Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We The People Do Hereby ( DENY ? ) Withdraw Consent For :

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 24, 2013, 2:08 p.m. EST by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

An exercise in Direct Democracy?

Your Thoughts?

Hmmmmmmmmm a possible application for ??? :

http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-do-you-think-of-a-rolling-jubilee-type-action/

Start a state by state campaign ? - people can vote by supporting individual issues like:

I withdraw ( DENY ? ) consent for the use of Drone warfare in civilian population settings.

I withdraw ( DENY ? ) consent for corpoRATions to have personhood status.

I withdraw ( DENY ? ) consent for government to continue giving subsidies to Fossil Fuel.

I withdraw ( DENY ? ) consent to allow fracking.

etc.

9 Comments

9 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Marlow (1141) 1 year ago

I agree with All the 'Withdraws' ... and withdraw to the Brandy Room

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sun past the yardarm? OK - but I will go with a rum-comfort. {:-])

[-] 2 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

I support that effort. And I think withdraw is better than Deny.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

We are experiencing a breakdown in representation at the most basic level of governance -- our elected representatives no longer represent the voters whom elect them to office. However, whoever they do represent is not as important as the simple fact that they do not represent the vast majority of Americans who cannot afford large campaign donations and lobbyists. This issue is basic to Constitutional self-governance which, according to the Declaration of Independence, is based solely on the principle that government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed".

However, the democratic aspect of our little constitutional republic is limited to popularly electing Representatives and Senators to Congress and electors in the Presidential election, as well as serving on juries (and grand juries) in criminal and civil matters. Notwithstanding the First Amendment's articulation of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", there is no other Constitutional means to assert democratic (that is to say direct citizen) control over our government.

The Constitution does not confer rights upon citizens, rather it merely articulates some of our inherent rights as contrasted with the limited duties, powers and responsibilities we delegate to the government it describes. Or, in other words, the Constitution is a formal agreement between Americans, individually and collectively, about how we govern ourselves. As such, elections serve to elect citizens to Constitutionally described offices whom then constitute the actual and functional "government" which presides over our (we the people's) business. Thus, each election not only constitutes a "new" government, but also conveys our consent, individually and collectively, to be governed under the Constitution by that government. Individually, voting for a candidate in an election conveys your consent to be governed by any candidate elected to office and, collectively, our consent legitimates the new government regardless of whom is elected.

If consent to be governed under the Constitution is implied, both individually and collectively, by voting for a candidate in an election for office, it follows that any citizen withholding their consent must do so explicitly in an election, insofar as elections are the only Constitutional means of democratically determining the people's intent and political will both individually and collectively. Moreover, it also follows that a citizen withholding their consent casts a vote against all candidates for office.

Individually this is political protest in the only poll that counts -- our ballot box. Collectively it becomes our democracy -- an expression of our intent and political will under the Constitution.

By withdrawing our consent, a plurality of voters can present the lame-duck Congress with a public and undeniable Constitutional crisis if the House of Representatives proves unable to seat a quorum come January.

Although there is no precedent, a Constitutionally logical course of action is that Congress immediately call an Article V Convention. Thus, perhaps this ought be the direct Constitutional object of our withdrawal of consent in a general election -- calling an Article V Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

My thoughts:

  • We the people , have not abandoned the dream of a better tomorrow.
[-] 0 points by DeathsHead1 (-111) 1 year ago

I doubt this would work.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28285) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

TWEETED for consideration by a larger audience.