Forum Post: Occupying Structuralism
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 12:15 a.m. EST by TroubleMaker
(3)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I espouse no political viewpoint, no slant, no spin with the following post (read as I'm not a Ron Lawl supporter!). I do, however, see in the Occupy movement a desire to effect change in America. Believe it or not, there is a built-in way to alter the foundations political, social, and (perhaps most importantly) economic power in our great nation (yes, it's still great):
Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides that, when application is made by 2/3 of state legislatures, the Congress shall call a national convention for the purpose of proposing Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
While this method of Amendment has never been used, it persists as a real means of changing the way our government does business. Moreover, Article V is the mechanism by which the 99% can coalesce; it's why our Founding Fathers put it in the Constitution.
So, while I remain (in my own purposefully omitted corner of America) sympathetic to the #occupy movement, I also would submit for critical examination the concept of using this movement's inertia to fuel a grassroots movement to hold the first Constitutional Convention in more than 2 centuries. The last time we held a Convention, it produced our current Constitution; seems to me like it's high time we took a pragmatic look at some structural revisions.
Look, I think everybody should have a fair chance to have their ideas and proposals heard. I think the National Convention model can, if properly applied, fit that bill in a (sorry to use a term many will not like) populist fashion, while maintaining the integrity and intelligence the American political process deserves. This is change everyone can actually believe in because it's not ephemeral or cosmetic, it's real.
Reason and the foundations of real action. I didn't get on this forum to waste my (or anyone else's) time with a political agenda. Let's hash it out at at National Convention, an old-school debate where everyone will get their chance to speak, where money DOES NOT count, and where consensus can equal Constitutional change. Real change.
Step #2 would be to mandate a public online forum to the WH. The Presidents or their staff would be required to respond to polls. No media intervention. Strictly public to Presidents communication. Some kind of recourse must be available if the Presidents do not address public concerns as evident by the polls.
OK, now reason has come to the fore.
We modify the Constitution to supplant a unitary executive office with a plural one. Alexander Hamilton broached this subject over 200 years ago. You can read his argument in his essay known as Federalist Paper #70. If you detest 18th century style writing, then go to Wikipedia and read a synopsis. In short, a plural executive would replace one President of one party with two or more. For example, we could stipulate that every major party should be represented; so, we would vote for one Republican, one Democrat and one Independent. The primary election would replace the general election. Everyone wins and the whining stops. No more whining on the Wednesday after the Tuesday election. What is there to whine about? Your candidate is in the White House. With three in the executive office, power goes from one to three. The Democrat and the Republican will continue to war and the Independent will mediate the stalemate.
Great post