The FOAVC* response to my post
*FOAVC = Friends of the Article V Convention
My post on Wednesday was a re-write of something I’d posted on the (now defunct) Zaadz website on May 30, 2007. I will re-post that original version (below) after quoting two e-mails I’d received in response shortly thereafter from two of FOAVC’s co-founders.
Why bring up something that happened over four years ago? As the USA’s problems continue to mount, with no relief in sight from conventional sources, people will start to seriously consider unconventional possibilities. These include constitutional amendments as well as – and this isn’t as far-fetched as it seems – a replacement Constitution.
Of course, reformers like myself and organizations like FOAVC will try to influence those people. I believe I am more honest and substantial in my approach. FOAVC, however, is not only wrong but represents more (in a bad way) than meets the eye. I think the following will show what type of people we’re dealing with.
Posted on June 2, 2007
(under the title: “Steve Searle is just plain revolting”)
Introduction
I received two interesting e-mails (quoted below) in response to my Zaadz blog post of May 30, 2007. In this, I mentioned a group called Friends of the Article V Convention. The authors of these e-mails (FOAVC co-Founders Bill Walker and Joel S. Hirschhorn) did not actually say I was "revolting," but Mr. Walker comes closest. Judge for yourself.
QUOTE [entire text, with portions highlighted by me]:
I read with interest your comments regarding your interpretation of FOAVC and your overall assertions regarding what would be in fact a civil war by urging people to revolt against the United States government based on the assumption they have the right to do so.
Simply put: it is a criminal act for people to do so and as will shortly be shown on our website we cite the direct text of such laws as proof of our mission statement.
I will not go any further to discuss FOAVC with you except for the following.
You intimated that FOAVC did not know what it was talking about in regards to federal law. You state and urge in a public blog that people should not pay their income tax and instead declare they are revolt against the legal tax system as well as the government. You state you are seeking the office of President of the United States in 2008 and through your political party Best Party Available* seek donations to your cause.
Upon finding that you are in fact seeking the office of president, I determined to check you out at the Federal Elections Commission. I find they have no record of you sir. I checked other federal laws and came up with the following. It is against federal law to seek contributions as a political party without having registered with the FEC. It is against federal law to seek the office of president (or any other federal position) without having registered properly both at the state and federal levels. It is against federal law to urge publicly that people should not pay their income tax and it is against federal criminal law (the same laws we refer to for not having a constitutional convention by the way) to publicly urge revolt against the United States. You have done all of this on your blog which is a public document.
It is obvious you would not be a proper candidate for president because you are willing to commit criminals acts. But beyond that sir, I am giving you this notice. You have 24 hours to correct the above issues on your site and recognize publicly that FOAVC does know its federal laws and therefore knows the Constitution as well as Article V and an Article V Convention. Otherwise I will personally and with great pleasure report your actions to the FEC, the IRS and the FBI by filing appropriate complaints in each agency. In short, to get you in a lot of trouble, all I have to do is send out a bunch of emails from my desk.
Have a nice day.
Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder
:UNQUOTE.
My Response to Mr. Walker:
Frankly, Mr. Walker, I was stunned by your comments, knowing that you are "a former journalist and newspaper publisher" with a "BA in journalism." For one thing, your piece wasn't especially well written. But it's the content that amazes me more: How could anyone read my May 30th post and conclude that I advocated non-payment of income tax? Also, nowhere in any of my writings did I, as you claim, "publicly urge revolt against the United States."
As for me not being registered with the FEC, you're right, I'm not. My campaign is in an embryonic stage (to say the least!). I believe that anyone can publicly declare his intention to run for office, without registering with the FEC. I'm primarily thinking of freedom of speech issues here. I don't believe that candidates trying to conduct write-in campaigns by means of word of mouth have to register with anybody. If it turns out they do, then I'll change my evil ways.
You are obviously not aware that my party (The Best Party Available*) is not a political party in the ordinary sense of the term. Anyone who had read my 116 or so Zaadz blogs would readily see that. BPA has no members, no street address, no officers, no money, no Political Action Committees - BPA is an idea. Therefore, I claim protection for the propagation of my idea under (surprise!) freedom of speech guarantees.
As for my fundraising activities, same defense: I'm raising money in furtherance of constitutionally-protected free speech, as I campaign seriously for the presidency. Anyone who reads my materials can easily see that The Best Party Available* and my presidential candidacy do not qualify as a "party" or a "candidacy" in the normal sense of those terms. I am attempting to fly under the radar here, knowing full well that the campaign laws you refer to are written by the Dem/Pubs to control the Dem/Pubs' campaign and financial behavior.
I suppose my words concerning "fundraising" are moot, however, since I have not raised a single dime so far. Though I'm sure, if you try hard enough (and I'm sure you will), you might find some type of "conspiracy to fundraise under false pretenses" law that might trip me up. Legally speaking, I'm not worried, for I believe I stand on firm ground. Also, any attempt to prosecute me might serve to make my campaign known to the general public. For that reason alone, the authorities will leave me alone.
However, if you wish to try to get me in a lot of trouble (as you'd written above), I urge restraint. There's an old saying in Buddhism: "What goes around comes around." You will find, to your extreme distress, that it's a bad karmic idea to persecute a votary of the Lotus Sutra (like me). But before you get all bent out of shape, thinking that I'm threatening you, far from it: I won't have to do a thing (I won't even have to put a hex on you); it will be your actions (and your actions alone) that will bring about appropriate karmic retribution.
If you wish to run my "threat" by your lawyers, have them read the Burton Watson translation of The Lotus Sutra. That is the foundation of my warning to you. And, yes, I am warning you.
Now on to Mr. Hirschhorn's Email:
QUOTE [Mr. H's entire text]:
How sad that you choose to condemn our worthy effort; you can savor your own views that, like your candidacy, will never attract any significant public support - a truly ego-satisfying but self-delusional state. I and the other founders of FOAVC desire very deep political and government reforms - perhaps like you. But we believe that working with what OUR constitution gives us has a far greater probability of success than your approach. Personally, I think the Framers did make one mistake by giving congress control over calling an Article V convention. But the problem we have in compelling congress to obey exactly what Article V says and requires is far more managable than what your strategy requires - namely you would have to get the whole federal government to take seriously some extra-government attempt to replace our constitution - now THAT is truly fantasy thinking..... Even more down-to-earth, your strategy requires massive public support to overthrow our constitution and by implication our federal government -- and this is so obviously and totally unrealistic that your position like so many other lonely voices on the Internet ensures that you will fail.
Joel S. Hirschhorn
:UNQUOTE.
My Response to Mr. Hirschhorn:
You wrote, "But we believe that working with what OUR constitution gives us..." My essay made very clear what I believe our constitution gives us: The right to convene a full-blown, no-holds-barred constitutional convention. It is you who are trying to place limits on our constitutionally-expressed right. [I duly note that neither you nor Mr. Walker actually made any attempt to refute my arguments. Care to do so on the FOAVC website?]
I don't think you have any idea of what "my approach" is. You wrote, "your strategy requires massive public support to overthrow our constitution." You might think so because of these words: "Suppose three-fourths of our citizens wrote the following statement on their federal income tax forms..." Please note: My first word is "suppose," and I go on to say "This majority voice won't be heard." Since I am admitting it "won't be heard" and I merely say "suppose," how could anyone think that my strategy involves "massive public support?"
Quite the opposite, actually. My strategy focuses on soft power and I give examples in my earlier Zaadz posts. I know "massive public support" isn't likely to occur, at least not in the usual sense. But it's also fairly obvious to my regular readers that I don't operate "in the usual sense." The "usual sense" is bankrupt and won't work. I also know: In order to challenge a powerful opponent, the weak are fools to charge in flailing away. It's best to know where the jujitsu points are, and then attack those. And believe me, this can be done entirely legally and with only a small group of dedicated activists.
As far as "massive support" is concerned, I think I can reach tens of millions of people through sheer logic and common sense alone. But I won't ask them to take to the streets or to rattle their sabers. I will ask them to do only the small things they can easily do. Multiplied by millions, that will be sufficient for what needs to be done.
Your approach, on the other hand, requires that you somehow beg, cajole, or wheedle Congress (or its lackey courts) to give you access to a mechanism which could challenge their power. And that's all you can do is beg, cajole, or wheedle. You have no leverage, and Congress, behind closed doors, will snicker at your efforts. The only way to obtain the new constitution we have a natural right (and a constitutional right) to is to apply pressure. I hope to do that at the ballot box in terms of what Best Party Available* candidates can do to the Dem/Pubs. And that won't be pretty!
Conclusion
It seems to me that Mr. Walker and Mr. Hirschhorn have fairly thin skins and seem highly defensive. Why can't they be more like my more conventional opponents and simply ignore me?
Posted on May 30, 2007
(under the title: “The Power of the People vs. Constitutionality”)
NOTE: What follows is very similar to what I’d posted here on July 6, 2011. I re-posted the 2007 version since the two emails above were in response to that original.
Today's question:
Do We-the-People have the right to replace the US constitution?
Friends of the Article V Convention:
There is a group calling itself "Friends of the Article V Convention" which says no! From their website:
The mission of Friends of the Article V Convention is ... to help the public understand the difference between an Article V Convention, which FOAVC fully supports, and a "constitutional convention" that would rethink the entirety of our current Constitution, which FOAVC emphatically does not support.
:UNQUOTE.
Point/Counterpoint:
These "Points" are from the FOAVC website, from four consecutive sentences. "Counterpoints" are my comments.
Point:
...a "constitutional convention" -- one that seeks to literally discard, replace and re-write the current Constitution -- is blatantly extra-constitutional.
Counterpoint:
To call something "extra-constitutional" is not the same as calling it "unconstitutional."
Point:
It is neither authorized by our Constitution nor is it sanctioned elsewhere by any federal or state law.
Counterpoint:
How strange! Would it matter if it is "sanctioned elsewhere" if the constitution itself actually came right out and prohibited it? But of course we don't have to concern ourselves with this "elsewhere" authorization. Why? This is where FOAVC is wrong: Our constitution in fact does authorize a full-blown constitutional convention. I cite three sources for my reasoning:
ONE: Our current document replaced the original constitution (known as the Articles of Confederation) by means of a constitutional convention. Under the terms of the AOC, the Articles could not be altered (that is, amended or changed) without the permission of all of the states. However, our current constitution allowed itself to be established if ratified by only 9 out of the 13 states. In other words, our current constitution is, well, unconstitutional.
TWO: I took a careful look at the Preamble of the constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Articles formed the union and We-the-People had the right to "form a more perfect union." So says the Preamble, which is the constitution's very first sentence.
THREE: We-the-People had (and still have!) the right (as further reinforced by the Tenth Amendment) to make such a fundamental change (here's the Tenth): "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people [my emphasis added]." My interpretation: We-the-People have the right to "ordain and establish" since these are powers not delegated to the United States.
The Preamble and the Tenth Amendment couldn't be clearer on this point.
Point:
In short, a "constitutional convention" would constitute a quasi-rebellious act if not an outright direct assault on our constitutional republic which, in the view of many constitutional scholars, would violate numerous federal and state laws.
Counterpoint:
Let's start with that first bit of nonsense: "direct assault on our constitutional republic." Such a convention would be an assault on our current constitution but not on the idea that we ought to have a "constitutional republic." [Wasn't our current constitution an "assault" on our first constitution?]
As for any claim that such a Constitutional Convention would "violate numerous federal and state laws," so what? Since the Constitution itself is supposed to be the supreme law of the land (and my point TWO above makes clear that the Constitution gives We-the-People the right to determine our mode of governance), any "federal and state laws" to the contrary would be, well, unconstitutional.
Point:
This is the type of convention that deserves the scorn of the American people.
Counterpoint: Scorn of the American people, eh?
"Scorn" indeed! I suggest FOAVC try this out for size:
Suppose three-fourths of our citizens wrote the following statement on their federal income tax forms:
"I, the undersigned (being one of We-the-People), hereby demand the creation of a constitutional convention to replace the entire U.S. constitution. If three-fourths of eligible voters approve of any replacement created by that convention, that would be sufficient to replace our current constitution." [I propose three-fourths, since that's the fraction of state legislatures needed to ratify amendments.]
Guess what! This majority voice won't be heard. This majority voice will be considered a "quasi-rebellious act." FOAVC, among others, will say, "We've got a direct assault on our constitutional republic on our hands."
If anyone "deserves the scorn of the American people," it would be our leaders for turning a deaf ear to demands for change (as, for example, expressed on our tax forms). And maybe another group is even more deserving of scorn (if we accept FOAVC's logic): Our Founding Fathers! They were arrogant enough to write a constitution which can only be amended but never replaced. [In other words, they thought they got it right for all time.]
So what's wrong with our constitution?
The biggest thing "wrong" with it is the notion that it can't be replaced. Do we not have a right of self-determination? If our Founding Fathers were so keen on "No taxation without representation," then surely they wouldn't be so keen on asserting the tyranny of their generation over ours. If our current constitution is so great, why not put it to a vote? Why not subject it to good old American competition in the marketplace of ideas?
Here's a short list of my particular complaints:
ONE: The tyranny of the Two Party monopoly system, not even foreseen by our Founding Fathers, needs to be addressed.
TWO: Here I will cite one of FOAVC's core complaints: Even though Article V of our current constitution states that Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments" whenever the legislatures of two-thirds of our states request one, Congress refuses to do so. All 50 state legislatures have requested such a convention, yet Congress is silent. It fails to do its constitutional duty to "call a convention." And the Supreme Court does not rally in response to this outrage. I think we need a constitution which is not so easily ignored.
THREE: Concerning how easily our constitution is ignored, I cite the fact that West Virginia and Maine were unconstitutionally admitted to the union. Realpolitik was at work in those cases, not the Supreme Law of the Land.
FOUR: Article V also says, "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." That would seem to imply that we will always have a Senate (and we will always have states!), and that's an amendment-proof fact of life. Why should that be so?
FIVE: The presidency has become entirely too powerful, an issue which in and of itself has to be addressed.
SIX: The direct election of the president by the people must be established. However, our de facto amendment process, heavily influenced by the Two Major Parties, will deny that possibility. Only a new constitution can make this change.
SEVEN: An increasingly exclusive legal system in which he who can't afford proper and long-term legal assistance can't have his day in court. [If you can't "pay to play," you lose by default.]
Conclusion
There are well-meaning groups like FOAVC which are trying to pry loose some power for the people. However, they will fail simply because they are asking the powers-that-be to give up their power. To repeat, they're "asking." We have to be a lot more aggressive than that. And you won't find the requisite level of insistence from someone like Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, or any of the other candidates for US president ... except me.
I am a candidate for US president in 2008 and you will find that I have the "requisite level of insistence."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012
I am the only candidate offering a written contract: "You wouldn't sell your house without a contract; why give your vote away?”
* The Best Party Available was my original name for a third party, which I now call The Independent Contractors’ Party – Steve.
