Forum Post: The "Occupied" 28th Amendment Petition
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 15, 2011, 9:20 a.m. EST by Zendude
(75)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I am so proud of our movement. In such a short time we have come very far. I think it is very important to note that the 28th amendment to the Constitution, first introduced in the House on November 18th, by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, now has a companion amendment which was introduced in the Senate on December 12th, by Senator Bernie Sanders. The amendment, which will in effect strip corporations of their status as "people" and prohibits corporations from contributing to election campaigns, was inspired by OWS. How's that for a "leaderless" movement with no "agenda?"
So in addition to defending our rights on Bill of Rights day, we should also sign the petition in support of the 28th Amendment and make sure that everyone knows about it and signs it as well. As of now, only 15K+ people have signed. Here is a link: http://www.theoccupiedamendment.org
In the words of Phil Ochs: In the face of the people, who know they're going to win, there's a strength that's greater than the power of the wind.
All for one, once and for all!
"How's that for a leaderless movement"? Do you know how many pieces of legislation die in Congress? Paper is cheap. Talk is cheap. And thats all this movement does. Talk talk talk, whine, whine, whine. Oh, and block ports (pathetic). Don't get me wrong. I love Bernie Sanders! God love him for this piece of legislation.
This movement could do alot better with some new leadership, an effective organizational structure and a focused agenda to affect change working with and through government. But OWS doesn't "need politicians". Yes, lets continue whining because thats oh so productive. A "revolution" of whiners.
At this point, it is the number of signatures that counts most because it can raise awareness of just how many of us support the underlying concept. This is a baby step, and sure, it may prove fruitless, but, it would take you less time to sign than to reply to my "talk, talk, talk, whine, whine, whine."
As far as a " 'revolution' of whiners" is concerned, while none of us can read the future or really know how this movement will affect how and why things will be accomplished in our country, I believe we can all see that we are experiencing a phenomenon as it is unfolding. Like others in the past who didn't know they were writing history until after it was written, I think one day we will all awaken to a world where OWS will be recognized as something that was "new" at the time it was "created," and that it made an impact that few could envision in advance. Please think about it.
All for one, once and for all!
You're right. We can't read the future. But common sense says this movement needs leadership. I've already signed the petitions. Do you know how many petitions are out there from all sorts of organizations. White noise.
The Tea Party was successful because they had leadership and organization and knew that the best way to affect change was getting people elected into office.
This is a "phenomenon" all right. A phenomenon of how to run the most nonsensical movement in history. This is what happens when there is a bunch of anarchists running a protest. Anarchy happens. No leadership, no focus, no agenda, no accountability.
Just because there has never been a successful movement that was leaderless and without an agenda doesn't mean that one is not possible or viable. Frankly, I am enjoying hearing and reading how people think the movement can't work because we don't have leaders or an agenda. Actually, we are already making an impact that is immeasurable just the way things are right now. Maybe we will evolve to leadership with an agenda, but if we don't, I think time will tell that we didn't need to, and that we created a new paradigm for thought, reflection, action, and change.
There has never been a successful movement without leadership because it wasn't successful. It failed.
Anarchy is a ridiculous notion that is impossible to achieve. Non-hierarchical structures are inefficient and do not work. That is why we evolved to hierarchical structures with proven success. Direct Democracy is a dangerous concept, easily manipulated and extremely inefficient. Show me one example where any one of these concepts has been successful in achieving any meaningful resulting change on a large scale. I say there is none. Given that, this movement, if it continues to use these concepts, will fail.
Holy crap. Is it "possible" that suddenly one these concepts could miraculously suddenly become successful despite centuries of history that has shown that it is not successful? Thats a stretch of the imagination. Is it possible that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow? I suppose it's possible, the earth could make a strange and unusual turn of its axis, but I doubt it.
I guess we will have to respectfully disagree.
It is the advent of mass communication and the Internet that enables such a movement, that has never been seen before, to become successful without leaders or an agenda and to permanently impact life as we know it on this planet. Time will tell.
As for "direct democracy," again we must respectfully disagree. In my opinion the day will come where each citizen will have one vote, and every day citizens will awaken to vote on the bills of the day. We have representative government because it evolved based on circumstances that just don't exist today. Right now there is technology available, e.g., voice recognition, retina scanning, iris scanning, and finger print recognition, which would eliminate voter fraud over the Internet. If you ask how we will pay for this, I would suggest using some of our "defense" budget.
"You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
All for one, once and for all!
You are a dreamer. But I admire how you are realistic enough to advocate for campaign reform.
As for the internet being an enabler of the movement thereby eliminating the need for leadership - I suppose in the old days people could have said that about the printing press too. With the invention of the printing press, information got around much faster. That did not negate the need for leaders.
Internet capability does not make the voting electorate knowledgable enough to vote on the complexities of trade policy, for instance. I do not want un-educated mobs making decisions for our country.
But I think the internet could be used for government in alot of other ways. Like for more transparency. It is extremely difficult to sift through legislation and find out which way our representatives are voting. There should be a government database that is easily read and understood (in English, not legalese) with the results of roll call voting and brief position descriptions by our elected officials. Maybe with some two way communication, so that we could give feedback to our representatives on legislation. Like an internet town hall. This would be useful and educational for the electorate and a way to keep our elected officials accountable and responsive to the needs of the electorate on a continuing ongoing basis.
"You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." - that's what scares me.
I think you are missing my point. I am merely saying that the jury is out on whether or not OWS may be the first movement to succeed without leaders or an agenda. Just because we have never seen something in the past, that fact alone does not make something unlikely or impossible. I don't know how old you are, so I won't ask you about the first time you heard a radio or saw a television signal, but chances are you are young enough to remember the first cell phone you ever saw. Could you imagine, in that moment, cell phones everywhere, or I Phones? I am just suggesting that you don't judge so negatively and so quickly.
I am really sorry you are scared of dreamers. Can you think of one positive thing that has occurred on this planet that wasn't a dream before it became a reality?
I also like that you are thinking about alternative uses for the Internet. Back in the early 90s I tried to start a charity called Almost Homeless. We had one of the first Internet petitions. It called upon the government to allow businesses a tax credit or deduction if they donated 10% of a gross sale to a charity chosen by the purchaser--could be for the homeless, the deaf, whatever. The idea was to use the Internet as a way to shift some of the allocations of Congress directly into the hands of the people. Although it was not ultimately successful (maybe it was a little ahead of its time), it did provide food for thought and affected many people positively. My point is that it doesn't matter if you succeed in the traditional sense. It matters that you step up and take a swing at the ball. Every swing becomes part of history, but if you don't swing you aren't in the game.
I'm not scared of dreamers. Dreams are good. I'm scared of people who want direct democracy and want to change our form of government.
Our form of government is the result of lots of thought out reasons by intellectuals, philosophers and dreamers too I imagine. Shaped by Hobbes, Plato, the Founding Fathers, and many many others. I don't think we should take all of that lightly simply because we have the internet now.
I'm all for technological advances. I draw the line when it comes to changing our form of government.
I think your ingenuity and creativeness in your charity project is awesome! I see your point about trying something and perhaps not succeeding fully, but learning something from it. Of course many failures often happen before there is success. Failure is a part of learning. Perhaps the most important part. But I'm not willing to fail on something so monumental as our form of government for the sake of an experiment in direct democracy.
I give this movement credit for getting the protest started, growing it to the point it is now, giving people a voice and moving the debate. The methods that have been used have had some measure of success. But I really think that the success of the movement is because of the enormous amount of discontent in society. Not that the methods are successful. The movement has grown in spite of the methods used.
The reality is, the movement is still really small. The movement faces an enormous amount of opposition. Even for something so realistic as campaign reform. One other poster on this thread so much as says that Bernie Sanders is essentially posturing (he used the word distracting I think). If we can't even have a hope and a prayer that Bernie Sanders might sincerely want to help us, that shows what a huge fight this is going to be ( I don't mean that in the violent sense!)
I think leadership, effective organization and a focused agenda, everybody rowing in the same direction, will make the movement better and stronger. More people will want to join if they see there is something sensible to join! Not a mixed up mess of every idea under the sun. Most smart minded people are going to think that is a waste of time. We don't have our act together. I can't blame them for thinking that. They're right.
Again, I respectfully disagree. History will be the final judge. As far as I am concerned, it will be fine with me if we do get organized, have an agenda, and end up fixing our system. I am just not convinced that it is going to play out that way, and I am far from convinced that it should, because, forgive me for using the logic of your previous posts, it just has never worked. If it did work we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
As for the Founding Fathers, I wonder what their take would be if they were witnessing what we are witnessing today. Didn't they ultimately believe in and participate in armed revolution? I am not saying we need that now, however I wonder, if they were alive today, wouldn't the Founding Fathers have been just as concerned about separation of corporation and state as they were about separation of church and state? What would they recommend today, upon seeing the total failure of representative government and the two party system?
I think the problem with most Americans is that they have come to believe in an illusion, and what is worse, they will defend their belief in their delusion to their last breath. We are living in an Orwellian age.
I think the Founding Fathers would be horrified by the combination of corporations and state. I think they would say to get the money out of the political system. I don't think they would say throw out our form of government.
I think our Representative form of government has not been working because it has been distorted because of the money. The form is not bad. The money distorting it is. And if that doesn't work, maybe then there will be a time to think about revising our form of government. But I think we should try keeping it, and getting the money out first and see if that works.
Happy to say this: Agreed! :-)
Given your original post, we're right back where we started! That's funny. I guess we just disagree about the method of getting there. Though you did say you wouldn't mind if we got some leadership and organization. I just feel more strongly about this than you do I guess.
How would you feel about going to DC to protest for this? So far, it's just me and ronimacaroni. I think we need more bodies. : )
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-constituents-blockade/#comment-507568
Also, I'm working on a Sponge Cake recipe with smartenough that you might be interested in. haha
http://occupywallst.org/forum/2012-first-year-on-earth-without-governments/
I would definitely participate in a march on Washington, something I haven't contemplated since the Viet Nam war, and I like sponge cake :-)
I did have a nightmare the other night though. I dreamed that OWS had declared an action to march on Washington. The only problem was that 10 million people showed up, the infrastructure couldn't handle it, and Washington started to look like New Orleans after Katrina.
Then it got worse. Someone, not sure if it was us or them, fired a weapon, there was a riot, and the military was called in to quell it.
Then it got worse. Since the military was already on the scene in force, and since it had nothing better to do, it seized power and declared a new order and Empire.
Then it got worse. Dick Cheney and William Rumsfeld morphed into a two headed Darth Vadar. Needless to say, this finally woke me up screaming!
lol. We'll have the Sponge Cake to protect us from that! I think it's like kryptonite to Darth Vadar or something. : )
By the way, I do not know how many petitions are out there from all sorts of organizations, "white noise" as you describe them, however here is a quote from the occupiedamendment.org site: Ethics rules prohibit Members of Congress from using their official congressional office, which is funded by taxpayer dollars, to collect petitions, advertise, and organize online on behalf of legislation. For the time being, having Rep. Deutch’s campaign committee host theoccupiedamendment.org is the best option for his efforts to raise awareness about corporate influence in our elections and mobilize support for H. J. Res 90.
If only one person wakes up from the result of his efforts, it is worth it. A journey of 10,000 miles begins with the first step.
Bernie Sanders sounds good most of the time, but it is important to keep in mind, when Voting activists brought the election fraud issues to Congress, particularly the obvious fraud in the 2004 elections in Ohio...Bernie Sanders was the minder that angrily shut everyone up about it. They keep these plants in power, so when you really need them, they fail you miserably and shut down any real progress. Bernie is the master of distraction, just like this.
Then call him on it. Sign the petition, get it passed and ratified, and then we have new "law of the land." Please give me evidence of any time that Bernie Sanders was able to "angrily shut everyone up about" an amendment to the Constitution. We all want to win this struggle, but to ignore using available tools that may help us win even a millimeter is shortsighted in my opinion.
Really? I didn't know that. Whats his motivation? What is he distracting from? I could see if it were posturing. I'm not following the distraction part though. Do you mean he's just protecting his own?
This is a distraction from the movement. It is a problem, clearly, but not the reason we got to this point. They have every small town occupy working on this...meanwhile no one is holding the criminals accountable for laws that they are breaking right now.
We could occupy the media and demand they tell the truth about the movement.
We could occupy the SEC and demand they hold Congress accountable for insider trading.
We could demand our justice system hold congress accountable for violating their oath of office with the patriot act.
See, they have already blatantly violated our constitution, they are illegally wiretapping US citizens every day. They are illegally detaining US citizens without trial. They are beating protesters for exercising their constitutional rights to peaceably assemble.
So what good is an amendment when they are not following the current law of the land?
I see what you mean.
What would you like the media to tell people about the movement that isn't being told now?
And if we can't even believe Bernie Sanders sincerely wants to help, that is all the more reason that this movement needs to get its act together.
So there are only 291 representatives and 66 more senators to go before it goes to the states? An independent senator and freshman congressman, I'm not ready to celebrate just yet.
Who are you working on in congress right now to add their name to this amendment? Is there an organized effort to work for or against any reelections based on this issue?
"Organized effort" ? Hardly. This movement would rather whine, shut down ports and play direct democracy in the park. Besides, OWS does not "need politicians". So why would they work on this issue?
I often think no one really needs politicians, but if and changes are to be made in our system then we should be looking for good people to elect. As bad as politics may be it can be more effective then whining, shutting down ports, or playing in the park.
Of course we should be working to get people elected. Like the Tea Party did. This movement needs leadership and organization to do that though. Which we have neither.
As far as I'm concerned, this movement is like a bad Sponge Cake. Full of air and half baked.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/2012-first-year-on-earth-without-governments/#comment-508430
I agree completely.
Regardless of the celebrations, the point is to get signatures. We have the might, we just need to use it. Can you imagine 1M+ signatures in support of the amendment? While the amendment may not materialize in its original form, if we all start by signing the petition, we will be sending a very loud and unified message to all members of Congress. How long does it take to sign a petition, maybe 5 seconds?
All for one, once and for all!
The effort in signing is not the point, is it a good amendment? Does it stop all big money or just corporations? I read it, there isn't any mention of union money.
This whole Citizens United case came up over a movie, it absolutely would have curtailed the free speech of the filmmakers. When questioned by the court the government was of the opinion that they were, under that law, able to regulate books too.
I'm not in favor of corporations being people, but I don't want the government regulating what films get shown or what books get published either. Poorly constructed laws, like McCain-Feingold, or poorly constructed amendments create more problems then they solve.
Unions are covered in Section IV: "Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures..."
There is nothing in the Amendment that relates to your fear of "the government regulating what films get shown or what books get published." Although I can certainly understand that fear, it has nothing to do with this Amendment.
I hope that after reconsidering, you sign it :-)
But that was exactly the issue that started the entire case and got corporations the same rights as individuals. It was the government's attempt to regulate a film, using McCain-Feingold, produced by a corporation (a non-profit one so your amendment wouldn't cover it anyhow) that led to the decision. The government didn't help its case when it asserted that under its interpretation they could also regulate political books or articles if they so chose.
Section 4 writes in a limit on personal freedom by allowing limits to be placed on what personal funds an individual may use. Unions are not prevented from making contributions under section 4. That simply allows congress to pass laws, there is no guarantee they will and we'll have the same problem but with unions in control instead of corporations. There is also no guarantee that McCain-Fiinegold or some other law won't be used just as it was the last time, to censor a political film or book.
You exclude the press in Section 2 without defining who the press is. Can one of the networks come out in favor of a candidate and bypass this amendment? Can a corporation set up its own non-profit news agency? The vast sums of money are only collected for ads anyhow.
I see this amendment as creating as many problems as it solves. The amendment process is difficult enough to do, without passing one quickly just to have something and then trying to improve it.
Constitutional amendments are a thing of the past. We have plenty of activist courts that will gladly figure out how to get your amendment into law, via the court system. If not, that Obama can use his authority and make it by executive order.
But the activist courts and Obama will not act. The only thing that is going to get action is when there are millions of voices that unite and demand action. It may be just a petition, but unless people sign it, we will never know where it might take us.
All for one, once and for all!
I would prefer to see an amendment process used. I just don't believe their is any chance of it ever happening again.
You may turn out to be right, but does that mean we shouldn't sign and see what develops? Have you ever heard of the "power of negative thinking?" If you don't believe there is a chance, there isn't a chance. If we all say "It will never work," it will never work. If we start saying "Maybe there's a slim chance it will work," it just might work and surprise us all.
One of the problems with trying to get this Amendment into the mind set of the politicians is that there are at least 3-4 different petition websites trying to do the same thing, thus scattering the power of the collective signatures too thinly. Someone need to centralize this action onto the We The People website under Government Reform. Perhaps then it will be taken more seriously
WE can hold them accountable right now!
We don't need this amendment, we should defend our bill of rights and constitution by demanding accountability today. What good is any law if Congress and Corporations are not held accountable to them?
We have laws already in place to hold these evil doers accountable. We have to Occupy the Justice System until we get some action.
Occupy the SEC! Congress is Illegally Insider Trading, but SEC Is too Busy Cracking Down on Kettle Chips http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-the-sec-congress-is-illegally-insider-tradi/
Agreed. However, would taking five seconds to sign the petition detract from anything you said in your post? It doesn't matter how messed up it is in Congress right now. If the People stand up and demand this Amendment, it will happen. Other amendments to the constitution didn't happen either, until the People made it so.
All for one, once and for all.
Conyers delivered boxes and boxes of petitions to the white house front gate, from the people demanding an investigation of the 2004 election. They ignored them, it was all a dog and pony show. Conyers acted like he was all on or side, but as soon as he had the ability to actually do something...he said we should just wait for Obama, don't want to hurt Obama's chances. Protesters flooded his office, he had them arrested. Conyers too, was all part of the dog and pony show. He was probably just handing a list of names to Bush. So Fool me once...
Was watching CSPAN at the time when I saw Bernie Sanders adamantly defend the 2004 election and attempt to shut down other members of congress who did speak about it.
Remember Paul Wellstone? Why did they take him out and not the other 'good guys'? Because he was the only one, the rest are plants, limited hangouts...even Kucinich...sorry but I worked for him on two campaigns and he was not trying to win, he was clearly just to make progressives look kooky. Then he was gifted a young wife and has been rather quiet as of late.
Sorry I'm cynical, but I have been paying close attention for quite some time now....
I'm sorry you are so cynical as well.
This is not a petition calling for an investigation. It is a petition in support of a Constitutional Amendment. Have you ever signed a petition for a Constitutional Amendment? Until you have, the "so fool me once" response just doesn't seem logical.
The Congress won't even support a balanced budget amendment, why would they support an amendment that takes money out of their pockets? Until the current members of Congress are voted out, nothing will change. But hey, keep camping out in parks and hurting businesses, that will show them.
My friend, we will do whatever it takes, how ever long it takes. We will prevail, no doubt about it.
How negative and apathetic can you be? Sign the petition!
All for one, once and for all!
I'm not negative, but maybe a bit apathetic, most certainly a realist though.
I am glad that you are a realist and not negative. Would you consider being a little less apathetic? You can sign it in the time it takes to reply to my post.
All for one, once and for all!
re-posted http://www.citicommons.com
It's a placating band-aid and not a very good one at that.
But, it is a definite start. Why not sign it? Doing better than a placating band aid, and one that is not a very god one at that, is up to us: We, the People.
All for once, once and for all!
It does nothing other than provide elected servants confirmation of the continued ignorance of the masses of chattel.
The ruling boils down to saying, a corporation is a corporation.
YOU are a corporation in the eyes of DC's Federal Government.
Google Lawrence Lessig and Rootstriking.