Forum Post: Keep searching for ways to screw the corrupt system, and implement...
Posted 11 years ago on Jan. 25, 2013, 12:04 p.m. EST by DSamms
(-294)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Proposal for Direct Action
The following proposal is written as an argumentative brief. It should be read in its entirety, if it's to make any sense.
Boiled down it asks American citizens to make a yes or no decision based on what you think, and what you want to happen next. The question is:
Either support the twin-party political status quo and thus consent to all the bad acts you claim to hate and detest...
or
Reject their hate and war and poverty by voting to withdraw your consent to be governed under the Constitution in the next general election.
Argument
From a Constitutional perspective, we are experiencing a breakdown in representation, in trust, at the most basic level of governance -- our elected representatives no longer represent the voters whom elect them to office. However, whoever they do represent is not as important as the simple fact that they do not represent the vast majority of Americans who cannot afford large campaign donations and lobbyists.
This issue is fundamental to Constitutional self-governance which, according to the Declaration of Independence, is based solely on the principle that our government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed".
The democratic aspect of our little constitutional republic is limited to popularly electing Representatives and Senators to Congress and electors in the Presidential election, as well as serving on juries (and grand juries) in criminal and civil matters. Notwithstanding the First Amendment's articulation of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", there is no other Constitutional means to assert democratic (that is to say direct citizen) control over our government.
The Constitution does not confer rights upon citizens, rather it merely articulates some of our inherent rights as contrasted with the limited powers, duties and responsibilities we delegate to the government it describes. Or, in other words, the Constitution is a formal agreement, a social contract, between Americans individually and collectively, about how we govern ourselves. As such, local elections serve to elect local and state citizens to Constitutionally described offices whom then constitute the actual and functional "government" which presides over our (we the people's) business.
Thus, each election not only constitutes a "new" government, but also conveys our consent, individually and collectively, to be governed under the Constitution by that government. Individually, voting for a candidate in an election conveys your consent to be governed by any candidate elected to office and, collectively, our consent legitimates the new government regardless of whom is elected.
But there can be no meaningful consent absent an equal ability to withhold our consent, to dissent... To say no, we do not agree.
If consent to be governed under the Constitution is implied, both individually and collectively, by voting for a candidate in an election for office, it follows that any American withholding their consent must do so explicitly in an election, insofar as voting is the only Constitutional means of determining the people's intent and will both individually and collectively. Moreover, it also follows that any American withholding their consent implicitly casts a vote against all candidates for office.
Individually this is political dissent in the only poll that counts -- our ballot box. Collectively it becomes American democracy -- an expression of our free will and political intent.
And its practical effect?
All Representatives are elected locally, in Congressional districts, and the entire House of Representatives stands for election every two years. By withdrawing our consent in a general election, a plurality of Americans can present a lame-duck Congress with an undeniable Constitutional crisis, if we keep the next House of Representatives from seating a quorum come January.
If the House cannot seat a quorum, Congress cannot conduct business. If Congress cannot conduct business, the US government will shut down.
Although there is no precedent, a Constitutionally logical course of action is that Congress immediately call an Article V convention. Thus, perhaps this ought be the direct Constitutional object of our dissent in a general election -- calling an Article V convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
As far as linking our dissent at the polls with calling an Article V convention, what else can we do Constitutionally speaking? This is not a rhetorical question. Although shutting down the government in the short-term may be necessary, it does little to actually solve our problems in the long run.
An Article V convention is our means of amending the Constitution that neither Congress, Court or President can control or stop. Any amendment proposed by the convention must be ratified by a majority of voters in thirty-seven (3/4s) states. Because we elect all delegates to the convention and must ratify any amendment the convention proposes before it becomes Constitutional law, we democratically control the process.
This is our Constitutional, democratic and peaceful means of throwing off a corrupt political order, getting money out of politics, and ending this twin-party farce. The Democratic and Republican parties are run for and by the corporate and financial elite. Needless to say, this scares the hell out of them.
Their arguments against an Article V convention all boil down to its independence from government control and power to propose any amendment to the Constitution. But that is exactly what is required to get the job done -- independence and power -- and why Congress will never call one unless compelled to do so...
In Walker v. Congress, the Supreme Court held that Congress' continuing refusal to call an Article V convention was a political question and refused to rule, even though plaintiffs proved sufficient state applications requesting an Article V convention had been tendered and that Article V's plain language, "shall call", left no doubt that Congress refuses to fulfill its Constitutional duty.
Constitutionally, the only democratic way to compel politicians is in the voting booth, and the Supreme Court ruled this a political question...
We are the governed. All legitimate governance arises from our consent to be governed. We have the power to say no under our Constitution, to withdraw our consent to be governed by a corrupt political order.
If not, government of the people, for the people and by the people no longer exists, if ever it did. The republic has fallen and our Constitution is myth. We have no rights or liberty, only privileges easily revoked and votes worth nothing... Nothing beyond that which money can buy.
DSams
End Note
I cannot tell if Mitt would be better or worse than Obama. The significant policies would not change. That's what matters. Control of policy. And, no matter who you voted for, you didn't throw your vote away. It was counted. I voted for Jill. But there were no "good" choices in my congressional races.
A Georgetown U. professor called this the coin theory -- that the parties should be as alike as two sides of the same coin, so the people could throw the rascals out in any election, with the other party, without effecting or changing policy. That control of policy and political stability are the most prized elite possessions.
Yes, withdraw your consent to be governed by those who corrupt our government and economic system. Call an Article V convention. Publicly debate amendment proposals in the run-up to the election. Make twin party candidates compete with Constitutional philosophy and ideas. The cream will rise to the top -- proposals and proposers and debaters.
Ignite public imagination. Frame the issues, ask the question and let people educate themselves. Trust democracy. That's what everyone wants, isn't it? Direct democracy? A choice? This is it. Make it viral.
After the election, if we we prevail, we elect local delegates, our candidates -- debaters and proposers, in existing congressional districts, same as any general election, to the convention. They debate and propose amendments in public convention. Any amendments they propose must be ratified by popular vote in 3/4s of the states. Constitutional democracy in action. It's not perfect, but its possible. And its Constitutional, not anarchy.
Ask yourself this question:
As an American citizen, make a yes or no decision based on what you think, and what you want to happen next. The question is:
Either I support the twin-party political status quo and thus consent to all their bad acts I claim to hate and detest...
or
I Reject their hate and war and poverty by voting to withdraw my consent to be governed under the Constitution in the next general election.
Perhaps we can all agree, the people ought decide this question in the voting booth.
Well lets see the Barriors and dangers of Article V Convension.
1) You can end up with a worst US Constitution as a Result. I'm thinking an Article V Convention would open the Whole Consittution to Changes, Ammendments, the whole Shi-bang.
2) The Barriors to having an Article V are probably what most in OWS heard about. No only do you have to get a huge support to get the thing going ... But you have to get Most US States and their Populations to Support the Effort. And then you have to Get all the States to Ratify whatever Product comes out of the Article V Convention.
3) The US Population is mean. Face it the guys on the Left want to prevent the guys on the Right from saying anything. And the guys on the Right want to prevent the Left from saying anything.
4) The people in control of the US Now are some kind of hybrid Swine, bred with a nazi. They have no respect for the current constitution or for human rights or for Individual Rights. These Fascist will try to take over any Constitutional Convention and will take our the Inidvidual Rights. They will probably use UN Treaty Rules.
I think we better stick to the US Constitution for as long as we can.
An uphill battle indeed.
Wanted to pass on this to see what are your thoughts....I assume it may be of interest, a way to go around El Articulo Cinco. http://www.cusdi.org/solution.htm
Thanks. I still haven't dug into this much. Saved you webpage though. Seem to have some personal issues right now. Have a head ache for one thing.... Probably will have to get back to you on my new thoughts.
Right now, ... I think there is a Serious, Deadly Serious Nature to any Constitutional Convenstion ... this is what I see Article V to be about. As I understand the whole Constitution would be Open for Change, new Language, Complete Review and Complete Rewriting.
So, it seems to me we would need people who are scary smart and not already pulled into Extreme Solutions. But we are all sort of political. And the Founding Fathers were probably slightly Fascist, Slighty Right Wing, Slighty Left Wing, and there were rich and poor around, people who were serfs, there were people who were granted large tracts of Land by English Royalty if not French or Spanish. There were educated people and there we uneducated. There were people who fled persecution for different reasons.
But I'm not sure who to Trust in a Process like an Open Constitutional Convention.
And the Human Condition seems to be we have pin heads on the Right & Left that won't listen to the other side ... and who want to surpress the other side.
The truth might be that a Constitutional Convention would rip this country open ... would lead to huge social disorder, riots, anarchy, crime, Violence, Theft, Arson, ... and other bad things like destruction of Infrastructure like Electricity, Water, gas for heat and cooking in homes, bridges, roads .....
If these are your concerns, why not discuss them with someone who proposes an Article V and allow a defense to be mounted? You preach to an anti-Article V choir, you'll hear nothing but cheering and receive little more than flattery. If you want more information and a real debate, step out of the echo chamber that's being orchestrated here...
I'm just thinking about what my has said over the years ...
[Removed]
What's the matter gsw... GK got your tongue?
As far as receiving and counting state applications, then calling a convention; Congress refuses to count state applications and call, if warranted, a convention simply because it has not counted them. This is willful contempt of our Constitution, States and people, rising to treason considering our current and forecast political circumstances.
Moreover, Congress can "lay claim" to anything (and has been doing so for years). That does not mean we have to let it happen. Consider these two phases from the Declaration of Independence:
"...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..."
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
If you agree with these statements, perhaps you'll consider a less legalistic and more creative, democratic way to address our circumstances and compel Congress to call an Article V convention. What we ought be proposing is nothing less than the Constitutional embodiment of our rights described in the Declaration of Independence.
I do not want to shred the Constitution. Hell, I wrap myself in its embrace each time I write. But our democratic options are limited, as is our time: We will not regain what we've lost without risk and travail, much less free ourselves from elite twin-party tyranny.
I don't seem to be moving forward with this idea for Article V. Maybe I'm not ready or maybe I still have to absorb more info over time.
That's reasonable. Just consider what I, and others, are writing about it. If the rich wanted one, they could have bought it at any time. Why haven't they? Tuck it in your backpocket. Might come in handy one day.
"We will not regain what we've lost without risk and travail, much less frre ourselves from elite twin-party tyranny."
You said a mouthful there.
~Odin~
Unfortunately...
Yes, but then, anything that is not easily come by, is less likely to be lost in a hurrry
~Odin~
Anything easily come by... is most likely a setup.
Yes, the twinkle-team lefties here are fond of quoting the far-right in "defense" of the Constitution. I've been asking them to support their case, but pretty much everything they've cited thus far comes from Phyllis Schlafly's mouth. Google "Eagle Forum", if you care too.
Perhaps it's time for the radical majority to break its silence.
Are you willing to continue and explore these ideas, or consider what proponents of an Article V have to say? You may find this link interesting: http://www.foa5c.org/
This link suggests that Congress is the Key Player in an Article V:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42589.pdf
Second, while the Constitution is silent on the mechanics of an Article V convention, Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including (1) receiving, judging, and recording state applications; (2) establishing procedures to summon a convention; (3) setting the amount of time allotted to its deliberations; (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates; (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; and (6) arranging for the formal transmission of any proposed amendments to the states.
So, you may lose control of the Artilce V.
As far as receiving and counting state applications, then calling a convention, Congress refuses to count state applications and call, if warranted, a convention simply because it has not counted them. This is willful contempt of our Constitution, States and people, rising to treason considering our current and forecast political circumstances.
Moreover, Congress can "lay claim" to anything (and has been doing so for years). That does not mean we have to let it happen.
Consider these two phases from the Declaration of Independence:
"...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..."
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
If you agree with these statements, perhaps you'll consider a less legalistic and more creative, democratic way to address our circumstances and compel Congress to call an Article V convention. What we ought be proposing is nothing less than the Constitutional embodiment of our rights described in the Declaration of Independence.
I do not want to shred the Constitution. Hell, I wrap myself in its embrace each time I write. But our democratic options are limited, as is our time: We will not regain what we've lost without risk and travail, much less free ourselves from elite twin-party tyranny.
Screwing the "system" is what corrupted it in the first place.
What do think all those corporations did to it?
Pay their taxes?
And your substantive point is?
See my first sentence and actually read it.
I'll wait for your denial.
Nope nothing there... Not even worth the time and effort to ridicule. When you get a clue, post an answer that makes a logical point. As it is, all you're doing is strutting your ignorance.
Tell me how "screwing" the system DIDN'T fuck it up in the first place.
Isn't that how Rick Scott made his money?
Wasn't "screwing " the system how the MIC got it's influence?
Criticizing the headline is not a substantive, nor a constructive, comment. You don't care for the proposal. That's fine shooz, it's your opinion. But your persistence in posting irrelevant comments is disruptive. If you've got something useful to say, spit it out. If not, shut up. And the twinkle/stinkle thing is just so... juvenile.
So your headline doesn't matter?
It was a meaningless come on?
You could still make an attempt at answering my question.
My opinion on art5 hasn't changed. It doesn't matter how, nor how many times you relabel it.
Getting the money OUT needs to happen first, and really? Letting the "dust" settle from that action would be important too.
Perhaps an explanation of your use of a lurid, off topic headline is what's needed here.
Until then, I reserve the right to react to it, whether you like the idea, or not..
Your questions are meaningless (but thanks for the bump): Headlines are merely intended to arouse interest in the article or post. Tell you what, I'll give you a hint as to what is involved in substantive criticism.
From the current issue (March 2013) of Harper's, pg. 41, "The Unraveling of Bo Xilai":
"History is full of examples of authoritarian regimes with little need of consent from the people they govern; China is not one of these. The Party's concern with maintaining legitimacy, however, puts it in a difficult position. Its leaders cannot measure populist mandates in votes, and their judicial system does not operate independently of the Party. In other countries, leaders might be able to invoke royal or revolutionary birthright to justify their reign. In a functioning democracy, people can consent to a system even if they don't like their current leaders. In China however, the philosophical underpinnings of the Party's right to power have been in flux over the past thirty years. To explain the worth of their ruling elite, they maintain that their system of leadership is a meritocracy."
Compare and contrast the above paragraph with my statements in the original post regarding consent to be governed under our Constitution. In particular, describe what constitutes "legitimacy" of governance in both systems, including what would be necessary for American and Chinese citizens withdraw their consent to be governed under their respective systems of governance.
Extra points will be awarded for listing the different theories and basic philosophical arguments regarding consent of the governed.
Dazzle us with your brilliance and witty prose shooz.
You make slightly more sense than the last guy who pushed Art5.
Now would you like to answer any of the questions I asked you, or are you afraid to do that?
Reading comprehension not your strong suit? "Headlines are merely intended to arouse interest in the article or post."
Your brilliance appears to be bullsh*t. You keep posting "answer my questions". Well, why don't you hold yourself to the same standard. Answer the questions shooz.
Propaganda.
That's what you just used a whole lot of confusing verbiage to avoid saying.
Not even good propaganda though, as it has no relation to the body of the communique.
I'm sure ALEC would be disappointed in your attempt to support them.
Propaganda shooz, really? You wanted an answer to your meaningless, self-evident and off-topic question about the post headline. You have one. And "propaganda" is the best you can do?
Answers, shooz. Answers. I've posed a serious question above. Answer it. It's on topic and requires a substantive reply. Are you incapable? College sophomores answer these questions all the time. Is it beyond your kin? Say it ain't so -- I've been wrangling over nothing with an incompetent? Prove yourself. Answer the question shooz.
Just as a reminder -- let's restate the question here, so everyone can see what you're running from...
From the current issue (March 2013) of Harper's, pg. 41, "The Unraveling of Bo Xilai":
"History is full of examples of authoritarian regimes with little need of consent from the people they govern; China is not one of these. The Party's concern with maintaining legitimacy, however, puts it in a difficult position. Its leaders cannot measure populist mandates in votes, and their judicial system does not operate independently of the Party. In other countries, leaders might be able to invoke royal or revolutionary birthright to justify their reign. In a functioning democracy, people can consent to a system even if they don't like their current leaders. In China however, the philosophical underpinnings of the Party's right to power have been in flux over the past thirty years. To explain the worth of their ruling elite, they maintain that their system of leadership is a meritocracy."
Compare and contrast the above paragraph with my statements in the original post regarding consent to be governed under our Constitution. In particular, describe what constitutes "legitimacy" of governance in both systems, including what would be necessary for American and Chinese citizens withdraw their consent to be governed under their respective systems of governance.
Two choices shooz -- put up or shut up.
Which question?
I'm still trying to figure out why you can't seem to stay on subject.
From your thread title to the art5 crap and then on to something in China. Perhaps you should ask aurturo?
It's just not cohesive enough to be effective, but bad propaganda, is still propaganda.
Yep, shooz, that's about what I expected. No intellect. No courage. No integrity. No answer. My name is on every post -- you on the other hand are a coward.
Pointing out your ignorant, propagandized thread title makes me a coward?
You're the coward that never explained that, not changing subjects either.
Well DSamms, I'll do you one better, for an answer to my question.
I'll give you my full name.
All you have to do, is give a comprehensible answer.
If you can remember the question.
[Deleted]
Sorry if it's unclear. In fact, comments like these are why I posted it... What did you miss?
Well . . . in the whole articular I did not see a proposal??? Would you copy and paste it to a response for me?
The original post is, itself, the proposal. It's written as an argumentative brief. It should be read in its entirety, if it's to make any sense.
Boiled down it asks American citizens to make a yes or no decision based on what you think, and what you want to happen next. The question is:
Either support the twin-party political status quo and thus consent to all the bad acts you claim to hate and detest... or, reject their hate and war and poverty by voting to withdraw your consent to be governed under the Constitution in the next general election.
I went to the site and read the info on the constitutional change and it doesn't say anything about withdraw of your consent??? It talks, AT LENGTH, about changing the constitution to:
Introduction This Direct Democracy Initiatives Amendment plan is introduced by six key points:
Our Nation and each Citizen's life will improve significantly when the People can continuously reduce corruption, limit congressional excesses, and repair wasteful legislation. Only the People can have the power to stop the many forms of congressional dysfunction—separation of powers excludes all other possibilities.
Self-motivated Citizen groups, many with great expertise, creativity, realism, experience, and first-class minds, will submit their Initiative proposals via newspaper publication with simultaneous publication on the Internet.
The Amendment establishes a Citizens' Initiatives Assembly. It will be similar to a large tamper-proof grand jury of 500 one-year part-time members with staggered terms. They will accurately represent the People's views and wishes. The Assembly will be independent, responsible only to the People, and empowered by the People.
This Citizens' Assembly will manage, review, winnow, and rank the proposed Initiatives. It can seek the People's Internet comments. Finally, it will qualify just the best few as ballot Initiatives that the People will most want to vote on at federal elections. The entire voting public of the US will always make the final National Initiative decisions.
The US Constitution permits an amendment to implement this plan. The plan is feasible. The plan does not depend on cooperation from Congress; rather, it assumes Congressional opposition. Of course, ratification will take great effort, especially in at least 14 necessary states beyond those 24 whose state initiatives make passage far easier.
This Amendment is a continuation of our great experiment in democracy. The effort is worthwhile for permanent improvements to our federal government's efficiency and effectiveness. It is the People's responsibility to enforce the People's right to make the People's Congress operate for the People's benefit as the People's Constitution intends.
This is the site you sent me too . . . .
Sorry, I've not posted you any links. That was gsw I believe.
Simply scroll up, to the top of the page, and begin reading. Stop when you hit the comments... Good luck.
Ive read enough to know whats going on now and see that the process is very complicated and extensive involvement of many folks would be needed. I again am starting to feel like a flee trying to move an elephant. http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML I did, however, come across an interesting site that you may be interested in during my effort to influence my congressman. Check it out and let me know what you think. . .
Interesting site. Thanks for the post.
It comes down to a simple yes or no question. What do you think? Just put it in your backpocket and, if you ever need it, use it.
I think the idea of just saying no, I don't support your bastard anymore is great! The process of getting there is so complicated and immense I don't see it ever getting done. I just read the post on creating a new party to vote for and I think that would be easier than trying to amend the constitution. I think that idea would fly and if our candidates got in we could invoke change from the inside. Selling this concept of change to the people is not a hard sell. Especially now with everything falling apart, and its only going to get worse.
Check it out . . . . It's Time For a New Political Party. is the heading.
Only on the internet can people compare corporate greed with activism against the system, on an even scale. Nice post though.
Thanks. I'd like to talk, if you have the time.
[Removed]
Apparently the twinkle-team dislikes you...
"An Article V convention is our means of amending the Constitution that neither Congress, Court or President can control or stop. Any amendment proposed by the convention must be ratified by a majority of voters in thirty-seven (3/4s) states. Because we elect all delegates to the convention and must ratify any amendment the convention proposes before it becomes Constitutional law, we democratically control the process."
THIS IS NOT TRUE - READ THE CONSTITUTIONS ARTICLE V
Don't believe the propaganda
If you want to know the truth about Article V - read 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 .
I'm not sure what to conclude from the following, but there are a vary large number of sites on the internet pushing a convention - including ALEC & numerous tea party groups - but I could not find the Article V text on the sites I hit.
I got it from wikipedia.
Whatever has greater constitutional intent controls the convention. Ot's clear politicians cannot do constitutional intent, which means the people must. Or, the proper interpretation that delegates would be elected by states.
The constitution is clear - the convention is TOTALLY controlled by the delegates ( and the koch brothers who will purchase them )
Explain how ART5 states that delegates are purchased.
Virtually every senator & congressman is purchased
The Constitution says nothing about how
Article V convention delegates are "selected"
Over $5B was spent in the last election - to buy a few years of pols to represent THEIR interests - mostly by the 1% special interests
With the possibility of as few as 50 delegates,
giving ( buying ) 26 of them each $100,000,000 -
would be peanuts - to buy a country
Your fear is why you'll fail. Everything we do is problematic and we will accomplish nothing without risking a democratic solution. Guess you'd better step up your game and run as a delegate -- or are you afraid you'll sell out?
If you are not sure what to conclude, how do you know what is "true"?
The text IS THE TRUTH
"I'm not sure what to conclude from the following, but there are a vary large number of sites on the internet pushing a convention - including ALEC & numerous tea party groups - but I could not find the Article V text on the sites I hit. I got it from wikipedia."
Why do so many of the pro-amendment sites NOT post the real text?
Why is ALEC pushing for this?
"Why do so many of the pro-amendment sites NOT post the real text?"
The text of Article V is easy to come by? To be frank, I simply do not know...
"Why is ALEC pushing for this?"
The most likely avenue for ALEC's balanced budget amendment is that after well-publicised lobbying by "conservative and moderate' governors, Congress itself proposes the amendment. Since it poses a threat to their power, Congress will not call an Article V convention under any circumstances. They can still be bought, but Ds will have to roll over, yet again, to make it happen. What are the odds?
The simple "why" answer is to lower wages and thereby increase profit.
-or-
ALEC, the right-wing, and the corporate-financial elite want to amend with a balanced budget provision. ALEC is simply a front group, much the same as the old DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) from the Bush-Clinton years that pushed corporate globalization. (Al was a member too.) At this point globalization is pretty much complete, insofar as transferring productive capacity from the US to low wage countries is concerned.
The next step is to lower US wages significantly by dramatically increasing the number of unemployed and under-employed while also effectively removing the social safety net. That is the point of ALEC's balanced budget amendment -- it will make it possible to strangle social spending. Meanwhile our very own Manichean devil, al-Qaeda and terrorism, will provide the excuse to maintain extremely high levels of military, police and prison spending as well as continued suppression of civil liberty.
The social unrest this economic dislocation and suppression of civil liberty will cause, will in turn provide the government with an excuse for instituting martial law in order to prevent domestic terrorism. A "terrorist" incident or attack will precede imposition. Civil liberties will soon be nonexistent, the internet censored and travel restricted. Surveillance, fueled by unlimited computing power and storage, cheap cameras and drones, and self-righteous patriotism, will become (is already) ubiquitous.
From what I have read about Article V is that the "govenors" of the states can call for a constitutional convention - but there has to be 2/3 for this to happen.
Once the convention is conveined issues discussed an amendment is written, then a 2/3 vote is required for it to be "put to a vote by the people". Meaning all the states will have the opportunity to vote and again a 2/3 majority of the states is needs to approve it for it to pass.
So it is a way to bypass congress when a change is to be made to the constitution.
I am 99% sure this is how it works however, it's been a while since I researched it.
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 .
The state governors have nothing to do with this.
The state legislatures of 2/3 of the states ( both legislative bodies ) can vote to call a convention
OR 2/3 of the US House + 2/3 of the US SENATE can
Inside the the convention is the ONLY way to decide the agenda - there is no pre-set pre-determined limitted convention.
The 2/3 "majority" vote INSIDE the convention is NOT constitutionally required.
Ratification is by 3/4 vote of the state legislatures
OR
by 3/4 of of stste conventions.
The Constitution is a bit confusing, but if you read the article carefully, I think you will come to the same conclusions on what is specified.
Nothing is constitutionally stated on how delegates are selected
Nothing is constitutionally defined on delegate voting "majority" or "quorum"
The voters NEVER vote on what is done by the convention
Considering what ALEC & the Koch brothers were willing to spend to get the votes of 100,000,000 Americans, what would they spend to DIRECTLY spend to influence a few dozen delegates -
eliminate corporate tax, eliminate inheritance tax, require a balanced budget, Norquist reigns supreme
Again, you might want to try reading case law on the subject. A number of issues you raise have been decided: electing delegates; what constitutes a "majority", plurality", and "quorum"; what constitutes a "state convention" for the purposes of ratification...
http://www.foa5c.org/
Do you understand the concept and purpose of "stare decisis et non quieta movere"?
Thirty-four states (2/3s) must submit an "application" for an Article V convention to Congress. Altho forty-nine states have tendered applications, Congress refuses to call an Article V convention.
Once a convention is called, delegates are elected in the same manner as Congressmen. Once convened, only delegates may introduce, debate and vote on amendment proposals. If the convention proposes any amendment(s) to the Constitution, each amendment must be ratified by a majority of voters in thirty-seven states (3/4s).
Other than what the OP proposes, there is no way to compel Congress to call an Article V convention.
I don't think congress can refuse an Article V convention. - I believe that's the reason for Article V to give the states the right should they so desire to use it. Am I reading your first sentence right?
They already did in 1911. Citizens withold consent while soldiers inquire as to WHY and the constitutionality of the civil government.
http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.html
Well said.
Well, since Article V's plain language is "shall call", I also think Congress cannot refuse.
"The Congress, … on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…"
Apparently however, Congress begs to disagree with us, and the Supreme Court called it a political question in Walker v. Congress.
I have also read some of the theories about conventions in 3/4s of the states constituting a de facto Article V convention (and in some cases a Constitutional Convention). Most are pretty recent and look to be the ALEC arguments stripped of originating context.
As far as, "Am I reading your first sentence right?" Yes? What did it say?
I learned something which might muddy that water re: walker v congress.
There is a very old treaty covering the territory the trial was held in. The treaty age creates a jurisdictional issue if questioned. Which creates a political controversy. - Without saying so, courts will decide as if it is questioned rather than fairly hearing a case and allowing the legal question to come from the public naturally.
May or may not be relative in that case.
It still appears to be a political question, however. In not hearing arguments, denying it on those grounds, political question, the court washed its hands. I'd be happy to make that argument. Let's vote on it.
Yes, for whatever reason. Voting on what should have happened in 1911 when 2/3 of the states had applied for a convention, is much less ambiguous.
[Deleted]
It's the Paul Weyrich way.
The (R)epelican't path to the future.
Care for a cup of ALEC?
Your way out their guy, try being a little less sarcastic and a little more helpful.
Stop voting then, if you think this Weyrich convert has anything good to say.
When telling the truth is perceived as "way out there", what does that really say?
Let me say this politely shooz: Fuck off with your right-wing fear mongering.
Keep it up.
It won't take much more.
You're a hateful person, you know you want to.
The "right' wing brings NOTHING to the table except tyranny.
Tell me to fuck off again. Useless Weyrich, wanker.
shooz: "The "right' wing brings NOTHING to the table except tyranny."
If that be the case shooz, why do you quote and use right-wing arguments so often? Why are you so angry?
Exactly. That's all they've brought, that's all they bring.
You're no different, telling me to fuck off.
You're just plain hate.
I've felt the right wing hate most of my life;
You're lies don't fool me.
Tyranny, dereliction of duty and treason are the way of right wing.
PROVEN! Over and over.
So c'mon. Insult me some more.
Sorry shooz, you're the one ranting and trolling here. I'm not angry at you. And, for the most part, I agree with pretty much everything you say about the far right. Especially the racist far right and white hate groups. But I don't agree with everything you say, and that seems to stick in your craw.
Immediately after the Occupy protests began, my daughter asked for an American flag. I gave her one. She hung it, upside down, on her porch facing the street. We live in a conservative neighborhood. Very conservative. Some neighbors got, well, concerned. Bill, across the street, put an American flag on the front of his house and put a floodlight on it.
A thirty-year Marine wrote a letter to the editor. Called on the police and fire departments to answer our "distress" signal. All unofficially of course. I answered. I reminded him that we did not fight for that flag, but what it stands for. And that he wanted to take my liberty, my freedom, to speak my mind. That free speech is most precious when we say what no one wants to hear. I invited the Marine to coffee. He never showed.
The editor and I are now friends. He's a conservative. I'm not. But we get along anyway.
How does this explain your support here for conse(R)vative ideology?
How does show support for forward thinking ideology?
How does it explain your lack of comment on issues threads?
None of it interests you?
Would like to talk about tyranny in Michigan?
No, you told me to fuck off, and now you want to pretend that it's not you throwing a fit.
Now you want to pretend you can tell people to fuck off and it's alright?
Why don't you tell me what it is you think I don't like about the right wing that you agree with?
Plenty of people are talking about issues. I've debated and supported issues for over twenty years. The problem is systemic. Poking it here or there, every year or two, does little good. I know. I kicked, poked and prodded. And things got worse anyway.
But, very few know much about process. And there is a conflation between the two that narrows debate. Rather than one amendment, I'd prefer to consider ten or twenty... That way I know the process isn't rigged -- all those proposals must compete openly, no one monopolizes the national conversation and debate around a narrow issue...
If the wealthy wanted an Article V, don't you think they could have bought one already? The very thought scares the shit out of elite. For them it's chaos (that is to say not business as usual). That's why they need CU, to ward off any "outbursts" of democracy.
How do we neutralize their cash advantage? No candidates. Make them fight on Constitutional grounds in the heart and mind of every American. They can marginalize our candidates, but cannot compete with ideas, norms and values...
Especially those which support and defend the Constitution and give people a choice and chance to speak their minds... And make it stick.
Then let our candidates compete. As local convention delegates.
All ALEC, all the time.
With the States increasingly, in the irons of tyranny, it will do no good.
Very selective in your choice of which questions you're willing answer, once again.
Look shooz, I'm sorry I've offended you. I hoped to shock you out of your mindset, and quite obviously failed. My mistake. What I've written substantively to you is sincere, I'm working hard on a Constitutional and democratic possibility.
But you're attempting to confuse and propagandize people replying to a thread I started. Stalking my posts. Interrupting my conversations. Back off. Scroll up and read this conversation if there is any doubt.
I don't know who you are, nor what has happened to you in life. But you're angry, that much is plain. And, to a certain degree, I can understand it. But you are using exactly the same hateful-fearful tactics employed by those you profess to hate and detest. That's the dark side. And I want to lure you away from it with a little hope.
So if I want to shock YOU out your mindset, that's what I should do?
Call you names?
Which style, level, type of insults will bring me the best results?
BTW, you're not the first right winger to assume and accuse me of being "angry".
I'm not angry, I'm trying to bring you out of your mindset.
I didn't tell you to fuck off. You told me to fuck off.
Did you forget?
You got angry with me before too.
Did you forget that as well?
This and now the "dark side" BS, is your way of apologizing for telling me to fuck off.
Unacceptable.
You push ALEC positions, whether you know it, or not.
And that's unacceptable too.
Now, about that discussion on tyranny in Michigan?
shooz: You're attempting to confuse and propagandize people replying to a thread I started. Stalking my posts. Interrupting my conversations. Back off. Scroll up and read this conversation if there is any doubt.
Get over it.
Now, tell me about Michigan.
No. Register and vote -- to withdraw your consent to be governed under the Constitution by the current political order -- if you do not think the government represents your best interests.
Or put another way:
Either support the status quo and thus consent to all the bad acts you claim to hate and detest... or you reject their hate and war and poverty by voting to withdraw your consent to be governed in a general election.
How do you do that? I did not know you could withdraw your consent to be governed. Where is that on the ballot?
Buen provecho. http://www.cusdi.org/problem.htm
Interesting link. Thanks for the post. Read a bit of it, not nearly all. Who put it together?
It's not. but it should be... Constitutionally speaking, I think we can put it there. And make it stick.
Shoot, I should be "enticing" you with post-Phase 3 instead of Phase 1 of the Conglomerate!
I've said the Conglomerate is "destined/designed to devour capitalism and die with it". That is the shortest summary of the three phases.
What comes next is anyone's dream. I've never been that interested in how things work now because I hate it and deep down I don't think I recognize it as reality. I would rather waste my life dreaming of the best way to live than relearning how much I hate things as they are.
I've been compiling my ideas mentally and in letters to myself for years. After some time, and finally some effort posting about it on various forums, I settled here. You're right, DSamms, the links would suck to go through for anyone else.
Anyway, if you're interested, I can show you about Departmental Governance. This is just my post-Conglomerate dream, though would be equally happy with any good 99% democratic development. I believe change like this can only be achieved peacefully in a reasonable time-frame with the Conglomerate. Honestly, for me, Responsible Capitalism came first, then Departmental Governance, then the 99% Conglomerate was born. It's all been a process of evolution as time and experience smartened me up. I thought you might appreciate knowing more history than I've shared with anyone before on the topic of the Conglomerate.
Thanks for reading, DSamms. Dreams can come true.
Thanks for your kind words. Am willing to take a look at anything you send my way, but I am honest about what I think (this doesn't win many friends I've noticed). Dreaming about a better world is a good thing, in my opinion. That said, I've not seen too many dreams that are practical in the real world.
Ya, being honest can make life less convenient, but it's the best policy.
Agreed.
Another call for an Article V convention. What will that really accomplish but put the present corrupt set of representatives in charge of further corrupting the Constitution. Do you honestly think that these people will do the right thing now when they haven't in the past?
An Article V convention can only be as fruitful as the people who nourish it. The present group would trample the vine. The Constitution is not the cause of our problems, a misinformed and careless electorate is.
The entire point of de-legitimizing the government by withdrawing our consent is to rid ourselves of the twin-party tweedle-dums and tweedle-dees. Such a protest, if successful, will shatter both parties' credibility. Elections for delegates held immediately after a successful dissent would be no cakewalk, but we will know that we can prevail...
And you are certainly right insofar as "a misinformed and careless electorate" is concerned. Many of us have been saying exactly that for many years. Occupy is waking a few more up, but not enough and not in time.
Moreover, our political situation has changed dramatically since our founding, enough such that an Article V convention is warranted, if for nothing else but to re-affirm our rights and resolve some long-standing balance of power issues.
BTW, if this is yet "another call for an Article V convention", perhaps you ought begin listening... Congress certainly doesn't.
I decided to reply here after reading the entire thread. I agree with your ideas and have tried to imagine what would give us the best chance of success.
IMO, apathetic and misinformed Americans need passion for this cause. The 26th amendment passed quickly because few dared to voice opposition. We need something like that. You are correct that some are awakening but not enough and not in time. Personally, I have called out for unifying around one issue, originally, "money out of politics". I have changed my issue to LOVE. If we had a "Love Amendment", or, "Protect the Weak", or something similar, the people might become passionate and who would dare to oppose it?
Thank you for your reply and kind words.
Passion is what we need. Motivation usually provides passion. But without a positive direction (or plan), motivation and passion can become terribly confused and corrupted by those seeking their own ends. So, yes, from a conceptual point of view, I agree with love as a unifying principle because it's difficult to corrupt.
Unfortunately, love tends to get the short shrift in law as it rarely causes conflict. And law, civil, criminal and Constitutional, is all about conflict and society's need to control the darker side of our nature. Thus, I prefer your former unifying principle "money out of politics" from a strictly pragmatic point of view. Perhaps an acquaintance of mine said it best. She called it the Separation of Wealth and State...
But what I propose is merely process, which is to say direction for motivation and its passion. To make this process work, people, motivated and passionate, must bring it to life. But this poses two problems. First, people have to know this process exists; and second, they must be willing to breath life into it.
With regards to these two problems, it is apparent that we cannot provide the second, only the first. Thus here we are...
But motivation is provided by each and every person's unique and individual circumstances. Thus far, just enough people have been doing just well enough under our current political and economic regimes that they are not motivated to change their circumstances. I think, however, that all our circumstances will change for the (much) worse in the near future -- perhaps enough so that people will be willing to breath life into this process... if they know about it.
I agree with much of what you wrote and really like the Separation of Wealth and State. I want to point out your quote, "what I propose is merely process", because a positive direction, (or plan), would be an almost universally accepted concept. Successfully motivating voters to buy in to a worthy cause is much more difficult and was the only point I was considering for this discussion.
I see the two problems you mentioned in a different way. Instead of educating people to know a process exists, and THEN be willing to breathe life into it; propose a cause that people would be willing to breathe life into and become passionate for that cause. Only then would people become interested enough to learn a process for making it happen. Currently, many people are interested in learning about drones when they weren't before.
Society will always need to control the darker side of our nature, and the Rule of Law should apply equally to all. If Love becomes the primary focus of government with justice and freedom secured by transparency and accountability using technology, there will be less conflict.
Your last paragraph is well written and ominous. My hope is Love will diminish the fact that motivation is usually provided by each person's individual circumstances, that Love will increase togetherness.
The Revolution is Love! If you haven't seen this short video, it's fantastic.
Sorry to be so long in my reply.
At this point I propose process simply because it imposes a form, and thus limitations, on action. That is to say, the democratic and Constitutional process we discuss affects both what we consider substantively (proposed Constitutional amendments) as well as how we act (voting to remove consent and invoke an Article V convention).
Thus, while process and substance are intertwined, they are yet separate halves of a whole -- altho neither is complete without the other. Consider the text of Article V for example; it describes process, which while limiting action, does not affect the substance which delegates consider.
We ought not directly tie process to substance (i.e.: what amendments ought be debated and proposed) because this might limit what others bring to the table substantively (their own grievances and proposals). Perhaps this is unwise, but I think considering process will inform others' thinking regarding substance (proposed Constitutional amendments).
Thus I am reluctant to go much farther than stating support for a substantive amendment proposal to separate wealth from state, because of any limitation it might seem to impose on the process itself. Or, in other words, people ought be able to support this cause for their own reasons, not mine...
This separation of process from substance thus makes it possible to defend the process without without regard to the pros and cons of any substantive issue under discussion. Similarly, it allows any person to support and participate in the process by simply supporting one or more substantive proposals (as well as opposing other proposals if one considers it necessary). This is intended to gather support by throwing the floor wide open to public debate over what ought be done about our circumstances on a substantive level.
Thus, if you advocate the Separation of Wealth and State under this process, it does not preclude me from advocating jury nullification or banishing the electoral college (or even all three). The net result ought be, if my reasoning is correct, that before we vote to remove our consent and initiate an Article V convention, the best and most popular amendment proposals will already have been vigorously and publicly debated with a concurrent result that those people most reasonable and active in these debates at the local level will stand the greatest chance of being elected as a convention delegate... Provided we successfully de-legitimize the parties and candidates during the election (and frankly, nothing less will work), these people will provide an informed pool of delegate-candidates from which to choose.
Again, sorry to be so long in my reply. Its been a long day and I'm tired, so I apologize for the very rough draft. It may not be completely clear, so please don't hesitate to ask if something doesn't make sense... it may not.
The Revolution is Love!
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+revolution+is+love&mid=690388C578D7CDA12C8F690388C578D7CD
"Provided we successfully de-legitimize the parties and candidates during the election (and frankly, nothing less will work), these people will provide an informed pool of delegate-candidates from which to choose." I agree.
Your understanding of a process that has great promise for legitimate change appears to be very good. At this point, I support this idea. I cannot, however, imagine many of the people i know putting their hope in any political process that is so complex, until they're motivated for a simpler, more universal cause. Separation of Wealth and State is an excellent idea for a cause, as is get money out of politics, but neither is, (and I don't like to use this word), "emotional" enough to bring about success. We need yours and others expertise on a process for legitimately bringing the change we want and need after more people are awaken. I encourage you to watch and listen to the short video, The Revolution is Love, this is my passion and a growing movement that I'm hopeful will become universal.
I've listened to dozens of calls for an Article V convention. No change in our Constitution can ever repair the root cause of our country's problems. The people's apathy and misunderstanding is what needs to be repaired.
True enough, and it seems it is constitutional that ART5 be used to repair the problem. Have you seen the proposals for preparatory amendment?
Seriously, they have a good plan for citizens to focus on 3 amendments that return enough constitutionality to the nation to do ART5 right! The prime issue is free speech, or seeing that the constitutional intent of it is returned, Then a hot current issue, campaign finance. The last is the die bold electronic vote issue.
After amendment effecting those things is ratified, then a general convention to propose amendments is easy to do right.
campaign finance has been an issue as long as I've been alive
longer I imagine
Yea, and are we gullible enough to believe that congress is going to gut that golden goose on request?
I think not. But movetoamend.org thinks so and has a toothless petition before them now. How embarrassing after all the fanfare.
[Removed]
If you say so.
The American people as a group can't think for themselves. 98.5% of them just voted for the two presidential candidates that were selected for them. I wouldn't trust the current political leadership to carry out an article V convention, or the people who elected them.
Imagine what preparatory amendment will do. You haven't commented on that and that is what Childseyes is posting about.
I'm quite certain that IF citizens forget partisan and only engage constitutional principle by demanding this amendment in preparation for ART5, that ALL politics as usual will end.
That's a big IF.
All amendments must have constitutional intent. IF the congress or supremes try to ignore that formally in the way they have with the NDAA for example, people will rise up, which includes forgetting partisan politics.
Remember, they are boiling frogs here. Meaning if ALEC tries to get a convention going and proposes amendments which are obviously unconstitutional, the frogs notice.
The precedent logic for this is the issue of GATT and the BP gulf spill. All entities were afraid top let the public know that the federal gov perhaps had no authority during the spill. They all pretended it did!:-(
Hence the EPA "tells BP" to not spray core exit, rather than issuing a formal order. Since then cries of the treasonous nature of GATT and NAFTA have seen courts forced to observe US law when interpreting these treaties.
please get it straight - "constitutional intent" is NOWHERE in the constitution
Did you get it from an American law? a SCOTUS decision?
"if ALEC tries to get a convention going and proposes amendments which are obviously unconstitutional, the frogs notice." There are NO unconstitutional amendments - by definition
ex:
AMENDMENT xvii made liquor illegal AMENDMENT xxi repealed xvii & made liquor legal
your confusion on BP & GATT would require a dozen shrinks to understand
I know English if difficult for foreigners, and interpretation difficult, but this phrase of ART5 states that the constitution has purpose and ontent.
"shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,"
"shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution"
this is a common English idiom
Alternative forms
for all intents and purposes (mostly US)
Etymology
1500s, English law, originally “to all intents, constructions, and purposes” (found in an act adopted under Henry VIII in 1547).
Adverb
to all intents and purposes (not comparable)
To all intents and purposes the case is closed. This treaty is to all intents and purposes no longer viable. [quotations ▼]
2011 December 19, Kerry Brown, “Kim Jong-il obituary”, The Guardian:
With the descent of the cold war, relations between the two countries (for this is, to all intents and purposes, what they became after the end of the war) were almost completely broken off, with whole families split for the ensuing decades, some for ever.
Synonyms effectively, essentially, in essence, in effect, practically, virtually
The intent is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The purpose is to serve as a social contract between Americans which limits an directs the government to act with the intent defined in the series of social contracts created.
I give up - I've had this argument with your alter ego - many times
with the same result -
and I'll give you the same advice I gave you before
just ask ANY American lawyer
I confess that my abilities in foreign languages is atrocious - as is yours
You use ALEC to try and make Americans afraid of using their constitution.
If you want to successfully pretend you are an American stop doing that.
The constitution is simple and does not require a lawyer to understand properly.
obviously!
that's why we don't need SCOTUS
If any American lawyer could be trusted. I haven't met one yet.
If you are recommending such, WTF are you doing here pretending to work for change.
I dont pretend anything
I do not rant
I do
proof:
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
should I remind you again - Article V convention is supported by the koch brothers & alec
If you dont tr ust a lawyer, find anyone with an IQ over 100
Alter or abolish, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all in the DI.
It's clear you don't want to know or want others to know and have accurate thoughts about their rights, together.
ART5 defines the right to alter or abolish, it also states all amendments must have constitutional intent. The general intent is defined in the Declaration of Independence.
so you are saying "constitutional intent" = "general intent"
neither phrase exists in the Declaration of Independence - the American one.
can you tell the truth & quote either definition from
the American Declaration of Independence
Maybe you don't realize SCOTUS cannot define constitutional intent, only the people can.
Let's rewrite their rules.
why do I suffer fools?
"Maybe you don't realize SCOTUS cannot define constitutional intent, only the people can. Let's rewrite their rules."
Where does the constitution even define "constitutional intent"
And where does it say the people can change the "rules"?
There is a wake-up call on the way which will clarify the situation...
Dozens of calls for a convention does not sound like apathy. Apathy sounds like a lack of suitable candidates.
there ar dozens of calls to make abortion illegal - it is not apathy - it is religious insanity.
And if you worship capitalism like koch - alec - norquist as a religion -
it is religious insanity.
Awww, look it's a Phyllis Schlafly clone spouting right-wing nonsense and trying to use guilt by association. Seeding doubt are we, just like a good little propagandist? Looks like you and the twinkle-team have been busy...
What's the matter, unable to make a substantive comment about the original post?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/
We can both withhold our consent and support our own will to make the changes we want. There are 24 states in which voters could directly impliment change in nearly half the country, putting social pressure on the rest of the state legislatures to embrace that change. In addition, the voters in the remaining 26 states could support such change by applying a common standard for candidates to receive their votes or else withhold their votes until candidates arise who will comply with the voter determined standard.
Interesting idea, altho I am not sure the affidavits would necessarily be legally binding... Except insofar as they prove the candidate did not fulfill his promises to voters.
If the application of affidavits should be ruled to be legally non-binding, legally allowing everyone in public office to be politically unaccountable to their voters, such an issue should result in mass protest IF the American voters truly value democracy, especially when contrasted with the American voters capable of engaging in state level democracy to achieve change.
Officeholders are obviously politically unaccountable now. That bond of civic trust between represented and representative apparently no longer exists. If American voters truly valued democracy there should have been mass protests immediately before the election -- when our political capital was at its zenith. And everyone knows it (or should).
But all I heard (or read) was that we had to choke down the lesser-of-two-evils. No one touted accountability then, just hold your nose and vote for our guy... Well, we've got President Drone, now what? Beg him to do the right thing? That's the tyranny of 501c3s working hand in glove with the parties.
Good luck. Should be interesting.
BAM!!
How do you intend to get them there?
The ballot box? Give the people a real choice -- vote for tweedle-dum R or tweedle-dee D and support the political status quo, or vote to withdraw your consent to be governed under the Constitution by a corrupt political process and parties.
Our government relies on elections (that is to say people voting in elections) to legitimize its rule. What happens if we vote to specifically remove that legitimacy? What happens if a majority votes to withdraw their consent?
There are many ways for us to "withdraw our consent" or 'voice our dissent' to the corrupt status quo beyond the voting box. While some of them way may seem trivial..... collectively, and through the power of exponential growth, they can grow enormously in a relatively short perieod of time.
We have discussed these recalcitrant grass-roots resistance inititiatives before, but it may be time to revisit them....look for new ones...reinforce efforts of other people here, and fine-tune them. These efforts which for the most part are not time consuming could help in emboldening people to push for an Article V Convention.
~Odin~
Exactly. It all takes people taking a timeout from their lives and actually thinking about where their money is going, and where it could be going,,..and then where SHOULD it be going.
Everyone here should have already taken that "timeout" OTP to look at their lives and ask: What more could I do to further this rev? But it's never too late. They should start now.
It may be time to put up another thread on this.
~Odin~
[Removed]
Website with detailed Article V information...
http://www.foa5c.org/
If you want what ALEC wants
http://www.foavc.org/reference/file38.pdf
What is your point?
Should we be on the side with the biggest, richest 1% crooks -
who push NRA garbage & anti-abortion laws & voter intimidation?
who WROTE stand your ground laws?
who tried to privatize Arkansas' largest public school system?
I'm not sure you understand how an Article V convention works.
just read it - it tells you what is constitutionally specified
many processes ARE NOT constitutionally specified
The most important - the constitution says NOTHING about how delegates are selected or elected or purchased
I have, and more. Perhaps you should do a bit more reading about Article V...
A bit more reading: from you:
"Any amendment proposed by the convention must be ratified by a majority of voters in thirty-seven (3/4s) states."
from me: and the Fifth Amendment:
"...when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof"
VOTERS RATIFY NOTHING
Read Article V again & tell me who is right -
how do voters vote to ratify ?
& why a convention is better than actual Amendments -
we now have over two dozen passed as Amendments.
Perhaps you ought consult case law on the subject...
If you dont know the answers, such as "voters ratify the amendment"
YOU need to read the Article V
do you know where to find it?
do you know how many amendments were passed in an Article V convention?
.........................................................................................ZERO
do you know how many amendments were passed WITHOUT an Article V convention?
.........................................................................................27
I try hard to be pleasant during these conversations as well as accurately convey information, but deliberate ignorance offends me. So in your spirit of uninformed debate, let's ask a couple of questions:
Do you know what case law is? There is a fair amount of case law relating to Article V and many decisions directly affect how an Article V convention would operate. Try to get a clue. Here is a link to a site with many of the answers you seek: http://www.foa5c.org/ It's a good place to read something other than your own mind.
And, with regard to your last two questions: Do you know why?
Art V has NEVER been used successfully to pass amendments to the constitution. The only process that has worked is the process we are engaged in.
Apparently I have a different view of the problem than you.
Apparently. Can you live with that.?
Not a problem.
Might I suggest some light reading, so as to enlighten you somewhat as to my point of view?
You think the problem will be solved by Congress proposing an amendment?
What you propose is not equal to the task we face.
Why? The process you are engaged in relies on our current crop of politicians. Simply stated, Congress would have to pass a proposed amendment that does not benefit any serving member of Congress... What are the odds?
"how do you intend to re-balance property rights, human rights and environmental necessities so as to achieve social justice, environmental sustainability, and peaceful international relations, while meeting the needs of our people in an era marked by dramatic environmental change, resource depletion and growing international resentment at our draconian imperial policies?"
Boldly, with millions of supporters on the street fighting for the 99%
And at the ballot box as well.
How do you intend to get them there?
Right, separation of wealth and state, only the tip. You are obviously just obfuscating the issue. Whatever you say man.
That statement, the Separation of Wealth and State, was written by a professor of sociology, with a juris doctorate, at the height of Occupy Wall Street, early November I think. It's a slogan. A way of conceptualizing a problem. Altho money in politics is a primary issue, how do you intend to re-balance property rights, human rights and environmental necessities so as to achieve social justice, environmental sustainability, and peaceful international relations, while meeting the needs of our people in an era marked by dramatic environmental change, resource depletion and growing international resentment at our draconian imperial policies?
I do not suppose I am the smartest person in the room. I am just one man, and cannot know everything. Nor could our founders foresee the future and what political circumstances we might find ourselves in. Thus Article V, a constitutional process to amend our social contract, and protect ourselves from the ever-present greedy and tyrannical few...
I'm willing to trust a democratic process enough to give it a chance. Congress, not so much. They've had plenty of chances. And here we are...
Yes I brought it up in our conversation but I didn't create the concept. Occupy did. So if you are an Occupy supporter seems to me you would know about it and have a status. And so I asked. As I frequently do. Have gotten an answer from any one.
Then why are you asking about the new system, and why don't you have the status.
Are you in a hall of mirrors? You brought up "the new system". Obviously I do not know about it.
Aren't you an Occupy supporter?
Yes. One of very few here.
You have no update on the new system activity?
Why would I?
I'm not on the 'new system committee working group' but as far as I know it is horizontal direct democracy from the ground up. right? Don't you know?
Right.
Do you see this as a technological project or people?
Until we get the new system created I WILL vote as well. But that is separate from any OWS activism.
Ah, utopia. What, may I ask, is "the new system"?
Suggest what you like.
Oops. typo. I fixed my previous response. I do NOT believe congresspeople. Maybe we agree on that. Regarding ALEC funded art V, I say they are behind the effort so I do not support it. In this perhaps we disagree.
"Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time" -- Dr. Carroll Quigley (Harvard)
"Who Is Running America" -- Dr. Thomas Dye (Penn) A series of books (sociological studies) covering every administration from Ford to GWBush.
Both are well recognized academians. Enjoy.
Agree or not, ALEC did not fund this effort. Nor does ALEC want it, because it relies on a democratic imperative.
I'm not coy you've mentioned money out of politics, said CU not the problem, mentioned congressional dereliction of duty, and presidential ruling by decree, you've mentioned other issues as well. You have no idea what you want to accomplish, you have no idea what congress supports regarding amendments, (you make up their opinions) you have no idea how Art V might work or you would know it could never happen.
Funny, I thought my words clear... A means to discredit government by [elite] twin-party rule and democratically call an Article V convention. I'll settle for money out of politics, the Separation of Wealth and State, but there are other critical issues that need to be addressed.
Actually I called CU the tip of the iceberg.
Again, try this link if you want more factual and legal information about an Article V convention. http://www.foa5c.org/
Thus far, nothing you have written gives me any reassurance that what you propose will bear fruit. Congress remains in control of the process you support, and since Congress itself is a significant part of the problem we face, it is highly unlikely it will act with vigor and determination to pull us back from the precipice of tyranny.
I do not believe what congresspeople say necessarily & I ain't "so worried" about anything. I just refuse to support an ALEC funded strategy to change the constitution.
"I do believe what congresspeople say necessarily..."
Well, if that's the case... Personally, when any politician tells me the sky is blue, I think it necessary to walk outside and verify. And I know more than a few politicians.
Eureka, common ground at last -- ALEC does not fund this strategy! Really, disingenuous ignorance?
So you claim congress is afraid of a process that has never been used, and has no hope of success because they are afraid? This is your logic? Nonesensical connection/assumption. Art V is ridiculous, ludicrous, useless, hopeless, as such no congressperson would ever waste their time with it. Are you familiar with the congresspeople who have gone on record supporting an amendment overturning CU? How about those congresspeople who support cu. Do you have any facts regarding the amendment support in congress or are you just making up nonsensical connections.
At this point in time ? - I would hope that no-one could call an article V convention - too damn many enemies of the people in office right now - propose a single amendment ( Move to Amend ) and shit-can those who oppose it - that will move us a step forward.
Not a problem - it can get messy once the thread reaches a point that it removes the reply button. That is when I will copy a comment that I am replying to - as you have to go further up the thread to find a reply button.
[-] 2 points by inclusionman (533) 6 minutes ago
Sorry about that misplaced response. Got confused as the reply buttons disappeared. Thanks ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Might this have been meant for DSamms?
[-] 1 points by inclusionman (523) 1 minute ago
I'm not coy you've mentioned money out of politics, said CU not the problem, mentioned congressional dereliction of duty, and presidential ruling by decree, you've mentioned other issues as well. You have no idea what you want to accomplish, you have no idea what congress supports regarding amendments, (you make up their opinions) you have no idea how Art V might work or you would know it could never happen. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
It has never been used because Congress itself refuses to call an Article V convention in dereliction of its clear Constitutional duty... Why?
"So you claim congress is afraid of a process that has never been used, and has no hope of success because they are afraid? This is your logic?" No, those are your words...
Do you really understand anything other than partisan and party politics? Say Constitutional law for instance? Do you understand there are long-standing issues other than CU that contribute far more to the political circumstances we now face? If CU is your only concern, then by all means pursue it. But CU and corporate personhood are only the tip of the iceberg...
Since you trust what congresspeople tell you, go for it. Just don't expect much.
And in your words, if "Art V is ridiculous, ludicrous, useless, hopeless, as such no congressperson would ever waste their time with it", why are you so worried about a democratic attempt at the polls to compel Congress to call one?
No congressman is afraid of Art V, because they all know it cannot happen. So do you have any idea what you want to accomplish?
Then why refuse to call one, if they are unafraid?
So you want to accomplish money out of politics?
Yes, absolutely. And use the FBI to vigorously investigate political corruption...
I like the additional issues you mentioned. I'm working on the items I mentioned. The rest will come later. 1st things 1st.
ALEC is pushing your art 5 process so sounds like maybe you ain't concerned because aren't too familiar with them.
You didn't say what you were trying to accomplish.
I understand whom ALEC represents and their interests. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
A means to discredit government by twin-party rule and democratically call an Article V convention. Personally I like the sound of "The Separation of Wealth and State" as far as getting money out of politics is concerned.
And how do you know what congress is afraid of.? Did you take a poll? Is it every single congressperson.? Are any supporting an amendment to overturn CU? Which ones?
Congress is afraid of the power an Article V convention wields, because Congress cannot control it. They are afraid a convention might propose an amendment that derails their gravy train...
The problem is that CU, while reprehensible, is not the sole problem. We need to address the balance of power issues between Congress and Executive as well. Two of the more important issues we ought consider are Congress' dereliction of its war powers duty; and the apparently unlimited authority of the President to rule by decree (executive orders).
We have more than enough business for a convention, I simply support initiating the Article V process democratically, by calling Congress to task for dereliction of their Constitutional duty -- 49 state legislatures have submitted applications for an Article V convention and over 400 state applications are filed in the Congressional Record.
I hope to overturn citizens united, eliminate the concept that corporations are people, and end the idea that money = speech. i also hope to discourage any ALEC supported Article 5 effort. Because ALEC is anti 99%. I am surprised you're not concerned about ALEC because they ARE an enemy of the 99%.
What do you want to accomplish?
I like all of that as well. What about jury nullification, getting rid of the electoral college, privacy, re-instatement of the Bill of Rights...
I'm not concerned about ALEC because the only way they'll get one of their amendment proposals thru is the same method you advocate.
Beats the hell outta me. But difficulty is no excuse for inaction. The Process that has worked which we are currently engaged in is the best chance. The ALEC strategy of Art V has never worked, and never will.
Congress is afraid of what citizen-delegates might do if they called an Article V convention.
And I agree, "difficulty is no excuse for inaction." I'm not terribly concerned by what ALEC is doing, and prefer to focus on what we need to accomplish.
BTW, what is it exactly that you hope to accomplish?
I refer to ALEC because they are funding & pushing an Art V process. Like you. Also like you they are unspecific as to what they want to accomplish.
I'm sorry, but cannot speak for convention delegates... As for what I'm interested in accomplishing, I think I've been clear about what we've discussed thus far. Don't play coy...
But you don't support the process that has been used successfully. Instead you are pushing the unproven ALEC process?
Exactly - f'n koch sucker wants the people to open up a process whereby the constitution can be completely stolen.
It's difficult to fathom why you keep referring to a democratic withdrawal of consent at the ballot box as the ALEC method. Guilt by association?
ALEC is using money and lobbying -- the traditional anti-thesis of democracy -- to influence elected officials.
And the "successful" process you tout is controlled by Congress. What are the odds Congress will do the right thing?
Did you leave?
[-] 0 points by DSamms (70) 0 minutes ago
Ah, the fool returns... ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
OH for gosh sakes - PUT IT BACK IN YOUR PANTS - no-one is looking to throw away the constitution.
[-] 0 points by DSamms (70) 2 minutes ago
Then why refuse to call one, if they are unafraid? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Sorry about that misplaced response. Got confused as the reply buttons disappeared. Thanks
I'm not coy you've mentioned money out of politics, said CU not the problem, mentioned congressional dereliction of duty, and presidential ruling by decree, you've mentioned other issues as well. You have no idea what you want to accomplish, you have no idea what congress supports regarding amendments, (you make up their opinions) you have no idea how Art V might work or you would know it could never happen.
Ah, the fool returns...