Catharis for a Wounded Country: A New Constitutional Congress

The Beginning:


An Appeal to People of Good Sense::



To Accept What Has Transpired Over the Last Four Years Without Serious Introspection, A Judicious Review of the Constitution and the Rule of Law Would Be Not Only be an Opportunity Lost… but a Step Backwards!...


The arguments for a convening a new Constitutional Congress…


After four years of abuse of citizen’s rights, a failure to govern and a fixation with special interest groups, this government has demonstrated that it is not equal to the task of fulfilling its mandate to the American people. In this and many other ways that this government has chosen to make and manipulate policy, it’s willingness to reinterpret the truth, lead by misdirection and other failings of leadership, it behooves America to rethink all aspects of not only how government should work but how it can be manipulated to work for the benefit of the few over the many. In view of what we have experienced, it would be a violation of good conscience if we were to ignore the problem rather than deal with it. The saving grace in a society like our own is the people of good will and the talent that we can bring to a challenge. It is the recommendation of this paper that we, as patriotic Americans, convene our best minds in order to discuss not only what has happened to our society, our government and the world and to find solutions that will make our government better and heal the challenges that we face as a people in the pursuit of a democratic way of life. Without clearing the air, it would be hard to move forward again as a country that is true to its democratic roots, a government that serves as a constant, reliable and ethical role model for the world.

For all intents and purposes, and our national health, we feel that it is not only expedient but essential that we begin the process of catharsis and national healing. …

This administration has taught us a valuable lesson. That we, as a democratic people, cannot simply assume that our democracy will provide us with a continuing supply of good and capable leaders; moreover, it has taught us that we can never leave down our guard when it comes to protecting our rights and freedoms as citizens; in this context, it is essential that our rights and freedoms be preserved and it is in our interest to review our protections and, in the process, explore whether we have sufficient safeguards in place to guarantee our democracy’s continuity and ability to withstand threat both from without and within.

In our overwhelming belief in our way of life and our democracy, we have tened to ignore the warnings of the social philosophers, like Diderot, who have remarked that democracy such as it is is a particularly vulnerable form of government that can be transformed into something other than a democracy without any immediate outward manifestations of those changes and, therein lies the danger.

Nor do these lessons end here.

This government has taught us that we may sometimes elect leaders who truly do not have our best interests in mind. Charismatic leader who are not necessarily possessed of the requisite skills for good governance; would-be leaders who, nevertheless, seek out these positions for their access to power and self-benefit and the opportunities they confer for the exercise of narrow scope agendas.

Until now, it has been presumed that the cream rises to the surface and only the best of the best of the available talent pool would feel qualified to pursue the highest office in the land. But we were both naïve and wrong in our assumptions and now we need to seek redress so that democracy is not victimized again.


Over the last six years, we have also discovered that people can advance into positions of power who do not see America as the way its Founders did; who do not accept the notions of the Separation of Church and State, who do not agree that each house of government should have equal power, who feel that their decisions should carry the weight and authority inferred in a monarchy. We need to be wary of those who choose to unilaterally change the basis of government that has stood us in good stead and has served the people of this great country for over two hundred years and has been seen as a model for all governments by rational people around the world.

It has been an expensive lesson, but, hopefully, we shall recognize that is important that we do something to assure that we will never be placed in the same position again; where there is no dialog, no debate, no appeal to rationality and no effective diplomacy among nations, causing America as a great nation to expend its capitol for little good reason. If we aspire to the perpetuation of our democracy, it is right and fitting that the rule of law become our first priority.. .

To aspire towards the highest form of government and encourage leadership that serves “at the pleasure of a the people, “ it may be timely to critically review what went wrong over the last seven years and try to learn from the experience. As part of the questioning process, it would be fair and right to to review our experiences and decide whether our government after two hundred years, still conforms to the original intent established by the Framers of the Constitution and/or whether or not changes are in order in the way we select our candidates, and the way we conduct elections that allows private interests to invest tens of thousands of dollars through a variety of mechanisms of special interest that may tend to place the candidates willingness to cooperate over their qualifications for the job as well as other aspects of government that may be revealed upon closer inspection. . In effect, in order to purge those aspects of government that are inconsistent with our purpose to return to the fundamental kind of government we were envisioned to be and provide the necessary level of catharsis, we advocate an examination of all aspects of our government from an objective, third party perspective that is immune from politicization and devoid of personal motivation.


To decide this, this paper proposes a National Convention of the best and brightest as a fundamental starting point to run concomitantly with a national debate by the people of this land.

Suggested points include:. It should be our intent to return to a model democracy and to do so, we recommend that we search out and convene a body of people from all parts of the country and all walks of life for the purpose of a review of government at which time there will be no provisions that are sacrosanct. Their purpose: To discuss this subject of our government from all aspects and attempt to decide how we can assure that government serves the people; not those leaders who cater to special agendas. How we go about this and whether we begin at grass-roots levels or centralize the debate initially is yet to be determined. But it is essential that this group avoid any semblance of politicization and be composed of those whose love of this country and what it stands for is preeminent.

If there is support for the idea that it is timely to review our most important documents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the process should be an open one, in contrast to the recent elections whose results are questioned by virtually everyone. It must be decided whether the provisions set forth two hundred years ago are equal to the task today;or, conversely, whether we should return to those guidelines in formulating today’s policies, procedures and methodologies.

As part of the process, we should not end there but out of this process, should evolve a new volunteer body , a body of our peers to stand in judgment and serve to advise our Congress and other branches of government as Ombudsmen for the public good that will serve to provide guidance on ethics, and behavior, issuing warning for those who stray, reprimanding those who are guilty, or if the charges are serious enough, to sever their relationship immediately with the option of judicial review over time. In effect, this group would assume a role that would be equivalent to the supervision of the three other main bodies of Congress that are supposed to be looking out for our interests as citizens but, instead, have been cowed or manipulated by the party in power to play virtually a non-existent role in the preservation of our democracy.

Such a body would be composed of elder statesmen, men and women with sterling credentials, who are committed to the country and the preservers of our precious founding documents. They would include people who have spent their lives in pursuing the ideals expressed in our founding documents; they would constitute the ultimate form of checks and balances and could use the power of the press, public opinon and referendums to effectuate needed change including elections within the term of any representative including the president.


The Convention, in its idealized form, would provide a forum for wide-ranging discussions on the nature of government and our ability to satisfy what a government should be and how it operates in the year 2000. Nothing should be off the table.


Among the possibilities for discussion:


Is our present form of government adequate to our needs?...…

Do we need to make changes to our democracy to assure that the democratic process is not held captive again by a motivated leadership?…

Can the provisions within the Constitution be amended to make necessary replacements in the law to replace key officials who do not demonstrate the ability to govern wisely or lead this great nation that circumvents the need for Impeachment and obviates the need to subject the nation to further turmoil..
…
Can we assure the people that our Justice Department does not become politicized to the detriment of its avowed purpose; and can we be sure that the Supreme Court will provide objective findings that do not cater to a political interest.

And can Justices be disbarred if they fail to meet the test of objectivity in their decisions.

In other words, there should be provisions within Congress to test the powers of the Justice
system to assure that it functions in the best interests of the people and that corrections should be made at any time and not necessarily be limited to fulfilled commitments.

Once these issues have been fully spelled out and articulated, it would be the responsibility of this special body to recommend changes where necessary with special elections or referendums soliciting the views of the people. Ultimately, it would be the people who would decide the outcome through black box technology or national polling. Yes, all results will leave a paper trail. As envisioned, the all volunteer body would be subject to review and al vote by state and would be a continuing operating body with suggested term of six years. It would require a sixty percent vote of the body to place a subject up for referendum and a vote.

The need is imperative if we are to resolve the current abuses and the persistent failings of the system that had once separated business and government. That no longer exists.

. For example, under existing provisions, it is alright for politicians seeking election to cater to business within their districts; thereby, making it difficult if not impossible to rule on violations by businesses that impact the public. This is a conflict of interest that did not arise when representatives were elected by the voter in absence of TV advertising; today, the formulae has changed and our political process has stayed the same and this is a source of concern to citizens concerned about he growing possibility of collusion and corruption between government and the business sector. The Founding Fathers were not plagued with this problem when the Constitution was written and it was thought by the Framers that government, in and of of itself, would act as a check on outrageous acts by the private sector incompatible with the public good.

Other areas of concern deal with the lawfulness of government’s ability to either postpone rulings, write exceptions to approved laws and to even sideline our fundamental documents and have them superseded by the government in place. This is appalling and not what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

In the past seven years, violations of the spirit and will of the Constitution that give our Democracy its strength were set aside in the interests of expediency in an almost arbitrary manner.. This is a critical misinterpretation of the way our government should work with no one, including the president, being above the constricts of the law.

We have seen such abuses over the last six years erode our freedoms and our conception of how a democracy operates. Such violations ran the gamut with government leading the charge. Included was the decision for government to arbitrarily decide in the wake of the threat of “antiterrorism” to take it upon itself to invade citizens privacy, to suspend habeas corpus, and to deny citizens accused of wrong-doing of their rights to seek legal advice. These and other forms of suspension of the rights afforded us under the provisions of the Constitution have been applied willy=nilly with the current Executive having final rights without the force of discussion or debate in direct violation of the law of the land. In effect, the cure for the nation at large may be more severe than the illness…

It would seem that the provisions of the Constitution that have well served this country for well over two hundred years should not be arbitrarily abandoned on the say-so of an elected official; the law always supersedes the power and authority of any elected official right up to the office of the president.

In so admitting, it is important that we, the people, take the necessary action to assure generations that in the future they will not be made a party to precipitous actions that are arbitrary and without precedent and do not reflect the ideas and spirit of the Constitution or the long term interests and pursuits of the American people..

It is time to figure out how to make our government immune from arbitrary dictates that may not be in the best interests of the people and sufficiently flexible to respond to any challenge from within or without; we must institute reforms to protect checks and balances; and we must have effective mechanisms for dismissing those at any level of office who do not have the Nation’s best interests at heart as determined by the concensus of peers.

\In the past six years, we have learned that it is possible for a president to be elected to office who caters to a narrow minority of special interests and that a president does not have to fulfill his role to protect the interests of the majority and that he can use the power of his office to arbitrarily make treaties or cater to narrow interests. We have learned to our chagrin that policies and legislation may be written and promulgated by agents of those who would benefit most with Congress rubber stamping them without even reading their provisions. We have discovered that the president can pass a law and then add exceptions to it in private that he will not abide by. We’ve learned that it’s possible to politicize the Supreme Court ( a la their interference in the elections of 2,000) and the Justice Department even though such ideas find no place in our fundamental documents on which this democracy has been formed.

While these allegations are troubling to make, they are even more so to admit to and discuss but people of good heart and honest intent must rise up to assume their responsibilities in a free society or we are no longer free.

We’ve also learned that in the course of six years, that the government has it within its rights to invade a citizen’s privacy without the approval of the Courts; and that in so doing, it’s also within the government’s rights to deny that citizen his rights and the rule of habeas corpus.

We’ve learned that the Executive can assume the right to make treaties as it sees fit without first consulting Congress as was originally intended by the Constitution. It is also within the provision of the Executive to make a case for war without providing full information that supports that conclusion from which there can be no drawing back..

Presently, as we understand, the attempts at deception and misinformation go on unabaded. For example, there are plans to establish a North American treaty that will include a highway system that goes from Mexico to Canada. What will travel on this system will involve an organization that has no responsibility or commitment to the US government but instead will take its marching orders from a business organization that will operate outside of US interests when it comes to pricing, establishing policy and tariffs. This policy seems to endorse a second tier of business interaction that operates outside of the law of the United States yet uses the United States for its own ends, an idea that clashes with the notion of the way America was conceived an how it should operate, creating a power structure that reports to no one except business interests, an idea where the people shall have no representation and no protections.

These and other decisions implemented in the last six years have caused many of us to wonder how protected we are in a nation where our rights are subject to being trampled upon and our freedoms easily dispensed with. Where do we go next? Confinement camps for those who do not agree?

It is cause for great concern and reason to convene other elder statesmen who also feel as if we have gone through a change of great magnitude that has changed the essential essence of what we perceive to be a democratic form of government.

It is in the best interests of the people to move such an agenda forward so that we may raise the questions and clear the air.

We hope that this idea is amenable to the great body of citizens who are also perplexed about their rights under a government where The Constitution and the Bill of Rights seem subservient to the powers that be in the expectation that we can reassert and give force to rulings that have at once defined us and made us great for all time.

Les Aaron
The Armchair Curmudgeon