Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Ping PandoraK - Basement fix

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 4, 2012, 2:15 p.m. EST by unimportant (716)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Ok, let's go with your leaking basement analogy.

Pump out the water, plug the leak...seems like a quick fix eh? But why did that leak occur in the first place? Must be another problem that needs to be addressed or the plug won't hold or a new leak will occur...

Identify the problem, ascertain the means for repair, locate proper materials or contractor to effect repair. Except we still need the 'board' (which could be us) to agree to hiring them.


My response:

In my mind the problems with our country are related to legislation and laws that are not beneficial to the Citizens of the country. The reason I see bad legislation being passed is a result of the direct and indirect influence and more importantly, interference of corporations and/or the created entities in our political processes; both the electoral and legislative processes.

The ability for these entities to be able to pump money into the political processes are the direct and indirect result of the Courts and their rulings that over the last 120 years starting with the 1886 case SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

Culminating in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) which granted unlimited influence to created entities in the political processes.

In my mind this is where I would start to fix the problem, or stem the flow of bad rulings. The question is how you stem the flow of bad rulings by Courts. I would remove their ability to misinterpret the Constitution by making the Constitution specific in who the Bill of Rights are reserved for.

My proposed Amendment or at least the relevant text:

http://www.nycga.net/groups/political-and-electoral-reform/docs/amendment-28-status-of-created-entities

Resolved by the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and presented to the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States within twelve [12] months after the date of its submission for ratification:

“ARTICLE—

“SECTION 1. We the people who ordain and establish the rights protected by the Constitution of the United States to be the rights of natural persons.

“SECTION 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution mean “natural persons” and do not include corporations, limited liability companies and other private entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state.

“SECTION 3. Such entities not identified as a “natural persons” in SECTION 2. of this Amendment, shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to, for or against, any candidate for public office or to, for or against, publicly elected official or to, for or against, any legislation before the Congress, the Senate or the people.

“SECTION 4. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.”.


This precludes all except the individual from expenditure and contributing to all political processes. This gets rid of lobbiest, PACs and all other created entities from all influence of our government.

After this we can bail out the water by changing the laws to serve the public instead of the current laws that force the public to serve our government.

23 Comments

23 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

That is all well and good, but it would still take a 'board' decision...assuming that the American public is the board.

We can talk ourselves blue, but until we first achieve the election of legislators that will actually listen and respond to their constituents we will continue with the status quo.

The second problem is since it was the judiciary branch that confirmed Citizens United, ending that ruling will again be within the realms of the judiciary branch.

We, the people, have identified the problem, we also understand what needs to be done to fix it, now it's a matter of hiring the correct contractors to get the job done.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

The paragraph was what I put in instead of it being from the federal or state houses. That would reflect the originator of the bill if/when the senate/congress drafted the bill.

Currently Congressman Ted Deutch and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing the same bill through the senate and congress but recently figured out their bill has a massive loophole. I sent them my text and we will see if they use some of it to close their loophole or not.

The Constitution trumps the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has zero say in the constitution and they have to use the Constitution in its form at the time of the case. The US Supreme Court has no choice in this matter.

The Contractors are the legislators and we are the clients/customer and the client/customer is always right. If we have to go on strike and have a picket line around the Courts and the Congress and Senate to drive home this is what we want then we need to do it.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

The Congress legislates (creates), the Judiciary interprets and decides what is or isn't constitutional.

It's supposed to be part of our 'checks and balance', which should work, but too often it feels more like a game of dice with the dies loaded.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

A constitutional Amendment require 2/3 [corrected] I believe in both houses and ratification by the states. This is not going to easy, but it is doable with the unrest we have right now. This is going to get worse this coming spring and summer.

This is why I proposed forming a national movement under the OWS banner with local chapters with us all carrying cards and boycotting. picketing, striking and using this for collective bargaining for this amendment.

Shut the country down if they don't do what we are telling them to do.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Shutting the country down would be most damaging to the very people we most need to stand up for, basically all those other versions of us.

What we can do, and admittedly it'd be slow, is start at the bottom and work our way up. We change our local government, we begin at city level, move on to county or parish, then state...it'll take a few years but it will be the most effective.

Another thing we can do is encourage boycotts...boycott a city for couple days, no food, no fuel, no deliveries of any type. Everything is shipped for Just In Time delivery. Meaning that there isn't a large supply of anything available at any time in any place, everything is 'in transit'. Keep it 'in transit' a day or two longer, will make an immediate impact. Change the location of the boycott randomly, two days here two days there, will keep things mixed up without doing too much damage to 'the rank and file'.

The infrastructure isn't there to move materials and products by rail or boat.

We need an educated public, a knowledgeable public. Working on a smaller than national scale would allow this to occur.

Truckers have done 'rolling boycotts' before and been successful in achieving their goals. It can be done.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Possibly in the short term but this is long term and I don't see the legislators ignoring the threat of a national shut down and the will of the people so they can better serve the corporations.

| What we can do, and admittedly it'd be slow, is start at the bottom and work our | way up. We change our local government, we begin at city level, move on to | county or parish, then state...it'll take a few years but it will be the most effective.

I can't see that as ever working. Legislation cannot reverse the direction the Country is going.

If we restructure this movement so that it resembles a Union and/or an Organized movement of sorts. The Unions cannot take a chance on losing their right to organize and for collective bargaining. They will have to support the movement.

This support, with the support of the public is how we can even get a national strike going. This will force the legislators to do what is right.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I was around when the unions were working to bring more workers, Textile, Garment etc into the fold...I was around when the police were brought in to arrest not only the union activists but also the local workers who were pro union. Arrest is a pretty mild term for what happened...too mild. Some were beaten, some shot, some killed.

We really need a 'two front' battle...one at the voting booths and one on the 'front lines'...

You speak of the support of the public, that's another problem. Some of them are apathetic, some believe that things will work out and be 'just fine, some believe 'it won't happen' to them, some care but not enough to stop work for one day, because is they do, it's equal to that one major event that tumbles their entire house of cards.

The idea is lovely, it's great, but the reality is before embarking on a event such as the one you propose is 'market research' has to be done.

Folks in the Bible Belt figure 'God will provide' and for the most part are staunchly Conservative and even worse, Tea Party adherents. That's just for example.

How much of the public will stand behind such actions? Will it be enough?

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

The one thing that all Americans agree on is that Corporations do not belong meddling in our political process. The second thing all Americans agree on is that this needs to be stopped.

Now it is methodology and what the public will support and what we can get the most mileage from.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

That is the entire point.

It's like the three farmers, one says more rain, the other say less rain and the third asks why you two complaining, it rained yesterday and not today.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

But the one thing all three want are better crops. They just can't decide what it is they need to have them. Wouldn't it be great if they controlled the weather and then they could come to a consensus as to what weather they needed to have those better crops.

Wouldn't it be nice to control this country and the legislative process so we could have better laws that helped make our educational system better, our tax code better, ......

We don't have control of our country, the legislative process and therefore we don't have control of this country's future. Our future, our children's future and the future of our country is in the hands of big money whose only purpose in life is to turn a profit for their shareholders.

Make a change to the Constitution, make a change in our country. Aft that the farmers can all have a say in what weather is best for their crops.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

LOL, I talk about a working consensus, and you talk about after that's been accomplished. LOL

Let's hitch the horse first and get that working consensus ok?

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

No. You talk about what type of weather the farmers want when they have say in the matter. What the OWS movement is doing is finding consensus on the things they want to change without having any say in actually making any of those changes happen; just like the farmers and the weather.

What I am saying is for the OWS movement to make the changes possible by returning power to the people of the United States before deciding on what is best to do.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Guess you missed the word 'like', analogies.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

I tried to explain that the framework for change has to be implemented before change can be made. I am saying that instead of concentrating on what's wrong we might consider concentrating on building the framework.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

That's better, before you jumped over that part.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

The second problem is since it was the judiciary branch that confirmed Citizens United, ending that ruling will again be within the realms of the judiciary branch.

No, the ruling can be overcome by amending the constitution.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

You are absolutely correct.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

That's the contractors again. The current crop of 'em isn't going to do much unless it lines someone's pockets. So the board (us) better get busy getting better contractors.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Well, there is a way to work around Congress, but it requires working with state legislatures in most states. Rather than Congress approving an amendment and then sending it to the states, if 2/3 of the states pass resolutions calling for a constitutional convention, then that body can send approved amendments to the states for ratification by 3/4.

It has never been done that way before, but the guys who wrote the constitution put that in there just in case Congress ever became too unresponsive to the people. Good thinking.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Fact is, while things are possible and the provisions are there for those things to be done, our current Congress tends to ignore anything that isn't in it's own best interest. Admittedly previous Congresses have had the same issue.

Article V has been filed on more than one occasion, each time it has been ignored. This also comes under the Article V provisions and would likely once again be ignored.

It was good thinking, but the actuality leaves something to be desired.

We still need to 'shake up' our contractors so they begin to pay attention, even if it means making huge turn over happen.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Agreed. We need to work simultaneously to knock down several of the columns that hold the corrupt in power.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

If we look at our country as a business, politicians are contractors, bureaucrats the factory management and us? Well we're the board of directors and any one of us can stand up and assume the role of chairman, taking over from the one before.

Our major problem is that while a great many of us realize we need to shake things up, we have trouble agreeing on what comes next.

Some want austerity.

Some want to role back time.

Some want to just make the damned thing work just the way it is. Now if we could just all agree to that, we'd get some where. It's a pretty good plan, if we stick to it.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

All I want is for you to be able to make change.