Forum Post: 2nd method of amending constitution
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 16, 2011, 6:02 p.m. EST by foxinsox60
(3)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
There are two methods of amending the constitution. I suggest we look at the 2nd and entirely otherwise unused method to date as described in the constitution, article V. The second process describes there starts with the states. With the many OCCUPY camps across the country, we have enough numbers to make a sizable effect at the state level. Such an action would force, per the constitution, the federal government to take up this measure.
I propose an amendment #28, which would overturn the citizens united case and otherwise entirely limit campaign contributions. I'm not a lawyer but the language could be:
Part 1: No person, organization, or corporation other than the candidate may pay for an ad that is used to promote his/her campaign.
Part 2: Campaign contributions for all those running for senate, house, or president are limited to $100 per person, per election.
Part 3: No politician or his/her family can have any financial or other investments.
All parts are used to to stop politicians from receiving financial benefits from legislation. Specifically, the first part is to overturn the Citizen's United decision. The second is to limit campaign contributions to amount that is reasonable for almost everyone. And the third is to cut off any indirect opportunities for legislators to profit from their legislation.
What are your thoughts? Is this doable?
A new effort has been started to Occupy The Constitution. This effort launches a new Direct Democracy tool called the National Opinion Collection System ( NOCS ). This tool creates a process to capture ALL the comments of EVERY citizen about major social issues, elections and bills before congress. This effort is described at http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupytheconstitution-introduction
I agree that campaign finance is the root cause of most OWS grievances. I would amend point #3 to say that politicians' investments should be in a blind trust.
One of the best organizations working on reforming campaign using Article V is www.unitedrepublic.org. I suggest we merge with them here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-becoming-increasingly-unpopular-heres-how-t/
http://www.ology.com/politics/rep-deutch-presents-amendment-ban-corporate-money-politics and to think congress would even think of giving up their money for the people.
I appreciate your sincere desire to improve the political system, but there are big problems with these ideas.
Part 1 is, essentially, the abolition of most freedom of speech with regard to elections. How would it deal with media corporations that support one candidate or another. Would they be exempt? If not, that would be a draconian restriction on the press. If so, every major corporation would start a media arm.
Part 2 is another severe restriction on political speech. It would bestow an enormous advantage on incumbents because they have free publicity and can gather news coverage unavailable to their often unknown challengers. It would also ensure that politicians spend an even more ridiculous amount of their time fundraising rather than governing.
Part 3 - You're onto something with this one, though I would probably just require politicians to put their investments into blind trusts. Making politicians give up all of their investments would dramatically shrink the pool of candidates, resulting in even worse politicians than we already have.
Article V conventions are virtually impossible with Goldman Sachs at the helm of the ship of state. A simple Congressional vote is far more likely.
Congress has been in violation of the constitution for 100 years by not calling an article convention. The states have the authority to demand that congress call a convention or 3/4 of them can deem the federal government prior to some chosen date an unlawful, unconstitutional entity after the civil war, rights are trampled and finally it is time for this;
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
To those ends, pursuant to the authority of 3/4 of the states, the states can legally do this and begin to create constitutional federal government one division at a time.
The 99% Declaration seeks to address this issue on a national platform by electing 2 delegates for each congressional district to represent the people.
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
Awesome. I didn't see this! Thanks!
All roads lead to Philadelphia in 2012. There we have the conversation on the national level, and there is a lot to discuss. example:
[-] theghostofthomasjefferson 3 points 6 days ago No, I wrote the Declaration of Desperation. I believe the 99% Declaration is an ineffective document. The Occupy Movement will fail if it is adopted. For it will alienate the American People. This is not a question of politics, of right or wrong. This is a question of intelligence. We must be smart. We enjoy popular support, for now. But to preserve America's good will, we must keep our demands narrow: end the corrupting influence of money in politics. That is something a majority of Americans can get behind. That is something a social movement can achieve. And then, and only then, can the other issues be successfully pursued.
There and then the 1% get their last chance. We. Are. The99%
Insufficiently ambitious.
Constitutional convention, perhaps?
Taking money out of politics is like redirecting a river with a paddle. The political system is outdated and needs to be removed all together and replaced with direct democracy. I don't understand why people still want a few to make decisions for everybody. http://www.occupyr.com/Strategy/thread.php?id=582
WIthout dealing with medias disloyalty to life on earth, direct democracy will not function well. If we deal with media, yes. Until that authority comes along, the capacity to create direct democracy doesn't exist either.--
Article 5 convention, do both NOW through amendment that FIRST cures the media problem.
Oh yeah, the corporate media, the worst thing that ever happened to democracy. Trough, it's a corporation, what can we possibly do without violating it's free speech right? Any strategy we come up with, they will turn against us. That's what they are looking for, anything to accuse us.
I think the type I proposed there in a comment, where everyone can vote not just "for" or "against", but can actually present your agreement or critisize it, vote for comments you agree with so they will float up for everyone to see or vote for critique so it will float up and total number of people in category "for" would be compared to the total number of people in the category "against". So it would be really hard for the media to deceive people when they can not only see all the comments and arguments, but also can change their mind at any time.
With our web 2.0 technology it's now possible and easy to implement.
It's easy for media to deceive people to vote "for" or "against" someone they don't know, but when there are facts presented in plain text together with all the information the web can provide, all the comments and all the critique it gets almost impossible.
Good points! We, I think are very much in agreement about the problem of verifying information because all the environments where opinion is expressed are so contaminated with un reason, that it is very difficult.-
Relying on image doesn't work, people are starting to get wise to that. The image the nwo wants people to identify with is promoted and praised with distorted views, while the information that is useful in opposing the nwo is painted in shade of rediculum and the public doesn't know what to think.---
Here is a forum concept I posted about here. Perhaps you can see how this would filter the crap and sincere humans can prevail.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/new-announcement-occupy-revolution-network-launche/#comment-358848
That's the forum the idea is posted on in my first comment ;)
Voting on comments is a step to the right direction. The account need to be physically confirmed to be real people, maybe given out together with SSN. They should be completely anonymous and unrelated to SSN so only you would know your account number and your password and be used solely for the voting.
I have an idea: Anonymous for president :D
We are in agreement because we are concentrating on the problems and the facts and not grouping them together with actual solutions based on some prophecy and calling them a name like nwo. ;)
When it comes to identity, I've more comfortable with a voiceprint that works in conjuction with other personal data.
For opinion forming, a better message board is needed. Priority on issues can be found with a few simple rules in posting and polling response that interacts with automation which puts the real issue at the top of the cue. Not just that latest post. Now there is a good peoples solution.
Okay, prophecy. Hmmm, how about oral histories that are manifested so the outcome is pre known?
The nwo, not altogether separate in the "pre known" aspect. Some history.
http://one-evil.org/entities_organizations/evil_org_new_world_order.htm
This text makes claim after claim without any sources or anything else to support it. In my opinion, it's just a load of misinformation composed of many unrelated historical events that are put together to create a strong negative emotional response. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing has been composed by the establishment to scare people into maintaining the status quo and off exploring alternative solutions like unification of the world.
Hmmm, the claims are tied to global history. If you are not somewhat familiar with the history, it might seem unrelated. I noticed the lack of links, but then realized that the page could have many more than it does and provide an education into a segment of the past, which is not the pages purpose. It is for connecting dots, and the dots are points in history. If you don't know them, the pages veracity might not be clear. There are numerous mentions by top political figures in public speech totally independent and it goes back about 30 years.-----
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CWBTL33MpA
Here is video of info about related organizations. This is our vague reality, not something to push away and ignore, just yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeug3-9nSoQ
ghwb refers to it as something we will make, not something historically in control behind the scenes. Of course that would not be something he could say. The point that knowing the opposition is not the solution, could be made, and after Americas first break from the strangle hold of the opposition, it wouldn't matter. The solution is what matters, and I would hope that is what you are trying to focus on.
I would think that "unification of the world" IS a "new world order", so the page is about that already unified quasi secretly, and such a unification would not be an "alternative solution", it is the problem. It is done in secrecy.---
The page describes an organizational structures origin and linkages to global figures of history. They are real and the organizations are real and the unification of them into the nwo is real, however not visible. Not visible because it is only an organizational structure.----
The solution is to end corporate dependence by ending corporate power gained through individual rights, among other things.--
Organizing information and opinion is a prime order of solution and the "poll to post" message board can really help with that. This issue of nwo existant or not, is a prime example of the kind of issue that can find a type of resolution through poll to post because there is such a wide spectrum of evidence, which, each piece on its own is inconclusive
"The solution is what matters" - Exactly.
That was very good speech from Kennedy. If he was not assassinated, we would see a whole different brighter future. I've seen all the videos that the video you posted is composed of. Interview with Bush and some other people about belonging to some kind of cult. But, I don't think it is, what it is portrayed to be by AJ. It's not some super smart devil worshiping elite. If you watch Bush's interviews, he isn't that smart. An average person can perform better then him. I think, that's the place where all the corporate leaders including military industrial complex(which J.F.Kennedy btw was apposing too) choosing the most idiotic, easily manipulatable, and the most loyal to them people to elect in power. Where else would you find that kind of an idiot, that wouldn't think for himself, but just follow orders, other then in some kind of cult? Simple right? That's why we have to get away from representative democracy that is so easy to manipulate to a solid direct democracy.
Anyway, non of the videos tell anything about NWO other then combination of words themselves which just means radical political change in world. ;)
The nwo is basically an oral history shared by a number of secret societies. The oral history can appear as an agenda to those effected. Media and the power of publishers keeps the deeper more explanatory truths from being known. The public is suspended in disbelief and therefore unable to act in concert, with urgency, and very vulnerable over periods of time because media does not keep alive, facts needed to understand. Oral histories solve that problem but we know nothing of them, we even fear them. We fear what we need because of the elite using the same thing to dominate and hippocritically persecute us for using what we are made to fear.
Sure, voiceprint, fingerprint, picture but this information should be used only at a physical location and only to identify the person that comes in to get his/her voter ID or change the password. This information should not be shared with any other agency. To make sure that there are not fake IDs, all active IDs should public and correspond to actual population alive and all votes should be revoked and ID should be reused after person's death.
I don't think that would work as a primer. Getting money out of politics IS the most important thing we can do right now. After that happens only then will that idea you posted ever be debated on its merits without any corrupt outside influence eventually finding a way to pervert the debate for monetary gain.
You have to begin somewhere and the best starting point is being able to debate ALL issues without outside money getting involved.
"Getting money out of politics IS the most important thing" - You see, I agree that it's very important, my point is, it's impossible. We have to be realistic. And this is the most realistic idea there is. There is no way we can prevent corruption. If you stop official corruption like sponsoring ad campaigns, there will be cash bribes. Or super rich corporate owners themselves will be the only ones who can sponsor their own campaigns and we don't have to go to far for examples. Start thinking of a ways how it could be done and then think how it can be circumvented.
No one thinks that ALL corruption is going to vanish even if we get money out of politics. Its just like no one thinks that our laws against drinking and driving are going to stop everyone from doing it. But its important that there are laws against it and it is illegal. Because if it weren't illegal it would be a disaster and amounts of unnecessary deaths would skyrocket.
Apply that same principle to laws making it illegal for anyone in public office from taking outside money. Yes there will always be the few that think they are above the law and attempt to still take the money. But if there are serious consequences, the amount of corruption in our politics would plummet.
What you're asking for is impractical. And there is absolutely no chance of what you're asking for to even come close to happening under our current corrupt greedy political system.
Again, getting money out IS the absolute most important goal that this movement should be focused on. Very little can be achieved without dealing with the core issue of money and bribery.
Endgame wrote: What you're asking for is impractical. And there is absolutely no chance of what you're asking for to even come close to happening under our current corrupt greedy political system.
Again, getting money out IS the absolute most important goal that this movement should be focused on. Very little can be achieved without dealing with the core issue of money and bribery.END----
Yes, good points. There is only one lawful solution. Article 5 of the US constitution. By amendment the authority to get the money out can be found. The federal reserve can be dealth with, and a lot more. Article 5 is a lawful and peaceful rebellion, but citizens have to focus on their states and demand they enforce the constitution.
There are too many issues for everybody to be constantly involved. I'd rather live my life and spend time with my family than have to worry about the naming of a post office or other issues unimportant to me. While I go out to have a beer with my friends, I'd rather an elected official who has the voter's (not a campaign contributor's) interest at heart make decisions.
You would vote only if you want to participate and only if you understand it and consider it important. There are plenty of people who actually understand the issue. And if you don't like the way it works, you would actually have a choice to make your voice heard.
I agree with you that there are way too many people out there who complain and then don't vote. It is disappointing that less "developed" countries have a higher voter turn out rate.
My point is to decommercialize our politicians entirely. By the time people realized that both Boehner and Pelosi had profited on investments they made on companies that were directly related to legislation they were voting on, it was too late. The quid pro quo of politics works in both directions of campaign contributions from corporations and in the form of investments made by the politicians individually.
My personal belief is that free speech should be per person, not per dollar. Limiting campaign contributions to a size that anyone could reasonably afford achieves that. If, say, the Coke brothers want to invest millions in ads for "Candidate A," and one hundred people each contribute $100 to "Candidate B," then "Candidate A"''s monetary advantage is not due to democracy and free speech, but rather due to the fact that the Coke brothers have a ton of cash. And then, should "Candidate A" win, you can be sure that he/she will support whatever cause the Coke brothers support.
The idea behind my proposal is to eliminate any possibility that a politician could profit from his/her position in congress.
foxinsox60 wrote: agree with you that there are way too many people out there who complain and then don't vote. It is disappointing that less "developed" countries have a higher voter turn out rate.END------
That of course is true, and disappointing, but it leaves out that in foriegn countries people talk in communities of families and their media is a secondary source of information. In America we have that filthy, lying, glowing box in the corner of the room providing us with information. It is our culture.-----
Americans, knowing this, unable to find community of like minded families, never get informed, they can't vote and they know it.
I understand what you are trying to do, but I just don't see it as doable, especially Part 3, no politician or his/family can have any financial or other investments? I mean, come on, that's almost impossible. Both my husband and I have investments, so I would have to liquidate my investments. Why can't we just have a system where all donations, no matter what size, must be transparent and be put on the web. no more bundling of monies, individuals only. If we would just realize that the people we PUT in office, with our VOTES are the ones to be angry with. If a politician says, I'm for environmental causes and then takes tons of money from oil companies and then votes against any environmental legislation, than that individual should not be re-elected. plain and simple. so many people just don't even take the time to vote, its ridiculous and then they sit around and complain.
Getting corporate money out of politics is a priority and a good place to start. There is a much bigger problem with media. As long as people do not have facts and truth they cannot participate functionally in democracy and Article V is the ultimate form of democracy in America. It is the "Democratic control over the principles of the Republic", that we've heard of.-----
With the media issue in mind, how would you propose getting enough information that is factual to the voters on issues so candidates arguments has a factual basis?----
No, we can't trust PBS and discovery channel to carry the most difficult facts and commercial news media neglects its constitutionally vital public trust years after year.---
oxinsox60 wrote: There are two methods of amending the constitution. I suggest we look at the 2nd and entirely otherwise unused method to date as described in the constitution, article V. The second process describes there starts with the states. With the many OCCUPY camps across the country, we have enough numbers to make a sizable effect at the state level. Such an action would force, per the constitution, the federal government to take up this measure.END----
Yes, absolutely to only possible way to gain enough authority to meet the demands Occupy is making. There is actually a completely absurd bohemian promoting that Occupy is a social movement, cognitive collapse.-
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-a-social-movement-not-a-political-one/
All because Occupy does not know how to define its political position, the cognitive misrepresentation is that it is social. Basically saying that its a bunch of complaining, refusing to acknowledge that BECAUSE congress has been in violation its congressional duty to convene delegates, intentionally misinterpreting Article V, for 100 years, there is another issue altogether.---
The state is the ultimate law enforcement of the constitution before the military, who can technically based on their oath.
[Removed]
[Removed]