5 Comments


  1. #1 The Compact is not an Article V convention, it is an agreement between 38 states or more. The points about an Article V Convention do not refer to a Compact. The forefathers had no intention of creating a compact for Article V power or they would have done it themselves.
    Why create a compact if the Article V Convention is “a practical way of reforming the system”?

    #2 How many states applied for the convention in the past according to Compact for America? How many of these states applications count? How many state applications should be ignored, all of them? Here is the collection of all known applications in the Congressional Record. Awareness is key to the actual article V process. http://articlev.org/map/

    #3 The “mechanism” other than popular support for making Congress call the convention in the compact is an omnibus resolution Congress must pass because all agreements between the states must have the approval of Congress. I assume they tried to introduce this in Congress this year and I am not sure if it has any traction yet. If they get 38 states on board they will have pressure on Congress with that unity.

    #4 The discussion centers around speech rights but what you are really talking about is the purchase of a constituent’s representation of their elected official by anyone in the world. It is more than speech rights, it is the republican model that is threatened and we have opened the doors to our enemies. Why spend on defense if they get you buy our government?

    Justice Stevens wrote in his dissenting opinion:
    “If taken seriously, our colleagues’ assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government’s ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by “Tokyo Rose” during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could “enhance the relative voice’” of some (i.e., humans) over others (i.e., nonhumans). … Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.”

    I wish the folks at Compact for America would embrace an Article V Convention rather than a compact agreement. The Article V Convention is “a practical way of reforming the system” because it is deliberative and methodical.


  2. “There’s no “mechanism” other than popular support for making Congress call the convention. The system provides no such.”

    Mr. Gutzman should not tell outright lies about something that can be checked so easily. Compact for America not only has a “mechanism” in place to cause an amendment to be ratified, it is set up so that a single state can not only propose but ratify an amendment without any single debate whatsoever. Moreover there is no public participation in this “plan” whatsoever.

    Read my article at http://www.foavc.org/reference/file48.pdf where I discuss the actual proposal by using its own text.

    Also, Gutzman makes the assumption a convention call is based on same amendment subject. He is incorrect. The Constitution makes no such statement and the Supreme Court has said so. You can read the 746 applications from 49 states at http://www.foavc.org. In sum, Mr. Gutzman, while he may support a convention, doesn’t appear to know what he is talking about. His support is welcomed, but he needs to study his facts before speaking.

  3. pewestlake pewestlake

    Plus, a “compact” is dangerously close to being a violation of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution:

    “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation…”

    A rose by any other name…


  4. Mr. Walker seems to be confused: first I’m a liar, and then I don’t know what I’m talking about. If he’s referring to the same subject, his descriptions are inconsistent.

    The focus on campaign spending in this post reflect the interviewer’s fixation. My own concern is that with >$230 trillion in unfunded obligations, including >$2 trillion in new ones last year, the Federal Government is ruining America’s future. In that light, whether Lessig succeeds in transferring more power to the owners of the New York Times, GE, etc., seems rather trivial.

    • Victor Tiffany

      Kevin, you have huge balls to call anyone “confused.” You think money = speech. The Framers didn’t.

      In Part II of the interview, you insist that corporations were granted rights by the Framers. They were not. No where in the Constitution can you find where associations are granted rights.

      When you accuse Mr. Walker of being confused, you are projecting.

Comments are closed.