Harvard University held a Conference calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention for what reason? To use it a a mechanism to help overthrow the Republic, perhaps?

  Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. 

 http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html


In September 2011, from the 24th to the 25th,  Harvard University hosted what they called a "Constitutional Convention", a desire to use Article 5 of the US Constitution in at least 38 States to force a Constitutional Convention for the proposing of Amendments to the Constitution in order to change it.

What those amendments are, the Left refuses to fess up, and uses the excuse that "maybe a line item veto" and a "granting of the President greater executive powers" would be the answer.  Are they kidding?  Force a Constitutional Convention of Amendments to it WITHOUT a prior specific proposal, and just offer up what, dozens and dozens of amendments to see which ones can be made to stick as forced by just 20 Democratic States to the exclusion of all Republican ideas?  In fact, under the right or wrong circumstances,  without specificity as what an Article 5 Convention can or can NOT argue, even an amendment that nulls out the entire US Constitution by such a procedure -- an amendment completely discarding of the entire Bill of Rights along with the entire 1787 written and 1789 to present day Constitution of the United States of America -- can be rammed through with as much disdain for the American Public as the Dems like Pelosi viewed the American Public as "astroturf".  It was through this same disdain and stubborn arrogance  that  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid rammed a  2000+ page SEIU and Sorosian Think Tank Written Health Scam bill they and most members of Congress REFUSED TO READ in the same "to hell with America, just give me my graft" manner.

The Harvard keynote speaker was Lawrence Lessig. 

 So who is Lawrence Lessig?  Conconcon writes :

Lawrence Lessig is the director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University and the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He co-founded Change Congress, which aims to reduce the influence of private money in American politics. For more, see "How to sober up Washington"—an essay by Lessig and Mark McKinnon on corruption in Washington, voters' disillusionment, and the need for an Article V convention.

So who would rewrite the US Constitution?  The current members of the 112th Congress, the second most corrupt Congress in the history of the United States; being only surpassed by the preceding 111th Congress? Lessig argues that 300 "at random" selected people from 1 District -- not all 50 states -- should do the job.  Guess where they will all come from?  The smart money will either be that they will all attend or work at Harvard, or they will be exclusively members of the Democratic Socialists (Communist -Socialists) of America in Chicago.  He also offers the possibility of the 300 being former members of Congress who will not run for Congressional Office again for the next 20 years.  The smart money is that they are all to be Leftist Democrats only.  Lessig also argues that felons should be part of the process!!!   Really!

So in other words, correct corruption by inviting corruption, as long it is a total seizure of control or power by the Left.  Uh huh. Sorry, but  Lessig isn't fooling anybody but the Left  and the willing to be "useful idiots" on this one. 

Lawrence spoke during the session from 7:30-8:30 pm in the Ames Courtroom of Austin Hall on the Campus of Harvard University. 

 In his presentation, Lawrence uses a number of attention diversion tactics in his speech that are devious and mischievous as to "facts" to support his position.  Rather, even the subjective or opinion of others must often be manipulated in order for him to advance his argument, and his argument depends on the passivity and compliance of his audience beforehand in order to work.  He finds no shortage of compliance in the students and faculty of Harvard University.

But it is important that you know how these people argue; because most anybody who can use common sense and a little skepticism will immediately see how flawed their arguments very often are in substance.     

For example, Lawrence Lessig points out that the PEOPLE of the United States have (under Obama) in 2010 and in 2011 held an 11% and a 12% confidence rating in the members of Congress that are there.  The poll that Lessig quotes from actually deals with a mistrust of the people in the Congress, NOT of the system of Federal Government as a Republic nor in the fact that we have a two tier Congress as the Legislative Branch of Government.  It deals with personalities in office, NOT in our system of Government, which very likely more than 95% would view as intrinsically good if the right people were there and corruption swept away if asked.

In effect, Lessig argues this poll number, and the fact that there is a two-party cosponsor form of heavy graft in Congress is reason why people should "strike at the root" and move the States for Article 5 Convention to propose new Amendments to the US Constitution.

Lessig tries to demonstrate a need to panic over the culture of corruption in the Congressional Legislature should be focusing on "health concerns", such as by arguing over the fact that Corn Syrup in preference to Cane Sugar helps create obesity and health problems.  He argues that Corn is over subsidized, and sugar isn't.  Therefore, we need to have an Article 5 Convention to create an Amendment?   No, don't look at the Constitutional Crisis of a ignoring the Natural Born Citizen Article of the Constitution, or the fact that this same usurper ran his own CIA war in Libya to aid and abet the enemy of the United States into power, Al Qaida, and that Leon Panetta at his behest is meeting to aid and abet them more...or the fact that Obama is stripping US nukes while giving the Soviets our nuclear secrets, and now China as well.  Hell, why have any secrets, asks Obama?  We as Americans are bigger than that.  But the question is...is Obama even an American or a Citizen of the United States?  He refuses to provide even the most basic identity documents   
in a Court of Law.

He claims two separate  hospitals in Hawaii over a mile apart simultaneously delivered him,  Queen's and Kapi'olani.  He claims that two obstetricians were his primary and sole physician on his Hawaii Certification of Live Birth.  First it was Rodney T. West from June 2008 to April 2011, and now it is "oh golly gee" David A. Sinclair as of late April 2011's online forgery, which they STILL WILL NOT PRODUCE INTO EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW, and they want us to accept a Monica Lewinsky Corporate Mainstream Media Press Conference with a trustworthy rating as low or lower than Congress where it regards vetting or being unbiased for Obama?     

So let us take Lessig as if he is serious about wanting to solve the Corn v. Sugar Health Concern.  What if Congress unsubsidized Corn altogether, and perhaps for two years subsidized domestic sugar farm creation and domestic sugar sales for US Industrial use, and then unsubsidized both altogether?  Would not the same thing be essentially accomplished -- a moving away from corn syrup to the healthier cane sugar?

Lessig also rightly cites that Congress is over-influenced by the top 10% of income earners and corporations of US society.  Therefore, we need to have an Article 5 Convention to create an Amendment?   

But what if we removed all the perks of influence?  Barring any association with a professional lobbyist outside a pre-scheduled appointment in the office of the Congressman or Congresswoman, and that the appointment would be transcribed and made public to the House or Senate (posted to the Web) for the duration until such a bill would either be denied or pass into law?

Instead of looking for solutions, the quick answer from Lessig is to prose Amendments to the US Constitution.  Amendments that have 3/4ths or 38 of the States, and 2/3rds of Congress.The same 2/3rds that cannot currently be trusted.  So exactly what result would be accomplished?

 I say we can look to the past and learn how to right the present day.  For example, we can glean much from George Washington, the first President of our Republic, and a great man of the Presidency, being its Original First Citizen.

George Washington wrote:

As it regards of the use of making Constitutional Amendments

-- to Charles Carter on December 14, 1787 that:
"I am not a blind admirer (for I saw the imperfections) of the Constitution to which I have assisted to give birth, but I am fully persuaded it is the best that can be obtained at this day and that it or disunion is before us; if the first is our choice when the defects of it are experienced Constitutional door is open for amendments and may be adopted in a peaceable manner without tumult or disorder. "


And as it regards the runaway misapplication of the Environmental Protection Agency to forbid US Citizens from growing their own food and from drinking milk from their own cows that such are principles and rights of Liberty and what makes us Americans


--  to Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1788 stating  that:

"… Indeed the rights of Mankind, the priviledges of the people, and the true principles of liberty, seem to have been more generally discussed and better understood throughout Europe since the American revolution than they were at any former period.

   ... I perfectly agree with you, that an extensive speculation, a spirit of gambling, or the introduction of any thing which will divert our attention from Agriculture, must be extremely prejudicial, if not ruinous to us. but I conceive under an energetic general Government such regulations might be made, and such measures taken, as would render this Country the asylum of pacific and industrious characters from all parts of Europe, would encourage the cultivation of the Earth by the high price which its products would command, and would draw the wealth, and wealthy men of other Nations, into our bosom, by giving security to property, and liberty to its holders. "

And as it regards the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party creation and the right to demand liberty from over-bearing taxes legally and peacefully without being lumped in the same category as homicidal terrorists by the Left 
 

 -- to James  Madison on March 2, 1788 that:
   "Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth. 
      ...When  the people are oppressed with Taxes, and have cause to suspect that there has been a misapplication of their money, the language of despotism is but illy brooked." 


 So where is the history and the lessons of the past to solve the problems of the present?  Lessig looks to opinion polls and an atheistic faith in humanity, that any group of people gathered together from among the masses could somehow magically  figure it all out and come up with a better Constitutional Model than the one we now have.    I mean, really.  100 years of Progressive Scholarship and nation building all over the world has been incapable of a better model than what our US Constitution provides, and suddenly magically -- whoosh?  Yikes! 

Unless and until we have a clear and concise specific amendments to the US Constitution, those open and transparent and 75% supported by "We the People", a call for amending the US Constitution is premature.  But you can watch the video, and you make up your own mind.  It is an audio presentation with the video that the Harvard Audience saw as background on the screen.  But it's montage helps you to follow along and track the audio segments more easily. 

http://blip.tv/lessig/rootstriking-5586118




The above lecture by Lessig, as well as various multiple  primary feature video presentations of the Conference can be viewed at :

 http://conconcon.org/archive.php
 
Please note, that there may be a reason why the website address is a triple "con", much like a "triple cross"  openly touting what they are doing as if it were an amusing inside joke as well as deadly serious to them.

The Harvard Law Review Online can itself be viewed at :
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.php

and its current most relevant feature articles, in my opinion, is a split tie between the  Anti-Canon Cases of the US Supreme Court, available in pdf  at http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol125_greene.pdf
and a book review regarding the Founders at
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol125_klarman.pdf

Keep alert and keep informed.   Peace.