#article five

"In this video, we examine the moment America's own #ceasefire agreement became the most dangerous weapon used against it — and what #ArticleFive of the #IslamabadMoU reveals about who actually controls the #StraitofHormuz today. We trace the legal paradox at the center of the #US-#Iran escalation, break down the psychological trap that makes Washington structurally unable to stop, and ask the question no major news outlet is willing to put on screen: if America's signature handed Iran authority over the world's most critical shipping corridor, who exactly violated the ceasefire?"

#PaxJudaica #PaxAmericana

What is an example of egregious behaviour that has not been prominent in mainstream coverage—an act, a statement, a framing, an observation? Rick Rosner says X has become an always-on catastrophe: he feels magnetized to outrage, compelled to argue or mute, and the experience has worsened lately. He links the mood to political escalation, including revived Greenland acquisition rhetoric and…

This call for action has inspired outrage and fear.  Why?

A Convention of the States What Are They Afraid Of?

The Founders had one great fear; that a time would come when the Federal Government would overstep its bounds and come to dominate the individual States.  Can anyone reading this dispute that this is such a time?

Look at our State governments.  They are so addicted to Federal money they can’t exist without it.  And they can’t get it without…

President Obama, Israel, and the Threat Dilemma

  There is a situation developing which either President Obama has not been informed or really desires to destroy Israel and gift all the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea for the forming of an Arab state of Palestine completely erasing the State of Israel and very probably leading to the mass slaughter of the over Six Million Jews living in Israel along with probably most…

Nails inspired by Kristen Simmons Article 5 series.

Africa Sahel belt region faces 'desperate food crisis'

Issue Overview: Africa's food crisis is growing more difficult to control and the number of hungry people are doubling. Africa only has limited resources and is subject to natural issues such as floods, droughts, locust infestations and epidemics. The UN is already providing $2 billion dollars. This is fine, but it only provides these people food and the crime rates in these countries are also high. The UN is hoping that once they stop the hunger, crime will diminish.

Course connections: Agricultural issues were spoken about in the course, and how they are a large part of poverty and hunger. It connects to the course both directly and for showing that poverty and hunger happens all around the world, proving it is a huge issue.

Key Stakeholders: People of Africa who are starving and malnourished are the victims in this story. They deserve to be fed just as much any other person in the world but due to multiple contributing factors, Africa is currently struggling in that area. The African government and the UN play roles in this as the government does not have enough money to provide their people, so the UN had to step in.

Implications: This is political because of the struggles the government is having to provide for their people. It is also agricultural because the country's fields and crops are being jeopardized because of droughts and floods.

Disclaimer: This is the first installment of a series discussing Article V. Not all issues will be covered here. Stay on the lookout for more!

Amidst the used and abused provisions of the Constitution of the United States (and those that are blatantly ignored or illegitimately expanded *cough, Article II, cough*), we find Article V. This part of the Constitution, dealing with the amendment process, is amongst the least used, but that’s a good thing! A Constitution is not a code of ordinances or a set of bylaws to be amended or expanded any time action is taken by a governing body. 

[Article II deals with the presidency. If you don't know what I mean by this not-so-subtle jab, check out the number of executive actions taken by recent presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike. If this paragraph is irrelevant because you already know the Constitution well, good! If not, READ THE CONSTITUTION.]

The Constitution, any constitution, builds the framework, or the principles, upon which all government actions should be based and checked for legality. It doesn't pretend to deal with the little things, nor should it. It's like the Golden Rule to personal behavior: we check our actions against a guiding principle, and acting against it would be unethical; we check government actions against the Constitution, and acting against it would be illegal. 

Article V gives us two general means of amending the Constitution. There is the "mainstream" way that has been used for all amendments to date, which is a congressional proposal and consideration of amendments, or there is the political hipster option, a Convention of the States (also called an Article V Convention). Typically when you hear people arguing over Article V, they're talking about the latter, just like we will in the follow-up articles to this one. Yay! 

The first option (proposed by Congress => ratified by singular states), requires a supermajority approval of two-thirds in both houses before being sent to the state legislatures or a special purpose state convention created to consider ratification of the constitutional amendment(s). The second option (proposed by gathered states => ratified by singular states) calls a singular, federal convention to propose and consider amendments. The amendments accepted at the Convention are then sent for state approval, just like amendments proposed in Congress. 

Providing the convention option empowers states (especially), in line with the federalist principles that comprise our great Constitution. Go states! Essentially, a Convention of the States is a gathering of state delegates to voice concerns and propose amendments to the Constitution that would solve issues common across the entire United States. 

Expect a follow-up post soon about why we should call for an Article V Convention. Until then, here are some things to ask yourself:

-Why did the Founding Fathers create this provision?

-How hard is it to kill a proposed amendment?

-How realistic is the possibility of this even happening?

-What would be proposed at this convention? 

Article V Text: