Forum Post: redandbluepill calls for violent revolt/armed revolution as a consequence if the alter or abolish plan is not used: Article V
Posted 11 years ago on March 31, 2013, 1:41 p.m. EST by GirlFriday
(17435)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The scope of the conversation:
[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (278) 1 hour ago
Any who believe in "alter or abolish" are behind it. Although the elite with $ have bought enough misinfo and misleading to make some people think you can alter or abolish without the law of ART5. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink [-] 1 points by inclusionman (4414) 1 hour ago
Is it gettin anywhere? Is there a schedule for completion? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink [-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (278) 1 hour ago
Just before we become complete slaves or after the armed revolution, with the ows lack of strategy and the confusion the elite created with mass and alternate media. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (278) 1 hour ago
If the right to "alter or abolish" is not used, then violent revolt is the only possible way to remain free.
I know the elite want people to think otherwise. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
Located here.
Please explain exactly what your intentions are if you don't get your convention or it doesn't go the way that you propose. I firmly believe that those that propose these things shoot straight with precisely what their expectations are. So, everyone is aware with what it is that they are getting into.
[Removed]
Corporations have social tentacles. By using proposing amendments to the states then ratifying; including that unlawful right of personhood; the tentacles can be severed.
[Removed]
Only when dealing with evasive, distorting, colluding, unreasonable, misleading, misinterpreting posters, does my sentence structure get that messed up.
[Removed]
I appreciate the notice of the need for correction. Slow down, hah, its all intuitive, limits like that don't really work with writing (and reading) from intuitive guidance because it may be done without cognition.
With the help of those reading, pointing out the blunders, the edit function works and intuitive selection of terms like "tentacle" can be used dynamically without fear. Critical thinking is also enhanced by attempts such as I made and botched, to create dynamics in context, if structure and punctuation are okay.
English has lots of capacity, but context is often not inherent with terms wherein the redundancy that comes from writing slower and working to cognit each phrase; often lacks intuitive guidence.
gf is retaliating because she(?) hasn't come up with a mother or father that will relinquish their childs right to a society that has the freedom to share information that can create understandings which empower; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, trust, respect, friendship and love, which will protect their childs life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
ART5 represents the way to assure the people can share information needed to survive and be free; with the proposal for preparatory amendment it is VERY ASSURED this will be the case and gf (pretends to be) is against ART5 because alec pretends to want it. includer needed help so gf has misinterpreted what I posted in a perhaps sensationally negative way to create this thread.
In all a typical, sordid and disgusting ows exhange exposing false opposition.
[Removed]
Yea, preparatory amendment assuring that all amendments have constitutional intent logically requires it. I found the page again for this I originally saw here at ows.
Draft of revised First Amendment
REV. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.
Seems very sound legally, if not overly idealistic, however getting out of the political box we are in will require a different way of inter/acting. Browns stuff doesn't compromise in that area, still its factual and based in history/law. I can't help but use it to help people how to understand true defense of the constitution.
http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html
Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people;
Start here: http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases
Go here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/abortion
Define this: service to the unity of the people;
and this: Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
How does that limit commercial speech? It doesn't.
How does that protect those groups that we hate but have those rights? The arbitrariness of the words would, without a doubt, be turned against you.
Does; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust friendship and love sound like a right wing proposal? Because that is what the Americans I work with need added to the 1st amendment.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/redandbluepill-calls-for-violent-revoltarmed-revol/#comment-955652
Yep. You need to consider all of the supreme court cases that would be altered and the myriad of ways that it changes what has already been established.
You either have not taken this into consideration.........and you need to do that .............or you know precisely. I'd like to think you weren't an evil bastard but, there is a very real possibility that you are.
Why would amendment apply retroactively to case decisions? Where is that stated in law?
Judges will only have to learn to make decisions interpreting constitutional intent as it is newly defined.
Who is dumb as a rock?
That isn't how it works, jack ass.
Meaning you're wrong and won't even attempt to answer. Everything you post is intended to foul cognition.
Don't you realize what you are doing is against human survival and evolution?
What you don't say is that you are asking for someone to justify another persons idea for amendment of the 1st of the Bill of Rights.
Right off I'd say that you've shown you are biased against peoples capacity to unify and have seen you can't make reasonable comments upon the values and principles of the proposed amendment.
You better read Christopher Browns pages about it, http://algoxy.com there is something about implementing the revised amendment if I remember right. He says its an ancient Indigenous American philosophical doctrine that the framers new of but were unable to integrate, because of competition, into the constitution.
The haters still have the right, its protected, but those that can show that constitutional principal is served get empowerment beyond protection of right.
redandblue
for too long I have put up with crap. Your links are crap, thugs like nazi minded.
Article 5 fine, freedom of speech fine. constitution fine. but from what little of your links I have read, it is not stuff people here are into.
The algoxy.com site is ART5, free speech, and real legal strategy.
How else would you see fundamental human social values and principles like; foregiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love integrated into our constitution?
Gf and includer made this ugly thread not me.
The problem when I click the link you gave to ZenDog, is it speaks to constitutional justifications for fighting, being a true military soldier for the constitution.
Thats not my thing. I believe life is the highest value, and bloodshed the most abhorrent action. Read some bhuddism. Breathe. Do no harm in thought or action. That is hard. Like if you try to be friends with two people who are bitter rivals, and you are in the middle, it is hard to,do no harm.
The values forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, love, friendship are some of the highest values. I don't think the are legislate able, although maybe nice if that were the supreme law. Even so, avoid violence in thought or action.
I saw similar mentality of aggressive thought in algoxy site.
I don't believe in owning guns for myself.
[Removed]
That was lawful, peaceful defense of the constitution, the soldiers inquiry.
It's all about reason, law and peace as the constitution empowers it.
I do believe Buddistic principle recognizes that reason under law is the best way to resolve conflict when understanding is not forthcoming on its own.
Pfft.............you suck at deflection.
Try again.
Looks like you are trained to do this. Which is why you cannot discuss constitutional intent. You are not supposed to. You are supposed to misinterpret, confuse and distract from citizens who try to inspire discussion on constitutional intent.
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (14617) 1 day ago
Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people;
Start here: http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases
Go here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/abortion
Define this: service to the unity of the people;
and this: Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
How does that limit commercial speech? It doesn't.
How does that protect those groups that we hate but have those rights? The arbitrariness of the words would, without a doubt, be turned against you. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
Looks to me like you are paid to post. You are not prepared to handle questions and, frankly, that makes you look like a big doody head.
Example of GF's cognitve infiltration technique.
A proposed revision to the first amendment read like this "shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.""
girlfriday write this as a question.
"How does that limit commercial speech? It doesn't."
She implies that limiting commercial speech is needed and intended by the proposed language of the amendment.
This is a question she complains is unanswered, but it has no basis. Apples and oranges. Cognitively unworkable.
So goes the infiltration of our need to communicate and defend our constitution. It is treason on the lowest level.
I'm telling you that it will impact what we have now an you have no viable answers for that because you are busy selling right wing shit.
Still working for ART5, but by exposing your infiltration which is against ART5 and constitutional intent, or a society where it can be easily and well shared, then acknowleged and accepted.
Preparatory amendment and ending the abridging of free speech will make it so Americans can deal with constitutional intent. But the elite do not want you talking about that so you are conducting a one sided discussion or attempt at false persecution.
I like watching you chase your tail.
Your comments/Q's have lost all context, which is true to your cognitive infiltration agenda.
And, I can't see that you've presented a serious question anyway that I haven't answered, which you've ignored or you wouldn't be here now.
Why do I have info which parents of children cannot deny because it appeals to their instincts and love. Info you and includer do not address, info concerning constitutional intent and how free speech is the key to creating it.
includer should be all over seeing free speech unabridged because when that happens ALL democratic efforts bear fruit. People then have the info to create informed opinions that they use to vote with. But noooooo, you deflect this with this ugly ad hominum thread you created where your unaccountability continues in a environment titled detrimentally to my information and position.
Of course the elite do not like critical thinking, or questions that invoke it, so you will not like this post.
Cut the shit, you don't know how. That's fine but, you are now at the point where you are working against your article V. Gettin' it? In fact, the moment that you could not figure out the impact that a few words would make on the rights that you have now or how it might impact prior supreme court cases---you were done.
That's not my problem, that's your problem. So, now you can just fuck off.
I won't explain things over and over for people that pretend they don't understand. What you are asking explained is self explanatory. Context I can provide from reading Browns proposed revision, but if you are asking for explanation of some of the things you are, you really do not want to know.
[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (289) 0 minutes ago
I won't explain things over and over for people that pretend they don't understand. What you are asking explained is self explanatory. Context I can provide from reading Browns proposed revision, but if you are asking for explanation of some of the things you are, you really do not want to know. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
Listen, you can either figure out how those changes impact what we have now or you can't. If you cannot do this, then you are the last individual that I want to hear from. Everything that you have to say is now shit. Now hurry up and log out and log back in as your new ID.
Girlfriday spam.
Major cognitive confusor. Commercial speech? Wtf ?
Your pretending to not understand, does not change the simple words of the proposed revision of the 1st amendment.
No, you are paid to post. It's evident or there is one other possibility.
You really are dumb as rocks.
your brain ( whats left of it ) is messed up.
So you too pretend that gf's nonsense interpretation, or pretending she can't understand the proposed revision of the 1st amendment.
The Existential Danger of an Article V Constitutional Convention ver 5.0
IT CAN DISCARD OUR CONSTITUTION AND
CREATE ONE FROM SCRATCH
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 [state] Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
simply stated
Despite what some of the dishonest convention pushers like koch’s alec claim,
there is nothing in Article V
Early applications, since 1788, properly left the determination of the content of the amendments to the convention. As time passed, the state legislatures ignored the clear language and intent of the U.S. Constitution and they attempted to dictate to a convention what amendments it could propose. They did this by ( unconstitutionally ) stating in their applications that they sought only a limited convention with authority to propose an amendment on a single subject. By issuing single-issue convention applications, legislatures sought to turn the convention into a rubber stamp for their own purposes. These unenforceable, unconstitutional limitations defy the intended purpose of the convention, which was to deliberate and decide what amendments to propose.
Most recent calls for a limited Article V convention have been dressed up and pushed:
That is why courts have ruled have ruled these applications illegitimate.
The Article V ratification process was not sufficient to stop the “runaway convention” which met in 1787. The delegates were specifically called to meet in Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. Yet it did not take the delegates long to assume upon themselves powers they were not given. In fact, they completely discarded the Articles of Confederation and wrote a completely new Constitution – defining the first “runaway convention” - discarding the original document and starting from scratch
The primary argument against calling for a constitutional convention is that once convened, such a convention would be free to propose whatever it wants ( or – like congress – was paid to do) . Which is to say that such a convention could become a “runaway convention” - exactly like the 1787 Convention that disregarded the guidelines under which it was convened.
U.S. Supreme Court justices and the nation's leading legal scholars have stated that these single-subject limitations cannot be enforced; that if a convention is called, it will be free to propose any kind and number of amendments to the same effect, as if the limitations in the applications did not exist.
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” When the states of NY & VA formally petitioned Congress in 1788 to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, Madison wrote that he emphatically warned against convening such a convention: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress.... An election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans and would contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts ... might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the nation’s very foundations.”
Chief Justice Warren Burger, vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention wrote on June 22, 1988: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda. The 1787 Convention ignored the limit stated by the Confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose”.
Associate Justice Arthur J Goldberg: "One of the most serious problems Article 5 poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from passing wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups, whose self interest may be contrary to our nations well being"
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe stated that a “Con-Con could not be limited to a single issue. The stakes in this institution are much greater because you are putting the whole Constitution up for grabs. In 1787, there was at least agreement on the direction we should move ... today, we don't even agree what direction we should move. In 1787, America had a treasure of enlightened leaders such as Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson. I don't know how you feel about the current cast of characters." Tribe also noted that a runaway convention could even change the rules of ratification, as the 1787 convention did, and make them ratifiable by national vote or some other method. (The Articles of Confederation required unanimous ratification by all 13 state legislatures, but delegates at the 1787 convention recognized this might not be accomplished, so they changed the ratification rules to three-fourths of the state legislatures or state ratifying conventions.)
Professor Rex E. Lee, former law school professor and president of Brigham Young University : "if the question is whether a runaway convention is assured, the answer is 'No', but if the question is whether it is a real and serious possibility, the answer is 'Yes'.”
Professor Charles Allen Wright, a Professor of Law at the University of Austin. "I feel quite certain that even opening the door to the possibility of a constitutional convention would be a tragedy for the country."
Professor Gunther, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School wrote "A convention, once called, would be in the same position as the only other convention of this kind that we have had in our history - the 1787 Philadelphia Convention – the only convention was a runaway convention."
However, if we use precedent of the 1787 Convention, that includes one vote per state, today, a majority of a quorum [ 26 of 50 states ] is 14 states - representing less than 16,000,000 Americans could write & propose a completely new Constitution!
Some possible Amendments to come from an article V convention :
No one can own a gun.
Evolution cannot be taught.
No corporate tax.
No inheritance tax.
The gold standard.
Labor unions are illegal.
The EPA & FDA & SEC are abolished.
Islam is banned.
Abortion is illegal.
Birth control is illegal.
There is NO specified method by which delegates are to be elected or appointed or purchased. There is NO provision for citizens to vote for anything created in this process.
Some people believe that the ratification process is a check on the insanity.
What if the Democrats, as they are so co-operative [ like they gave up on single-payer ],
agree to cut defense spending by 50%, in exchange for eliminating the inheritance tax & capital gains tax –
how many billionaires would turn this down?
They spent over a billion dollars to try to buy the White House. How much would they spend to buy a constitution? There could be as few as 50 delegates, and with the math above only, 14 delegates would need to be bribed. At $100,000,000 each, that would be a bargain for koch & alec.
American Legislative Exchange Council & the Koch brothers
Everything, absolutely every fact and opinion stated above –
warning against the inherent dangers of a con-con -
carries the weight of a flea compared to one single item:
ALEC & the Kochs are doing everything in their power to initiate a Constitutional Convention.
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
http://www.alecwatch.org/
http://www.thenation.com/article/161973/alec-exposed-koch-connection
http://www.americablog.com/2012/03/whos-behind-nras-stand-your-ground.html
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120411/OPINION03/204110317/1008/opinion01/Public-right-skeptical-ALEC
ALEC Corporate member list may not be up to date
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Corporations
2000 ALEC politicians by state they have lost a few! http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Politicians
A far more reasonable & safer option: the 2013 HR29 in congress now
Disagreement from CRS Congressional Research Service...Limited Art 5 is Possible
The Limited Convention While the concept of the general convention enjoys considerable support, there are those who maintain opposing views. A broad range of constitutional scholars holds that a convention may, in fact, be limited to a specific area or areas contained in state applications, or indeed, that it must be so limited. A fundamental assumption of this viewpoint is that the framers did not contemplate a wholesale or large-scale revision of the Constitution when they drafted Article V. Senator Sam Ervin, a champion of advance congressional planning for a convention, wrote that, “... there is strong evidence that what the members of the convention were concerned with ... was the power to make specific amendments.... [The] [p]rovision in article V for two exceptions to the amendment power52 underlines the notion that the convention anticipated a specific amendment or amendments rather than general revision.”53 One commentator, championing the states’ authority in this question, noted that the founders’ intention in establishing the state petition device was to provide a check against a Congress that had declined to propose an amendment or amendments that commanded widespread support, suggesting that a convention limited by the subject area of state applications was constitutional, but that a convention could not be limited by Congress: ... Congress may not impose its will on the convention .... the purpose of the Convention Clause is to allow the States to circumvent a recalcitrant Congress. The convention Clause, therefore, must allow the States to limit a convention in order to accomplish this purpose.54 According to this view, the states should decide whether a convention would be open and general, or limited, depending on the actions of the several legislatures. Congress, however, has historically sought to provide for limited conventions when it has considered this question. Once valid applications have been received from 34 states, it has maintained, the call for an Article V Convention must come from Congress, and Congress has the authority to limit the subject of amendments to be considered. It is at this step that Congress has asserted in the past, but not provided in legislation, its power to set limits as to the convention’s agenda. This suggests a delicate balance of authority: the states are authorized to apply for a limited convention, but only Congress can guarantee, by law, that a convention so summoned will confine its recommendations to the issues within its mandate. From http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42589.pdf The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress Thomas H. Neale Specialist in American National Government July 9, 2012. Pages 13 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R4258 ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
I believe these authorities are correct:
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” ,
SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger,
SCOTUS Associate Justice Arthur J Goldberg:
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe
Professor Rex E. Lee,
Professor Charles Allen Wright
Professor Gunther
and on a more pragmatic note -
.there have been hundreds of state applications calling for a convention -
and there is still no convention.
how do you plan to force congress to call a convention
with all due respect - there are battles you & OWS can win -
this is not one of them
Madison wrote that he emphatically warned against convening such a convention: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress.... An election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans and would contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts ... might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the nation’s very foundations.”
And we got the Bill of of Rights and Constitution.
A Limited Convention was provided as an option, as I observe in the the debates on the constitution Articles, and various scholarly and law reviews, http://occupywallst.org/forum/initiative-democracy-pros-cons-can-it-work-in-time/
Runaway Conventiion most likely never happen, but threat of such will raise awareness, and maybe get congress to pass the Initiatives Amendment, send it to the states, for ratification, to avoid dealing with Limited Convention Issues.
just discussion of this and related issues cant hurt
The only convention that we had -
was NOT a constitutional convention - and was a total runaway convention
they completely abandoned their mandate - to propose amendments to
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
and altered their own way their own work was to be approved
again - I am very concerned that valuable, intelligent people like you are wasting your time on a completely unattainable goal.
and again - this is what alec/koch/afp want
If you look at the new 2013 HR29, an approach I think you will find a less risky option that already has the support of millions of Americans
Ok. I love all you people and your efforts for the world.
I thought I had found a plan that looked workable. I recall a long time back I had a post on a People's Chamber, of regular citizens, who could make laws, a new branch. This amendment would do that.
Apparently, I have spoken enough on this issue. I am not going to say I'm infallible.
I still believe in the issue, and way to get it.
However, it is time to allow others work on this if is to continue, so I will take a temporary vow of silence for an indeterminent period of time.
Thank you for all the unpaid workers on the ground and net working to keep the country and planet prosperous for all citizens. And for your feedback.
Like Jimi Hendrix, I hear my Train Comin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBCfv1rmhs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
peace!
do you ever get the impression that some posters use a computer program to write these posts?
They type ten words
then the computer replaces a few words with similies
then jumbles up the words
then drops out 2-3 words
then posts
Violence is not the way and has never been the way and will never be the way forward to a healthy society/world. Advocates for violence are advocates/supporters that violence will never end.
Both MLK and Gandhi clearly showed that non violence was the better way because the power within a person is greater than the power without.
If I may defend the underdog or play devils advocate, and understand
redanbluestripedpill presentation is that - founders did call for revolution of government that did not serve the people, and history shows this tends to happen, http://www.alternativereel.com/conspiracy/display_article.php?id=0000000002
Such as Lincoln ... "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
in places with great wealth disparity, and that Article V is a peaceful, constitutional
means of fixing government prescribed for such circumstances we are experiencing
http://www.cusdi.org/solution.htm#Article_V_Convention
However myself and Ows do believe peaceful revolution of love in majority's minds can effect needed change.
So if his method is violent revolt, sorry better listen to some more Beatles music or something.
I only know pacifists, peaceful. Folk
We do not condone any violence here, we're like peaceful bhuddists.
Ok, I will start here and then finish up tomorrow. This is the full text of where the Lincoln quote comes from. I do believe that the Lincoln quote should be examined in context.
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861 Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President before he enters on the execution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln-continued
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln-continued
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
You just turned Lincoln into spam. The elite love you.
It was 1859 in Kansas/Ohio where lincoln said, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court."
It is through ART5 that the people become the masters.
Such as Lincoln ... "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
is the text that I am responding to. You, I shall respond to later.
The " Limited Article V" proccess http://www.cusdi.org/state_legislator_package.pdf
Does not contradict a revolution of love.
PS since attempting to clarify redanbluestripedpill comment, he has not helped himself in my eyes by continuing to say it is a right to revolt, although the founders believed it a right, it is a last resort right, and minds, votes, are preferable, as violence as a means solves never fairly.
Back to Lincoln, .... By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.
Now with the duopoly and money as speech, the public servants do have the power for mischief, wars of aggression, give our taxes to bankers, corporations, and ignore public sentiment on gun legislation and enforce background checks. And give money to corruptly run private prisons.
The States have well earned the people’s faith in their leadership, especially on constitutional issues—e.g.,women's suffrage and election of Senators by popular vote.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Now that Congress is losing the People's confidence due to increasing special interests' excessive influence, the states have once again the challenge to set the right course for the nation.
wait hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
The legislators and states taking first action will gain respect and gratitude for their foresight. The planned Solution has the capability to address other major problems that Congress should have resolved. In the future, new circumstances will create new issues that the Amendment can address. For example, due in large to the excessive influence of special interests, Congress sets poor examples of moral and ethical standards . Following Congress's example, these standards trickle down throughout government, industry and ultimately the nation. State leadership has the power to reverse this trend.
wait
hahahahahahahahahahah
Ya, that was good.
Ok, that's it. I'm just going to go pass out now.
see...there's some good stuff in there.
overall does it have a ring of being right wing blather?....(except that stuff you just shared above could've been a Mittisms, or Goreisms)
I hope you don't think I'm a right winger. after looking at it are you still so harsh of the ideas and concepts and tone. (nevermind for a minute the wacky links)
It does appear to be a work in progress, by people with some time. Pt Townsends' about 2.5 hours from here, ... should I wisk over there and try to interview , or they seem to be open to email, comments and criticisms, it is like an open-source production, if I'm not completely mistaken.
again, thank you Girl Friday thank you for reading, pointing out the exact links, sharing your concerns and eagle eyes, and time.
still, it seems maybe a state, maybe shooz's state, Michigan, the people could use something like this, (as I understand what he said in his post, the people did an initiative process on an issue, (which should be law, at least that happens in my state) and the governor just ignored it.
It is right wing. No, this will not help Michigan.
H.R. 4890 page 16 is a dead link and goes to http://www.freedomworks.org/processor/printer.php?issue_id=2595
I'll take a look.....
Apply Policies that Harm the People, Often in Favor of Top Executives and International Special Interests International corporate interests help send our middle class into decline. Export of jobs to increase executive pay and boost corporate profit—2.7 million manufacturing jobs lost from 2000 through 2003—will continue if unresolved. Many major U.S. corporations have now become multi-national, so they look for the lowest costs and the nationality of their employees does not affect them significantly. Their special interest groups and lobbyists have a multi-national rather than U.S. agenda. Between 1978 and 2005, CEO pay increased from 35 times to nearly 262 times the average worker’s pay. In contrast, men who were in their thirties in 1974 had median incomes of about $40,000, while men of the same age in 2004 had median incomes of about $35,000 (adjusted for inflation). On average, income of men is 12 percent lower today than income in their fathers’ generation. These recent U.S. Census data contradict the American Dream—that every generation will be better off than their parents. Instead, our current standards of living require multi-worker families. An increasing income gap between rich and poor tends to destabilizing society. These economic issues are serious enough to cause U.S. Federal Reserve chairperson Bernanke to issue a warning on the increasing social inequality. Prior to 1980, economic productivity and median family income grew at the same rate—meaning that government policies fairly shared the benefits of growth between the rich and the average Citizen. However, since 1980 the policies have constrained the average Citizen's benefit to about 25 percent while U.S. productivity gains were 80 percent. The trends have accelerated since 2000; income has dropped by about two percent while productivity gains have increased by about fifteen percent. (Economic Mobility) U.S. government policies now send the benefits of U.S. productivity gains to the wealthiest Citizens and Corporations, whose special interest groups and lobbyists have been very effective.
http://www.initiativesamendment.org/problem.htm#Against_People_Social_Issues
Thanks for finding these
[-] 1 points by gsw (2004) 32 minutes ago
[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (14627) 1 hour ago ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink [-] 1 points by gsw (1963) 4 minutes ago as you can see the progressive links outnumber the conservative ones, why would a RW sight have anything progressive, and in fact a predominance? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink Links in the package. Links in the package.
well your very insightful eyes are the only who have pointed out all the links in the package
I guess we just can't locate all the mystery links i the package
edit .....from the bib/ref page? http://www.cusdi.org/links.htm ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
6. Term Limits On one hand, elected representatives at all levels dislike term limits, feeling that their years of experience are valuable and that enforced retirement from office is a waste that harms the people. On the other hand, public polls indicate that they are popular with voters. In the first half of our Republic, House members had a tradition of only one or two terms. From 1830 to 1850, turnover in the House averaged 51.5 percent
Click on the word public polls and you are taken to this link http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2003/9/hb108-9.pdf
Click on the word 51.5 percent and you are taken to this link http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-07-02.html
Oh, and but in the paragaph before clicking on the word preemptive takes me to the other half of the shit equation. NCSL. I don't know if there was an actual article supposed to be there or just a slam.
On page 12 clicking on 500 applications takes you http://www.foavc.org/
I thought I included this ...
States should try them first in a few States. Use of nationwide Initiatives could address this situation. 6. Term Limits On one hand, elected representatives at all levels dislike term limits, feeling that their years of experience are valuable and that enforced retirement from office is a waste that harms the people. On the other hand, public polls indicate that they are popular with voters. In the first half of our Republic, House members had a tradition of only one or two terms. From 1830 to 1850, turnover in the House averaged 51.5 percent. From 1998 to 2002, House turnover during re-election averaged about two to four percent. The Plan takes no position on term limits except to note the facts relating to the States' support of the Plan.
i. This Plan can have no effect on state term limits. Currently, they affect fifteen states AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, LA, ME, MI, MO, MT, NE, NV, OH, OK, and SD. State term limits took effect in 1996. In the last few years, six states removed term limits—two (ID and UT) by legislative vote and four (MA, OR, WA, and WY) by court invalidation. ii. In terms of representatives' authority to spend funds, and consequently their appeal to special interests' as a locus to attempt influence, there is a huge difference between federal representatives and state representatives. The table shows that on average a congressperson controls 28 times more government money than a state legislator does. In fact, the effect is greater than 28 times because of factors like federally mandated obligations and strings attached to federal funds.
Thank you for the help.
1 the Cato handbook just provides some info that legislators get elected and never leave...term limits could possibly help in this to keep legislators closer to people, and not a separate "caste"
Conclusion The term limits movement is not motivated by disdain for the institution of Congress. It is motivated by a sincere desire on the part of the American people to regain control of the most representative part of the federal government. Resistance to this movement on the part of elected federal legislators only underscores the image of an Imperial Congress. Those who sign the Term Limits Declaration are on the record as citizen legislators. Increasingly, that pledge will make the difference in winning competitive seats in Congress. The seniority system, rotten at its core, cannot survive a Congress where more and more members are under term limits. Nor can wrong-headed policies and wasteful spending projects survive a Congress with so many citizen legislators. Term limits remain an issue to be reckoned with. Public support is even stronger and deeper for candidates making personal term limits commitments than for a term limits amendment. Voters seek to replace career politicians with dedicated citizen legislators as the best solution to what ails us in Washington. Political leaders who understand the problems created by a permanent ruling elite in Washington—or who simply want to abide by the overwhelming will of their constituents—will pledge to serve no more than three additional terms in the House or two in the Senate
Also it is just saying plan doesn't effect term limits, but congress reps who have 93 percent return may not be a good thing.
I am not pleased they chose to cite anything from cato... could have used a more neutral source for that documentation on current term limit opinions of the public.
Very good eyes. Twinkle for that. But evidence of a poll results, I'm checking on other links.
Many of the links are broken and youhave one that is tea party.
The poll page sucks. First of all, there isn't enough data to use to even say that there is support from Americans. At any rate those Cato links, the tea party links etc. they aren't listed as references but utilized. I am not even finished going through them.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr4890
Something like this for the line item veto, link, under .....possible initiatives p. 16
That would be way mo' betta.
maybe they gave their kid the job to find some of the links.
links expire. It would need to get tightened up.
despite the weaknesses of some of the links (it was done by independents, and a mixture of persons, I assume)
the overall flavor, does it feel populist or right wing?
Maybe they did. Links do expire.
It is right wing.
I'm tempted to let more than 1 person weigh in their opinion. Yours I value, but it is 1.
Already 2 posts have been done one relating to the site, no one had a problem yet
Edit http://occupywallst.org/forum/initiative-democracy-pros-cons-can-it-work-in-time/
Here's links to the past posts.
[-] 1 points by gsw (2055) 7 minutes ago
Substitute word amendment
Edit what would new amendment say? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
No.
That was an open ended question, which when posed, I hadn't yet seen initiatives amendment site.
So I am inclined to that,
And to get corp and extra money out of elections, and open duopoly up to at lest more major funding, with public dollars, limit private money and PACS, have it be more open so a b sanders, or e warren could compete, not just duopoly.
And to break up big banks
And return our resources, oil, gas, land water back to the people's control.
Edit living wage, human needs identified and guaranteed.
[-] 1 points by gsw (2039) 4 minutes ago
Also i don't say put all eggs in one basket, 1 solution. There is no easy 1 solution. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
You want to change the forum? Get the multiple IDs out of the forum.
I said don't put All our eggs in same basket. Multiple issues and projects good? It's above read it. You deflect great
The forum is a tool. I'm not in charge of forum. And this is not about forum change anyway
[-] 1 points by gsw (2051) 2 hours ago
It can't be 1 issue there are many many issues look here http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-would-a-new-constitution-say/
Where I outline thirty some issues
I've seen those threads. There won't be a new constitution.
Substitute word amendment
Edit what would new amendment say?
[-] 1 points by gsw (2039) 0 minutes ago
Time is of the essence. We just debate all the minutia, people get fed up and leave forum,
We should be getting around some big theme by now and getting it to people, solutions and hope, and information. A potential solution.
Ok say you get mone out of politics eventually, or end citizens united. By that time we may be on an irreversible course. Already this has been happening for 30 years, income declines, etc. is reversing citizens united going to fix that? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
I do believe that is the wrong question.
The question is do you think that state rights will fix that? How about privatization?
What do you find wrong with the question i posed anyway?
These are citizens right to weigh in and be heard with force of Initiative law. Initiative law, the congress has to implement. In Washington State, Initiative law said Marijuana should be equal to alcohol, regulated and taxed, 1 oz legal, buy in store. The legislature has to make it work and implement.
This just gives initiative power to national level, with protection that the initiative is not corporate or special interest driven.
Privatization? What do you mean by that?
But, what you don't get is that I don't care.
It's the same shit as it ever was under a different guise.
So, this whole let's all focus on one issue is a SHAM.
It can't be 1 issue there are many many issues look here http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-would-a-new-constitution-say/
Where I outline thirty some issues
EDIT like 1 wealth plundered http://blog.ourfuture.org/20121119/wall-street-finds-a-third-way-to-plunder-our-wealth. http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-public-central-bank-on-reclaiming-our-central-ba/#comment-943066
2 climate, species, planet ruined by big oil http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/obama-legacy-keystone-xl_n_2807622.html http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-killing-the-planet-ourselves/
3 treasury robbed by banksters junta (return money with 50 percent interest directly to citizens with less than median income on a sliding scale). http://occupywallst.org/forum/have-you-seen-the-film-inside-job-if-not-why-not-i/
We are debt peons, to a large extent http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/breaking_the_chains_of_debt_peonage_20130203/ http://www.nationofchange.org/big-bank-immunity-when-do-we-crack-down-wall-street-1363098432
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11844439/1/what-will-debt-jubilee-look-like.html
4 happiness ruined by perpetual state of war and hostilities
5 congress http://www.cleanupwashington.org/sii/
http://www.american.edu/spa/ccps/upload/Final-Draft-of-Thurber-s-What-s-Wrong-with-Congress-What-Should-be-Done-About-It-3.pdf
6 gerrymandering. http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting#.UT4WRWt5mSM
7 George Bush and company of tyrants sold us down the river, dems went along for the ride...we want a full release of records on this corruption.
8 bloated government not focused on priorities
9 government has neglected the people, from whom power derives, and targeted it with force in disbanding the creative communities of Ows to practice their beliefs http://www.disinfo.com/2011/11/oakland-mayor-admits-u-s-cities-coordinated-crackdown-on-occupy-movement/
10 citizens united still stands. https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment
SOLUTION: . . 2nd PEOPLE'S BILL OF RIGHTS. . .
11 end duopoly. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/03/breaking-twoparty-stranglehold-gary-johnson
12 direct democracy amendment http://www.cusdi.org/index.html
http://democracy.mkolar.org/DDlinks.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoex
13 4 day work http://shorterworkweek.blogspot.com/
14 Medicare for all to opt in. http://www.pnhp.org/publications/proposal-of-the-physicians-working-group-for-single-payer-national-health-insurance
15 college paid for through national service work projects, Or national education coop credits for all eligible citizen ( equal to difference between your wages, living wages, and other coop credits)
16 a people's national bank with access to 0 interest credit. http://www.justmeans.com/A-Real-People-s-Bank-Occupy-Wall-Street-s-Call-for-a-Public-Banking-Option/50253.html
17 the trillion dollar platinum coin 18 would be great.
18 ban on drones and other mindless terminaters.
19 war on drugs ends. It's a health issue. Go li Washington state, make it into a regulated coop, linked with access to mental health care. MJ legal.
20.....25 percent debt repudiation jubilee as of 3-7-13, retroactive to 2008 collapse, this would be returned to all eligible by ileagle bank participants.
21 Flexible living wage for all workers: (through citizens members all members of public coops in community ownership of 51 percent of all corporation operating in usa, or nationalized public coops where all citizens have a voice, ownership, and dividend credits to assure the reach a living wage and meet human needs through: oil and minerals, utilities, food, housing, education coops, whose proceeds and credits help ensure living wage and basic needs credits as human rights) see 22 and 23 below for further details on how funded.
For example ...Say we decide $75,000 is a living wage. ( or some relative equivalent if we have universal Medicare, and universal coop food, housing and energy credits to bring one close to this level, assuming the people decided cooperative of the major resources, owned by all, is a good idea and is best for whole country, the general welfare). Students would not earn full living wage in housing, but might earn more credits toward education, so it would balance out. This would be to state schools, most likely, but not exclusively). Also the $75,000 figure might be for a forty year old. A more modest living wage, say $40,000 for a twenty five year old, $25,000 for below 25 years. This to be paid for with 80 percent income tax on earnings over a 400,000 a year, and from credits we all earn as members, citizens of government coops in food, energy, housing, agriculture, education, etc. Slackers, and the are some, would be towards lower end of living wage scale, more of a maintain acne wage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
22 citizen co-majority ownership of majority shares of any publicly traded corporation operating on us soils, or accessing us markets. We get stock dividend 51 percent and voting rights on all corporate activities in USA.
23 income over $400,000.00 taxed at 80 percent rate. Money goes directly to wealth equalization fund for all American to access human needs living wages and or credits (housing, agriclture. Transportation, energy, education) described in 21 above
24 1 person 1 vote. All Americans are equal delegates to constitutional convention, up down vote on list of people's rights amendments.
25 No PACS money for election, but public financing and equal access on public and private media. https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment. https://movetoamend.org/
26 Close international military bases. Put troops to work on domestic infrastructure work projects. 27 Land Air Water Life Poisoned http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/takaiya-blaney-on-first-nations-we-are-awake-standing-up-enbridge Our Home http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-killing-the-planet-ourselves/
28 Wall Street not supervised http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/02/cathy_oneil_on.html
29 Food Consumers need better information on quality http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling
30 common sense public supported laws must be enacted to prevent needless death too many guns http://www.demandaction.org/
Also i don't say put all eggs in one basket, 1 solution. There is no easy 1 solution.
Time is of the essence. We just debate all the minutia, people get fed up and leave forum,
We should be getting around some big theme by now and getting it to people, solutions and hope, and information. A potential solution.
Ok say you get money out of politics eventually, or end citizens united. By that time we may be on an irreversible course. Already this has been happening for 30 years, income declines, etc. is reversing citizens united going to fix that?
Ron Paul's slogan: the Revolution of Love.
Compare the site that you have given me and this http://www.foavc.org/
and include the sites that are listed on their site here: http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Links.htm
Look, he went beyond "right to revolt" and indicated that this would be the repercussion. Those questions remain unanswered.
Further more, at no point in the text of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address is there a call for Revolution or revolt or armed uprising. In fact, it goes in the opposite direction.
"Look, he went beyond "right to revolt" and indicated that this would be the repercussion. Those questions remain unanswered."
When he implies that, it crosses a line. So you are correct to call out, and as he said such (after I attempted to clarify for his right to be for art. V, and defend himself, and he has not very well clarified this, despite being provided time ) so I too await a clarification .
after I attempted to clarify for his right to be for art. V
That wasn't my issue, that was yours.
cool.
I admit I am a fool.
I just chewed him out. Maybe better late than never.
Naw, that's not what I mean. It was never about his right.
Have a good night. I will read everything else in the morning.
Foavc site is tea party linked, IMO. And other strict constitutionalists, and righties. Both sites call for art V, below is for LIMITED art V, to the issue of amendment proposed
Whereas http://www.cusdi.org/state_legislator_package.pdf calls for a convention limited to this issue, the amendment in question. 34 states through legilative bodiespropose a convention limited--to the amendment, as called for by the people of the 34 states.-- a limited amendment convention, limited by the proposal of the people to this issue.
On limited article 5 convention http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/96/1509.pdf
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf
Um... Michael Rappaport is the director for the Center of Constitutional Originalism and then there is CATO. http://www.cato.org/search/results/Rappaport
And who sits on the board of directors at CATO? http://www.cato.org/board-of-directors
Why, it's David Koch.
What motive might they have here?
In fact the document that you provided earlier dedicated a section to federal limitations and presents itself as originalist.
"In fact the document that you provided earlier dedicated a section to federal limitations and presents itself as originalist."
Not sure where you are referring or the link you claim may exist between this http://www.cusdi.org/state_legislator_package.pdf Site And anti-freedom groups.
elections. If passed, they become law that neither Congress nor the President can overrule.
Look, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a5.html
Here are the Notes on the Federal Debate http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Of particular interest is this taken from the first link but found in the second in case you want to cross check it to make sure that it isn't taken out of context.
Article 5
Document 2
Records of the Federal Convention
[1:22; Madison, 29 May]
[1:121; Madison, 5 June]
propos: 13. "that provision ought to be made for hereafter amending the system now to be established, without requiring the assent of the Natl. Legislature." being taken up.
Mr. Pinkney doubted the propriety or necessity of it.
Mr. Gerry favored it. The novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision. The prospect of such a revision would also give intermediate stability to the Govt. Nothing had yet happened in the States where this provision existed to proves its impropriety.--The Proposition was postponed for further consideration: the votes being. Mas: Con. N. Y. Pa. Del. Ma. N. C.--ay
Virga. S. C. Geo: no
[1:202; Madison, 11 June]
Resolution 13. for amending the national Constitution hereafter without consent of Natl. Legislature being considered, several members did not see the necessity of the Resolution at all, nor the propriety of making the consent of the Natl. Legisl. unnecessary.
Col. Mason urged the necessity of such a provision. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account. The opportunity for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution calling for amendmt.
Mr. Randolph enforced these arguments.
The words, "without requiring the consent of the Natl. Legislature" were postponed. The other provision in the clause passed nem. con.
[2:159; Committee of Detail, VIII]
This Constitution ought to be amended whenever such Amendment shall become necessary; and on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the States in the Union, the Legislature of the United States shall call a Convention for that Purpose.
[2:188; Madison, 6 Aug.]
XIX
On the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the States in the Union, for an amendment of this Constitution, the Legislature of the United States shall call a Convention for that purpose.
[2:461; Journal, 30 Aug.]
On the question to agree to the 19 article as reported
it passed in the affirmative
[2:461; Madison, 30 Aug.]
Mr. Govr. Morris suggested that the Legislature should be left at liberty to call a Convention, whenever they please.
The art: was agreed to nem: con:
[2:557; Madison, 10 Sept.]
Mr Gerry moved to reconsider art XIX. viz, "On the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the States in the Union, for an amendment of this Constitution, the Legislature of the U. S. shall call a Convention for that purpose." (see Aug. 6)
This Constitution he said is to be paramount to the State Constitutions. It follows, hence, from this article that two thirds of the States may obtain a Convention, a majority of which can bind the Union to innovations that may subvert the State-Constitutions altogether. He asked whether this was a situation proper to be run into--
Mr. Hamilton 2ded. the motion, but he said with a different view from Mr. Gerry--He did not object to the consequences stated by Mr. Gerry--There was no greater evil in subjecting the people of the U. S. to the major voice than the people of a particular State--It had been wished by many and was much to have been desired that an easier mode for introducing amendments had been provided by the articles of Confederation. It was equally desirable now that an easy mode should be established for supplying defects which will probably appear in the new System. The mode proposed was not adequate. The State Legislatures will not apply for alterations but with a view to increase their own powers--The National Legislature will be the first to perceive and will be most sensible to the necessity of amendments, and ought also to be empowered, whenever two thirds of each branch should concur to call a Convention--There could be no danger in giving this power, as the people would finally decide in the case.
Mr Madison remarked on the vagueness of the terms, "call a Convention for the purpose." as sufficient reason for reconsidering the article. How was a Convention to be formed? by what rule decide? what the force of its acts?
On the motion of Mr. Gerry to reconsider
N. H. divd. Mas. ay--Ct. ay. N. J.--no. Pa ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N--C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [Ayes--9; noes--1; divided--1.]
Mr. Sherman moved to add to the article "or the Legislature may propose amendments to the several States for their approbation, but no amendments shall be binding until consented to by the several States"
Mr. Gerry 2ded. the motion
Mr. Wilson moved to insert "two thirds of" before the words "several States"--on which amendment to the motion of Mr. Sherman
N. H. ay. Mas. no Ct. no. N. J. no Pa. ay--Del--ay Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. [Ayes--5; noes--6.]
Mr. Wilson then moved to insert "three fourths of" before "the several Sts" which was agreed to nem: con:
Mr. Madison moved to postpone the consideration of the amended proposition in order to take up the following,
"The Legislature of the U--S--whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part thereof, when the same shall have been ratified by three fourths at least of the Legislatures of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Legislature of the U. S:"
Mr. Hamilton 2ded. the motion.
Mr. Rutlidge said he never could agree to give a power by which the articles relating to slaves might be altered by the States not interested in that property and prejudiced against it. In order to obviate this objection, these words were added to the proposition: "provided that no amendments which may be made prior to the year 1808. shall in any manner affect the 4 & 5 sections of the VII article"--The postponement being agreed to,
On the question On the proposition of Mr. Madison & Mr. Hamilton as amended
N. H. divd. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va ay. N. C. ay S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [Ayes--9; noes--1; divided--1.]
[2:629; Madison, 15 Sept.]
Art--V. "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two thirds of the Legislatures of the several States shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part thereof, when the same shall have been ratified by three fourths at least of the Legislatures 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 1808 shall in any manner affect the 1 & 4 clauses in the 9. section of article I."
Mr. Sherman expressed his fears that three fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate. He thought it reasonable that the proviso in favor of the States importing slaves should be extended so as to provide that no State should be affected in its internal police, or deprived of its equality in the Senate.
Col: Mason thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.
Mr. Govr. Morris & Mr. Gerry moved to amend the article so as to require a Convention on application of 2/3 of the Sts
Mr Madison did not see why Congress would not be as much bound to propose amendments applied for by two thirds of the States as to call a call a Convention on the like application. He saw no objection however against providing for a Convention for the purpose of amendments, except only that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum &c. which in Constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided.
The motion of Mr. Govr Morris and Mr. Gerry was agreed to nem: con (see: the first part of the article as finally past)
Mr Sherman moved to strike out of art. V. after "legislatures" the words "of three fourths" and so after the word "Conventions" leaving future Conventions to act in this matter, like the present Conventions according to circumstances.
On this motion
N--H--divd. Mas--ay--Ct ay. N--J. ay--Pa no. Del--no. Md no. Va no. N. C. no. S--C. no. Geo--no. [Ayes--3; noes--7; divided--1.]
Mr Gerry moved to strike out the words "or by Conventions in three fourths thereof"
On this motion
N--H--no. Mas. no--Ct. ay. N--J. no. Pa no--Del--no. Md no. Va. no. N--C. no S. C. no--Geo--no. [Ayes--1; noes--10.]
M--Sherman moved according to his idea above expressed to annex to the end of the article a further proviso "that no State shall without its consent be affected in its internal police, or deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate",
Mr. Madison. Begin with these special provisos, and every State will insist on them, for their boundaries, exports &c.
On the motion of Mr. Sherman
N. H--no. Mas. no. Ct ay. N. J. ay--Pa no. Del--ay. Md. no. Va. no N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. [Ayes--3; noes--8.]
Mr. Sherman then moved to strike out art V altogether
Mr Brearley 2ded. the motion, on which
N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. divd. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no [Ayes--2; noes--8; divided--1.]
Mr. Govr Morris moved to annex a further proviso--"that no State, without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate"
This motion being dictated by the circulating murmurs of the small States was agreed to without debate, no one opposing it, or on the question, saying no.
Does it sound like everyone was skippy?
No.
Yes I am familiar with notes on the federal convention and debates.
And this too ....
....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 is why a 1 amendment convention (limited convention) is desired, focused on the ammendment the states submit: this one ... http://www.cusdi.org/state_legislator_package.pdf
[-] 1 points by gsw (1963) 3 minutes ago
well GK was right after all....
I believe that answer has finally been discovered through the long discussion that has taken place on the forum. Protesting for the increased application of direct democracy at the state level is just, constitutional, and practicable on the ground. It seems to me a realistic and achievable method of reforming our democracy. I am not so much committed to a single method of attempting to put direct democracy at the state level into practice, as much as in the goal of doing so itself, and of not becoming bogged down in too many competing schemes because I think time is now an issue for us all.
Democracy=demos=power to the people. This was the intent of our founding fathers.
I believe that gsw and BradB on the OWS forum are charting that way . . . but there is a problem. Getting progressive thinkers together to push a single agenda has been alluded to humorously and I think accurately in the past as “trying to herd cats.” Therefore, if the answer is found, the question becomes . . . will people show the discipline to follow it through, or will we be seduced by what all intelligent people naturally find so alluring, the thrill of debate for its own sake?
edit...adding my documentation http://occupywallst.org/forum/initiative-democracy-pros-cons-can-it-work-in-time/ ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Not when you use libertarian/right wing sources to back up the the agenda.
GK can reflect on that.
:"Not when you use libertarian/right wing sources to back up the the agenda."
so neglect the liberal left wing sources. speak of narrowness
[-] 1 points by gsw (1963) 0 minutes ago
what's good for the goose is good for the gander ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
I will never support ALEC. Never.
Fuck libertopia.
double agreement
agreement
[-] 1 points by gsw (1969) 3 minutes ago
http://www.botus.org/aboutus.htm
Incorporation: Citizens for U.S. Direct Initiatives Inc. (CUSDI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation. It was incorporated and registered in Washington State on February 13, 2004. Communications: Communications by email are preferred; they will receive quicker review and response. Email:
Post Mail: Citizens for U.S. Direct Initiatives Inc. 2023 E. Sims Way #120 Port Townsend, WA 98368-6905 Web Site Domain Names: http://www.InitiativesAmendment.org http://www.CUSDI.org http://www.BOTUS.org Mission: Our mission is to develop and present on the Internet a comprehensive blueprint to enable a practical and achievable direct democracy process. This process will permit long-term solutions to excessive influence of the U.S. Government by wealthy special interests and other matters that trouble the People. Organization: A number of private U.S. citizens formed and control this organization out of concern about the rapidly increasing influence over of our government by special interest groups. No one at the organization has had a political career though we have interfaced extensively with those who have. We are non-partisan, either independent or not strongly allied to a party. We are all economically comfortable but none is very rich. We all hold advanced degrees in a range of subjects. We have all had successful careers, have held responsible positions and are now mostly retired from our original careers. The value of what we are doing comes from time spent on it, cash outlays are modest, and no one receives compensation. We get our satisfaction in the belief that we are providing a public service. We greatly value our privacy, do not seek or wish any notoriety, and sincerely request that others respect these wishes. Tax Status: Citizens for U.S. Direct Initiatives Inc. is a publicly supported organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, IRS documentation of tax-exempt status has lapsed since no donations are currently sought. Donations: We operate on a modest budget and have sufficient funds that we currently do not seek donations. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Board of directors etc. is missing. CEO etc. is missing.There is nothing to locate who funds the site. None of that alters the use of right wing/libertopia links embedded in the text of the package.
[-] 1 points by gsw (1969) 1 minute ago
double agreement ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
That's not what it's looking like.
http://www.botus.org/aboutus.htm
Incorporation: Citizens for U.S. Direct Initiatives Inc. (CUSDI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation. It was incorporated and registered in Washington State on February 13, 2004. Communications: Communications by email are preferred; they will receive quicker review and response. Email:
Post Mail: Citizens for U.S. Direct Initiatives Inc. 2023 E. Sims Way #120 Port Townsend, WA 98368-6905 Web Site Domain Names: http://www.InitiativesAmendment.org http://www.CUSDI.org http://www.BOTUS.org Mission: Our mission is to develop and present on the Internet a comprehensive blueprint to enable a practical and achievable direct democracy process. This process will permit long-term solutions to excessive influence of the U.S. Government by wealthy special interests and other matters that trouble the People. Organization: A number of private U.S. citizens formed and control this organization out of concern about the rapidly increasing influence over of our government by special interest groups. No one at the organization has had a political career though we have interfaced extensively with those who have. We are non-partisan, either independent or not strongly allied to a party. We are all economically comfortable but none is very rich. We all hold advanced degrees in a range of subjects. We have all had successful careers, have held responsible positions and are now mostly retired from our original careers. The value of what we are doing comes from time spent on it, cash outlays are modest, and no one receives compensation. We get our satisfaction in the belief that we are providing a public service. We greatly value our privacy, do not seek or wish any notoriety, and sincerely request that others respect these wishes. Tax Status: Citizens for U.S. Direct Initiatives Inc. is a publicly supported organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, IRS documentation of tax-exempt status has lapsed since no donations are currently sought. Donations: We operate on a modest budget and have sufficient funds that we currently do not seek donations.
Stop.
Stop right there.
Having the links as your back up evidence in the package?
Really?
what's good for the goose is good for the gander
The forum is a tool of ows and people to get improved systems: government, justice, economy, congress, working correctly, and to inform and identify deficiencies. It was initiated to coordinate and communicate.
Also it can
However the system can't self correct because we are doing "wack a troll" on a larger scale in the real world, with real trolls of 1 percent.
Iceland parliament just chucked their people- written constitution. Michigan governor denies people's Voter approved Inititive, weapons of mass destruction allowed on our streets (high power multi fired guns, large clips) wages keep declining, "Lifting The Veil" describes how politicians will do whatever they wish after elected.
We need to have some bigger plans and solutions that people can weigh in on, start pushing. This may be one.
It seems a few people here think it couldn't hurt to try this plan and push it, ( which here is practically consensus, along with other issues of ows, that we can point to a solution for, which at least may get more regular people thinking, doing something. Maybe more people will want to become involved.
It is not going to solve all issues, so all the issues here will need to continue being addressed.
poll issues are adressed by BradB on this thread http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-have-been-a-fool/
I wished to get your weigh in because you are a major voice on the forum. All the other issues stay ongoing. This is just one more tool to revolution of love.
I thank you for all your work and time here and considering the plan, and looking at in spirit of nonpartisanship,
I anticipate a new post on Implementing The Initiatives Ammendments Action Plan Will be a future step in the effort, as this forum rightly continues as an open, broad and diverse representation of interested individuals.
The Revolution is Love for All Beings
[-] 1 points by gsw (2070) 3 hours ago
The forum is a tool of ows and people to get improved systems: government, justice, economy, congress, working correctly, and to inform and identify deficiencies. It was initiated to coordinate and communicate.
Also it can - 1 raise awareness - 2 hope voters awaken - 3 protest
However the system can't self correct because we are doing "wack a troll" on a larger scale in the real world, with real trolls of 1 percent.
Iceland parliament just chucked their people- written constitution. Michigan governor denies people's Voter approved Inititive, weapons of mass destruction allowed on our streets (high power multi fired guns, large clips) wages keep declining, "Lifting The Veil" describes how politicians will do whatever they wish after elected.
We need to have some bigger plans and solutions that people can weigh in on, start pushing. This may be one.
It seems a few people here think it couldn't hurt to try this plan and push it, ( which here is practically consensus, along with other issues of ows, that we can point to a solution for, which at least may get more regular people thinking, doing something. Maybe more people will want to become involved.
It is not going to solve all issues, so all the issues here will need to continue being addressed.
poll issues are adressed by BradB on this thread http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-have-been-a-fool/
I wished to get your weigh in because you are a major voice on the forum. All the other issues stay ongoing. This is just one more tool to revolution of love.
I thank you for all your work and time here and considering the plan, and looking at in spirit of nonpartisanship,
I anticipate a new post on Implementing The Initiatives Ammendments Action Plan Will be a future step in the effort, as this forum rightly continues as an open, broad and diverse representation of interested individuals.
The Revolution is Love for All Beings ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
And it will be much better after they become more transparent with the site and put some information about who they are.
Oh the Lincoln quote.
Well, I think the founders were revolutionaries, and believed revolution were at times necessary to defeat tyranny. They believed lots of things in 1700s, 1800 s.
They were bout the rights of revolution, to justify themselves.
You put lincoln quote in context. That's fine. Talk about that.
No, I'm talking about the state legislator package.
Yep, the founders were revolutionary until they won the revolution. Then they watched the French Revolution and said---holy defecation.
federal limitations is a broad connection, and I have looked and not been able to find a connection between initiatives amendment and the right. web site registration search revealed a guy in I believe Virginia or N. Carolina. let me check on again
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink [-] 1 points by gsw (1963) 4 minutes ago
as you can see the progressive links outnumber the conservative ones,
why would a RW sight have anything progressive, and in fact a predominance? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Links in the package. Links in the package.
[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (14627) 1 hour ago ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink [-] 1 points by gsw (1963) 4 minutes ago as you can see the progressive links outnumber the conservative ones, why would a RW sight have anything progressive, and in fact a predominance? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink Links in the package. Links in the package.
well your very insightful eyes are the only who have pointed out all the links in the package
I guess we just can't locate all the mystery links i the package
edit .....from the bib/ref page? http://www.cusdi.org/links.htm
well GK was right after all....
I believe that answer has finally been discovered through the long discussion that has taken place on the forum. Protesting for the increased application of direct democracy at the state level is just, constitutional, and practicable on the ground. It seems to me a realistic and achievable method of reforming our democracy. I am not so much committed to a single method of attempting to put direct democracy at the state level into practice, as much as in the goal of doing so itself, and of not becoming bogged down in too many competing schemes because I think time is now an issue for us all.
Democracy=demos=power to the people. This was the intent of our founding fathers.
I believe that gsw and BradB on the OWS forum are charting that way . . . but there is a problem. Getting progressive thinkers together to push a single agenda has been alluded to humorously and I think accurately in the past as “trying to herd cats.” Therefore, if the answer is found, the question becomes . . . will people show the discipline to follow it through, or will we be seduced by what all intelligent people naturally find so alluring, the thrill of debate for its own sake?
edit...adding my documentation http://occupywallst.org/forum/initiative-democracy-pros-cons-can-it-work-in-time/
[-] 0 points by gsw (1963) 3 hours ago
there's his email and phone give him a ring
Going back to edit our posts now? Cool.
i have not edited anything here
ok I said give him a ring
mom was an english teacher/librarian
[-] 1 points by gsw (1963) 3 minutes ago
they also have central and progressive links http://www.wmd.org/
http://faireconomy.org/mission-vision-goals ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
The right wing/libertarian links in the document, G. As sources. In the document. Again, you provided a document yesterday from somone that publishes papers with CATO.
I call bullshit.
I do believe that is California. or maybe Drums, PA.
I'll have to look it up again.
there's his email and phone give him a ring
Domain ID:D133181315-LROR Domain Name:INITIATIVESAMENDMENT.ORG Created On:18-Nov-2006 22:06:40 UTC Last Updated On:19-Sep-2012 07:07:33 UTC Expiration Date:18-Nov-2015 22:06:40 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions, LLC (R63-LROR) Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED Registrant ID:17157351-NSIV Registrant Name:Anthony Simpson Registrant Street1:ATTN insert domain name here Registrant Street2:care of Network Solutions Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Drums Registrant State/Province:PA Registrant Postal Code:18222 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.5707088780 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:rw5dw37u6jb@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com Admin ID:17157351-NSIV Admin Name:Anthony Simpson Admin Street1:ATTN insert domain name here Admin Street2:care of Network Solutions
http://whois.net/whois/initiativesamendment.org
[-] 1 points by gsw (1962) 1 minute ago
http://www.cusdi.org/links.htm
yes there are some links and FOAV is one. good point.
has this disclaimer too
Links to General Information Sites These are links to Internet Sites that may be of interest to those who want to find out more about the United States Constitution, Constitutional Amendments, Direct Democracy, and related matters.
These other web sites are under the control of other organizations, and therefore their content cannot be guaranteed or endorsed. When you link to these websites you leave this website and your communications no longer are protected by the same privacy or security policies. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
No, G-they are cited in text. It's the same agenda and uses the same sources and I don't know how familiar you are with the IRI but, yeah, it's another libertarian right wing maneuver. Between that and utilizing a source with ties to Cato organization----I call bullshit.
as you can see the progressive links outnumber the conservative ones,
why would a RW sight have anything progressive, and in fact a predominance?
they also have progressive links
http://www.artofhosting.org/home/
http://cdp.binghamton.edu/
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.populist.com/about.html
http://www.wmd.org/
http://faireconomy.org/mission-vision-goals
http://uspirg.org/page/usp/about-us
you could be very correct that is why we have peer review here you know different than me, etc.
this one is extremely suspicsious http://www.americansfortheconstitution.com/
[-] 1 points by gsw (1962) 1 hour ago
maybe this section?
Nah, and you have links that will take you straight to FOAV.
Love it.
and the other 116 sites
Annenberg Political Fact Check http://www.factcheck.org/ Americans for Campaign Reform http://www.just6dollars.org/ Americans for the Constitution Article5.org Articles of Confederation Online Art of Hosting and Convening Meaningful Conversations, website Athenian Democracy Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Bartleby Word References Bibliography of Law Review and Selected Political Science Journal Articles on Initiatives and Direct Democracy, USC Law Library, 2003 British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Bureau of the Public Debt California Recall Special Election Information Californians for a State Constitutional Convention (RepairCalifornia.org) Canadians for Direct Democracy (CDD) Cato Institute Center for Deliberative Democracy Center for Public Integrity Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD) Center for Voting and Democracy Center for Wise Democracy Center on Democratic Performance Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) Centre on Direct Democracy (C2D) CIA World Factbook Citizens Against Government Waste Citizens' Assembly Party Citizens for Term Limits Citizens in Charge Clean Elections Institute (Arizona) Clean Up Washington Coalition for National Referendum Common Cause CommonDreams.org Constitution Project - Citizens for the Constitution Constitution Society Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute Council of State Governments Democracy for the Information Age (iSolon.org) Democracy International Democracy Now! Democracy21 Demos Digest of Educational Statistics, 2002 Direct Democracy PDF E-book Download Direct Democracy Web Ring Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Electronic Voting Bibliography Empower America FAIR FairVote Families USA Federal Election Commission Federalist Society Federal Grand Jury Free Congress Foundation Free Press Friends of the Article V Convention Gettysburg Address Good Bye Incumbents Healthy Democracy Heritage Foundation ibiblio - University of North Carolina & Center for the Public Domain Independence Institute Initiative & Referendum Institute at USC Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) Jefferson Center Library of Congress MoveOn.org National Center for Public Policy Research National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) National Conference of State Legislatures National Endowment for Democracy National Initiative for Democracy/Philadelphia Two National Initiative Election National Tax Limitation Committee National Taxpayers Union (NTU) National vs. Federal: Do You Know The Difference? New America Foundation New Rules Project Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Open Directory Project - Direct Democracy Web Site Listing openDemocracy - Human Rights and Democracy Our Documents PBS-MacNeil/Lehrer Productions, Online "Deliberative Poll®" By the People People's Lobby Pew Charitable Trusts PoliticalMoneyLine.com (TRKC Inc) Profile of General Demographic Characteristics for the United States, 2000 Progressive Populist Project Vote Smart Public Citizen Public Interest Institute Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) Ratifiers for Democracy ReclaimDemocracy.org RenewAmerica Rights & Democracy- International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (ICHRDD) Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm Supreme Court of the United States Taxpayers for Common Sense TenureCorrupts.Com The Rest of Us ThisNation - American Government and Politics Portal Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Constitution Online U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) United for a Fair Economy United We Stand America Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia World Bank World Movement for Democracy YourCongress.com
http://www.cusdi.org/links.htm
yes there are some links and FOAV is one. good point.
has this disclaimer too
Links to General Information Sites These are links to Internet Sites that may be of interest to those who want to find out more about the United States Constitution, Constitutional Amendments, Direct Democracy, and related matters.
These other web sites are under the control of other organizations, and therefore their content cannot be guaranteed or endorsed. When you link to these websites you leave this website and your communications no longer are protected by the same privacy or security policies.
most of book links are direct democracy
and there are 118 links
such as http://accurate-voting.org/ funded by the national science foundation
The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network is your portal to the world of elections. The ACE network promotes credible, and transparent electoral processes with emphasis on sustainability, professionalism and trust in the electoral process. ACE offers a wide range of services related to electoral knowledge, assistance and capacity development. The network comprises of a global, thematic component (the ACE Practitioners' Network) and a regional component (the ACE Regional Electoral Resource Centres).
The ACE website is an online knowledge repository that provides comprehensive information and customised advice on electoral processes. The website contains in-depth articles, global statistics and data, an Encyclopaedia of Elections, information on electoral assistance, observation and professional development, region- and country-specific resources, daily electoral news, an election calendar, quizzes, expert networks and much, much more. The ACE website is freely accessible to all and the number of visitors is constantly growing - as of January 2012 the website has more than 1,3 million visitors per year.
ACE was established in 1998 as the ACE (Administration and Cost of Elections) Project by IDEA, IFES and UNDESA. In 2006 the name was changed to the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network (with the letters ACE no longer standing for Administration and Cost of Elections). ACE is a collaborative effort between nine organisations: IDEA, EISA, Elections Canada, the Federal Electoral Institute of Mexico (IFE), IFES, UNDESA, UNDP and the UNEAD. The European Commission is an ex-officio member.
The interim ACE Secretariat is hosted by International IDEA on behalf of the ACE Partners.
Find out more about the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network by using the navigational bar on the left-hand side. Questions and comments can be addressed to the ACE Secretariat.
It's in the package.
maybe this section?
So is Lincoln recommending violent revolution? This thread is supposed to be about what I said. Are you trying to confuse people?
ART5 is a lawful and peaceful revolution which is constitutionally and logically required of us, if we wish to call ourselves Americans; IF government becomes obviously abusive of the rights granted. This the only revolution I advocate, and to assure that is the only one we have I'm calling for it right now.
Any American with any cause can reasonably know that through ART5 and amendment, either directly or indirectly, their cause can be advanced if it is constitutional.
With free speech unabridged, we can determine what is, and what is not constitutional.
It appears that by default the armed revolution will probably be an armed defense by Americans who think they still have rights, from the infiltration of government having hijacked the military, the courts and law enforcement putting the constitution deeper into darkness with each act.
If there are enough, then they may prevail, freedom and the constitution may be secured after such an armed conflict.
However, in the confused wake of media conditioning of 50 years, the dilution of cultures, default compromise of the economy and its inherent weakening, a pitifully weak defense might be as good as it gets and martial law prevails permanently.
It appears that by default the armed revolution will probably be an armed defense by Americans who think they still have rights, from the infiltration of government having hijacked the military, the courts and law enforcement putting the constitution deeper into darkness with each act.
If there are enough, then they may prevail, freedom and the constitution may be secured after such an armed conflict.
Please explain exactly what your intentions are if you don't get your convention or it doesn't go the way that you propose. I firmly believe that those that propose these things shoot straight with precisely what their expectations are. So, everyone is aware with what it is that they are getting into.
Pretending I'm stating intentions shows your distortions.
These are predictions.
I'm about discussing constitutional intent. Americans are failing to do that, I'm only predicting what will result from the failure.
Your distortions are designed to induce Americans to fail to discuss constitutional intent with your distortion by selectively misinterpreting in false ad hominum.
Those are your statements. Get off your ass and start answering.
Obvious collusion and effort to smear in this thread.
I've read the efforts to mimic cognitive failure. I logically deem all persecuting Article V of the Constitution or those promoting it to be enemies of the Constitution. Enemies of rights and freedom they are.
I've not seen such un accountable BS allowed very often on forums where they make a pretense of being there for the good of the people. This is sickening.
Grow up.
beware any of the many versions of the poster who pretends
"constitutional intent" & "preparitory anendment"
are anywhere in our constitution.
This person is calling for exactly what alec/koch have spent a fortune to buy -
an article V convention:
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com/1_6_DOCUMENTS.html
see document #7
You are wrong and a traitor.
The Constitution of the United States
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.
"then violent revolt is the only possible way to remain free"
The second YOU become violent, I cease to be free.
actually george washington was pretty clear that these were the only circumstances that revolt was acceptable in america after the ratifying of the constitution.
Writings of Washington, Vol. 26: CIRCULAR TO THE STATES Bibliographic Header CIRCULAR TO THE STATES Head Quarters, Newburgh, June 8, 1783. 29
Note: The length of the Circular and the consequent time consumed in making 13 copies of it account for the different dates under which many of them are found, and the different handwritings in which they are transcribed. The circular to Virginia (Governor Harrison) is dated June 12; the one to Maryland (Governor Paca), June 14; that to New York (Governor Clinton), June 21 to Connecticut (Governor Trumbull), is dated merely June; and another of the originals (the address of which has been destroyed), is dated June 11 and is in the Washington Papers .
Sir: The great object for which I had the honor to hold an appointment in the Service of my Country, being accomplished, I am now preparing to resign it into the hands of Congress, and to return to that domestic retirement, which, it is well known, I left with the greatest reluctance, a Retirement, for which I have never ceased to sigh through a long and painful absence, and in which (remote from the noise and trouble -484- of the World) I meditate to pass the remainder of life in a state of undisturbed repose; But before I carry this resolution into effect, I think it a duty incumbent on me, to make this my last official communication, to congratulate you on the glorious events which Heaven has been pleased to produce in our favor, to offer my sentiments respecting some important subjects, which appear to me, to be intimately connected with the tranquility of the United States, to take my leave of your Excellency as a public Character, and to give my final blessing to that Country, in whose service I have spent the prime of my life, for whose sake I have consumed so many anxious days and watchfull nights, and whose happiness being extremely dear to me, will always constitute no inconsiderable part of my own.
Impressed with the liveliest sensibility on this pleasing occasion, I will claim the indulgence of dilating the more copiously on the subjects of our mutual felicitation. When we consider the magnitude of the prize we contended for, the doubtful nature of the contest, and the favorable manner in which it has terminated, we shall find the greatest possible reason for gratitude and rejoicing; this is a theme that will afford infinite delight to every benevolent and liberal mind, whether the event in contemplation, be considered as the source of present enjoyment or the parent of future happiness; and we shall have equal occasion to felicitate ourselves on the lot which Providence has assigned us, whether we view it in a natural, a political or moral point of light.
The Citizens of America, placed in the most enviable condition, as the sole Lords and Proprietors of a vast Tract of Continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the World, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life, are now by the late satisfactory pacification, acknowledged to be possessed of absolute freedom and -485- Independency; They are, from this period, to be considered as the Actors on a most conspicuous Theatre, which seems to be peculiarly designated by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity; Here, they are not only surrounded with every thing which can contribute to the completion of private and domestic enjoyment, but Heaven has crowned all its other blessings, by giving a fairer oppertunity for political happiness, than any other Nation has ever been favored with. Nothing can illustrate these observations more forcibly, than a recollection of the happy conjuncture of times and circumstances, under which our Republic assumed its rank among the Nations; The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had ameliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society. At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be intirely their own.
Such is our situation, and such are our prospects: but notwithstanding the cup of blessing is thus reached out to us, notwithstanding happiness is ours, if we have a disposition to seize the occasion and make it our own; yet, it appears to me -486- there is an option still left to the United States of America, that it is in their choice, and depends upon their conduct, whether they will be respectable and prosperous, or contemptable and miserable as a Nation; This is the time of their political probation, this is the moment when the eyes of the whole World are turned upon them, this is the moment to establish or ruin their national Character forever, this is the favorable moment to give such a tone to our Federal Government, as will enable it to answer the ends of its institution, or this may be the ill-fated moment for relaxing the powers of the Union, annihilating the cement of the Confederation, and exposing us to become the sport of European politics, which may play one State against another to prevent their growing importance, and to serve their own interested purposes. For, according to the system of Policy the States shall adopt at this moment, they will stand or fall, and by their confirmation or lapse, it is yet to be decided, whether the Revolution must ultimately be considered as a blessing or a curse: a blessing or a curse, not to the present age alone, for with our fate will the destiny of unborn Millions be involved.
With this conviction of the importance of the present Crisis, silence in me would be a crime; I will therefore speak to your Excellency, the language of freedom and of sincerity, without disguise; I am aware, however, that those who differ from me in political sentiment, may perhaps remark, I am stepping out of the proper line of my duty, and they may possibly ascribe to arrogance or ostentation, what I know is alone the result of the purest intention, but the rectitude of my own heart, which disdains such unworthy motives, the part I have hitherto acted in life, the determination I have formed, of not taking any share in public business hereafter, the ardent desire I feel, and shall continue to manifest, of quietly enjoying in private life, after -487- all the toils of War, the benefits of a wise and liberal Government, will, I flatter myself, sooner or later convince my Countrymen, that I could have no sinister views in delivering with so little reserve, the opinions contained in this Address.
There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:
1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.
2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.
3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and
4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.
These are the pillars on which the glorious Fabrick of our Independency and National Character must be supported; Liberty is the Basis, and whoever would dare to sap the foundation, or overturn the Structure, under whatever specious pretexts he may attempt it, will merit the bitterest execration, and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country. On the three first Articles I will make a few observations, leaving the last to the good sense and serious consideration of those immediately concerned.
Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithfull and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain. Many other considerations might here be adduced to prove, that without an entire conformity to the Spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an Independent Power; it will be sufficient for my purpose to mention but one or two which seem to me of the greatest importance. It is only in our united Character as an Empire, that our Independence is acknowledged, that our power can be regarded, or our Credit supported among Foreign Nations. The Treaties of the European Powers with the United States of America, will have no validity on a dissolution of the Union. We shall be left nearly in a state of Nature, or we may find by our own unhappy experience, that there is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.
As to file second Article, which respects the performance of Public Justice, Congress have, in their late Address to the United States, almost exhausted the subject, they have explained their Ideas so fully, and have enforced the obligations the States are under, to render compleat justice to all the Public Creditors, with so much dignity and energy, that in my opinion, no real friend to the honor and Independency of America, can hesitate a single moment respecting the propriety of complying with the just and honorable measures proposed; if their Arguments do not produce conviction, I know of nothing that will have greater influence; especially when we recollect that the System referred to, being the result of the collected Wisdom of the Continent, must be esteemed, if not perfect, certainly the least objectionable of any that could be devised; and that if it shall not be carried into immediate execution, a National Bankruptcy, with all its deplorable consequences will take place, before any different Plan can possibly be proposed and adopted; So pressing are the present circumstances I and such is the alternative now offered to the States!
The ability of the Country to discharge the debts which have been incurred in its defence, is not to be doubted, an inclination, I flatter myself, will not be wanting, the path of our duty is plain before us, honesty will be found on every experiment, to be the best and only true policy, let us then as a Nation be just, let us fulfil the public Contracts, which Congress had undoubtedly a right to make for the purpose of carrying on the War, with the same good faith we suppose ourselves bound to perform our private engagements; in the mean time, let an attention to the chearfull performance of their proper business, as Individuals, and as members of Society, be earnestly inculcated on the Citizens of America, that will they strengthen the hands of Government, and be happy under its protection: every one will reap the fruit of his labours, every one will enjoy his own acquisitions without molestation and without danger.
In this state of absolute freedom and perfect security, who will grudge to yield a very little of his property to support the common interest of Society, and insure the protection of Government? Who does not remember, the frequent declarations, at the commencement of the War, that we should be compleatly satisfied, if at the expence of one half, we could defend the remainder of our possessions? Where is the Man to be found, who wishes to remain indebted, for the defence of his own person and property, to the exertions, the bravery, and the blood of others, without making one generous effort to repay the debt of honor and of gratitude? In what part of the Continent shall we find any Man, or body of Men, who would not blush to stand up and propose measures, purposely calculated to rob the Soldier of his Stipend, and the Public Creditor of his due? and were it possible that such a flagrant instance of Injustice could ever happen, would it not excite the general indignation, and tend to bring down, upon the Authors of such measures, the aggravated vengeance of Heaven? If after all, a spirit of dis-union or a temper of obstinacy and perverseness, should manifest itself in any of the States, if such an ungracious disposition should attempt to frustrate all the happy effects that might be expected to flow from the Union, if there should be a refusal to comply with the requisitions for Funds to discharge the annual interest of the public debts, and if that refusal should revive again all those jealousies and produce all those evils, which are now happily removed, Congress, who have in all their Transaction shewn a great degree of magnanimity and justice, will stand justified in the sight of God and Man, and the State alone which puts itself in opposition to the aggregate Wisdom of the Continent, and follows such mistaken and pernicious Councils, will be responsible for all the consequences.
For my own part, conscious of having acted while a Servant of the Public, in the manner I conceived best suited to promote the real interests of my Country; having in consequence of my fixed belief in some measure pledged myself to the Army, that their Country would finally do them compleat and ample Justice, and not wishing to conceal any instance of my official conduct from the eyes of the World, I have thought proper to transmit to your Excellency the inclosed collection of Papers, 31 relative to the half pay and commutation granted by Congress to the Officers of the Army; From these communications, my decided sentiment will be clearly comprehended, together with the conclusive reasons which induced me, at an early period, to recommend the adoption of the measure, in the most earnest and serious manner. As the proceedings of Congress, the Army, and myself are open to all, and contain in my opinion, sufficient information to remove the prejudices and errors which may have been entertained by any; I think it unnecessary to say any thing more, than just to observe, that the Resolutions of Congress, now alluded to, are undoubtedly as absolutely binding upon the United States, as the most solemn Acts of Confederation or Legislation. As to the Idea, which I am informed has in some instances prevailed, that the half pay and commutation are to be regarded merely in the odious light of a Pension, it ought to be exploded forever; that Provision, should be viewed as it really was, a reasonable compensation offered by Congress, at a time when they had nothing else to give, to the Officers of the Army, for services then to be performed. It was the only means to prevent a total dereliction of the Service, It was a part of their hire, I may be allowed to say, it was the price of their blood and of your Independency, it is therefore more than a common debt, it is a debt of honour, it can never be considered as a Pension or gratuity, nor be cancelled until it is fairly discharged.
With regard to a distinction between Officers and Soldiers, it is sufficient that the uniform experience of every Nation of the World, combined with our own, proves the utility and propriety of the discrimination. Rewards in proportion to the aids the public derives from them, are unquestionably due to all its Servants; In some Lines, the Soldiers have perhaps generally had as ample a compensation for their Services, by the large Bounties which have been paid to them, as their Officers will receive in the proposed Commutation, in others, if besides the donation of Lands, the payment of Arrearages of Cloathing and Wages (in which Articles all the component parts of the Army must be put upon the same footing) we take into the estimate, the Bounties 32 many of the Soldiers have received and the gratuity of one Year's full pay, which is promised to all, possibly their situation (every circumstance being duly considered) will not be deemed less eligible than that of the Officers. Should a farther reward, however, be judged equitable, I will venture to assert, no one will enjoy greater satisfaction than myself, on seeing an exemption from Taxes for a limited time, (which has been petitioned for in some instances) or any other adequate immunity or compensation, granted to the brave defenders of their Country's Cause; but neither the adoption or rejection of this proposition will in any manner affect, much less militate against, the Act of Congress, by which they have offered five years full pay, in lieu of the half pay for life, which had been before promised to the Officers of the Army.
Before I conclude the subject of public justice, I cannot omit to mention the obligations this Country is under, to that meritorious Class of veteran Non- commissioned Officers and Privates, who have been discharged for inability, in consequence of the Resolution of Congress of the 23d of April 1782, on an annual pension for life, their peculiar sufferings, their singular merits and claims to that provision need only be known, to interest all the feelings of humanity in their behalf: nothing but a punctual payment of their annual allowance can rescue them from the most complicated misery, and nothing could be a more melancholy and distressing sight, than to behold those who have shed their blood or lost their limbs in the service of their Country, without a shelter, without a friend, and without the means of obtaining any of the necessaries or comforts of Life; compelled to beg their daily bread from door to door!
Suffer me to recommend those of this discription, belonging to your State, to the warmest patronage of your Excellency and your Legislature.
It is necessary to say but a few words on the third topic which was proposed, and which regards particularly the defence of the Republic, As there can be little doubt but Congress will recommend a proper Peace Establishment for the United States, in which a due attention will be paid to the importance of placing the Militia of the Union upon a regular and respectable footing; If this should be the case, I would beg leave to urge the great advantage of it in the strongest terms. The Militia of this Country must be considered as the Palladium of our security, and the first effectual resort in case of hostility; It is essential therefore, that the same system should pervade the whole; that the formation and discipline of the Militia of the Continent should be absolutely uniform, and that the same species of Arms, Accoutrements and Military Apparatus, should be introduced in every part of the United States; No one, (who has not learned it from experience, can conceive the difficulty, expence, and confusion which result from a contrary system, or the vague Arrangements which have hitherto prevailed.
If in treating of political points, a greater latitude than usual has been taken in the course of this Address, the importance of the Crisis, and the magnitude of the objects in discussion, must be my apology: It is, however, neither my wish or expectation, that the preceding observations should claim any regard, except so far as they shall appear to be dictated by a good intention, consonant to the immutable rules of Justice; calculated to produce a liberal system of policy, and founded on whatever experience may have been acquired by a long and close attention to public business. Here I might speak with the more confidence from my actual observations, and, if it would not swell this Letter (already too prolix) beyond the bounds I had prescribed myself: I could demonstrate to every mind open to conviction, that in less time and with much less expence than has been incurred, the War might have been brought to the same happy conclusion, if the resourses of the Continent could have been properly drawn forth, that the distresses and disappointments which have very often occurred, have in too many instances, resulted more from a want of energy, in the Continental Government, than a deficiency of means in the particular States. That the inefficiency of measures, arising from the want of an adequate authority in the Supreme Power, from a partial compliance with the Requisitions of Congress in some of the States, and from a failure of punctuality in others, while it tended to damp the zeal of those which were more willing to exert themselves; served also to accumulate the expences of the War, and to frustrate the best concerted Plans, and that the discouragement occasioned by the complicated difficulties and embarrassments, in which our affairs were, by this means involved, would have long ago produced the dissolution of any Army, less patient, less virtuous and less persevering, than that which I have had the honor to command. But while I mention these things, which are notorious facts, as the defects of our Federal Constitution, particularly in the prosecution of a War, I beg it may be understood, that as I have ever taken a pleasure in gratefully acknowledging the assistance and support I have derived from every Class of Citizens, so shall I always be happy to do justice to the unparalleled exertion of the individual States, on many interesting occasions.
I have thus freely disclosed what I wished to make known, before I surrendered up my Public trust to those who committed it to me, the task is now accomplished, I now bid adieu to your Excellency as the Chief Magistrate of your State, at the same time I bid a last farewell to the cares of Office, and all the imployments of public life. It remains then to be my final and only request, that your Excellency will communicate these sentiments to your Legislature at their next meeting, and that they may be considered as the Legacy of One, who has ardently wished, on all occasions, to be useful to his Country, and who, even in the shade of Retirement, will not fail to implore the divine benediction upon it.
I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation. 33
Source
Seems like his goal is to shut down all other activism, by criticizing it as a waste of time unless HIS Art5 proposal is passed.
He has put down any discussions unless they are Art5 discussions.
He offers no details, and frequently does not make sense in his comments.
I've lost all respect for his Art5 effort.
Stop manufacturing consent. dickhead.
You use fake ID's to vote yourself up, and others down, to give a phoney impression that someone thinks you know what you are talking about.
If you don't like seeing this information, then the answer is simple; STOP DOING IT, DICKHEAD.
Spam harassment!, cut & paste (LAZY) Please stop
Can't you engineer a more productive purpose for your self.
Anyone advocating an armed insurrection is not thinking clearly. I can only assume the statement isn’t serious.
Oh, please, Narley. You have been here long enough to know that there are those that insist on using this like thuggery. I watched the Tea Party use veterans and Patriot groups in propaganda that implied that they were caged but could be let loose at will.
So, let's hear what the implications and expectations are and not waste the next six months listening to a bunch of tantrum throwing wanna have a civil war crap.
Yep, your right. Best these idiots are ignored. I visit a ultra right wing forum occasionally. Your statement about ultra ring wingers saying they just need an excuse to bring out arms is spot on. And it probably has some truth to it. Some say they can’t wait for that day to come. But it’s all bluster.
It’s just sad to see some folks here think violent will work.
The elite love it when you use selectivity then misinterpret with the intent of preventing ART5.
A logical conclusion is the statement I made.
Clearly you and includabot are working to foul the peoples cognition and are against constitutional intent being shared and understood.
[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (278) 2 hours ago No. Discuss ART5 as a solution to problems.
The elite love it if we do not discuss effective solution. They would send people with ineffective solution or constant complaint and detail of problems to obscure solution.
That is treason.
I watched you jump threads so you could attempt to hide what you wrote. You can bullshit some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
Empty accusations. Answer questions now.
if so, where's the link?
What did I write?
Why do you think I did it?
Now a loaded question
Are you trying to foul peoples cognition of an effort by a citizen to share and define constitutional intent with other citizens in order to further treason by preventing unity?
i provided the link at the top. Now get off your ass and answer my questions.
You've made too much spam here to find it. Repost it.