, with this post on this site, we have a case in point: 14 pages of comments. Who thinks that's in any way effective for anything except create (possibly, at best) the false sense of participation? I don't.
We now have technology that would permit every citizen to instantly vote on all matters that come before Congress. Suppose that's what the constitutional convention led to--true democracy. Would Mr Lessig favor that? I sure wouldn't.
If the electorate doesn't like the people in Congress, they should vote in different people.
Corporations do have too many rights currently, and unfortunately that is due to an amendment that was intended to help the downtrodden (The 14th.) Perhaps and amendment that excludes corporations from being given the rights of individuals is in order.
I also take issue with the overall argument of founder infallibility that both the left and right make (and of course the founders agreed with them.) They were human beings with all the flaws thereof. They could not imagine a country 300 million strong or instantaneous transcontinental communication, two ideas that drastically alter the character of our society from theirs.
However, if we don't try for a Convention, then the senseless form of government we have right now will continue. From Black Wave big oil to The "Too large to fail" financial crisis, our politicians are paid for and only represent corporate interests not the American voter.
We need to update the voting mechanism, show donation transparency across the board and limit contribution limits to strict, unbiased propositions and clear address. Once our leaders start voting again for the good of the country, we might have a chance in solving our immense foreign challenges,in defense, in trade, in deficit balancing and in responsible representative government action. Our leaders are clearly out of touch with their electorate.
Our Constitution was designed and engaged to be mutable, meant for correction, change and updates. Now is the time to do so, eminently!
The answer may be the impeachment of of the Congress followed by some severe jail time for the several members.
Once we allowed the politicians to accept financial help for their election from corporations and special interest groups and individuals we stepped over the line of legal and responsible elections. Another name for contributions to a politician is bribery and this is illegal, but it has been taking place for several decades, and the recent Supreme Court decision to make corporations into people is nothing less then proof absolute that this government is failing and the people in charge are nothing less then corrupt, immoral and insane. Unless you have another answer for their stupid and morbid actions.
End time belief is bad for humanity period.
Essentially our constitution has been made into a suicide pact, and Americans steeped in ignorance love to have it so. Opening up the Constitution for revision would be an even bigger disaster.