Forum Post: Your thoughts about the NEW CONSTITUTION produced from Occupy Revolution
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 7, 2011, 9:55 p.m. EST by File4Justice
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In Unity,
THE NEW COMMON SENSE
A Declaration of INTERDEPENDENCE, born of necessity, from and for the collective conscience of the “99%” to and for the oligarchic “1%” of the United States of America.
SUMMARY
SECTION I: The Right to Equal Participation in Government has been taken from the People and is explained. — A Plan is offered to restore the Right to Equal Participation that requires only the use of tools and procedures that have already been proven to work. — The restoration of Equality must take priority above all and reasons are given. — Outside damaging influences must no longer be allowed privileged access to Elected Representatives in a Constitutional Republic. — An Offer in Compromise that would reunite this Nation with its Foundation is clearly stated. — A clear, workable and simple method by which we may rebuild ourselves as a Prosperous Nation and return to being One Hundred Percent is explained. — A New Litmus Test of our government is declared and explained. — A plan and petition to rebalance the Branches of Government is outlined in detail.
SECTION II: Monitions are forwarded to our Leaders, to the Congress in specific, to the Media, to Law Enforcement and the Domestic Militia, and to the “1%” — A direct message and plea for the “99%” from the author(s).
SECTION I - Common Sense from the “99%”
INTRODUCTION AND PREAMBLE
Find the full document here:
http://anoncentral.tumblr.com/post/12409353866/for-the-99-the-new-common-sense-must-distribute
Thanks nowoccupy you said what I was trying to say and I hope this document reaches or leaders and all of We The People, I for one am spreading this around. Everyone needs to read this and share it. Here is a link for those that wish to listen to an audio version : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQMtM0LuK_4
Hey, File4Justice - Why are you calling it the New Constitution, If you read the document it is about We The People insisting government and the corporations follow the existing Constitution and change legislation that is unconstitutional. you also say it was produced from Occupy Revolution. No one knows who wrote this, Have you even read this??? It is an amazing document, but it is not a new Constitution and we don't know where it came from, however the author(s) are giving it to We The People, let's not act like Occupy owns it. It belongs to everyone !
That is not a constitution. It was merely a long list of complaints, most of which are based on a lack of understand/ignorance. I agree that our federal government has violated the United States Constitution on multiple occasions; however, they have not infringed on free speech in regards to this movement.
Why do we even need leaders? The very word "leader" implies our allowance of another human being to rule over us. We the People lead. . .together. A concensus would be more appropriate. We know what we want: clean water, healthy food, safe and peaceful neighborhoods. Why do we allow this small percent to stay in their seats? Why do we continue to vote for them?
See www.indras.webs.com
Why do we even need leaders? The very word "leader" implies our allowance of another human being to rule over us. We the People lead. . .together. A concensus would be more appropriate. We know what we want: clean water, healthy food, safe and peaceful neighborhoods. Why do we allow this small percent to stay in their seats? Why do we continue to vote for them?
See www.indras.webs.com
Why do we even need leaders? The very word "leader" conveys our allowance for another human to rule over us, to lead us. We the people lead . . . together. We should make the rules through consensus.
www.indras.webs.com
Yes, the headline is very misleading. If anything, this is a Declaration, but it's not even that. After reading it many times already (because I am fascinated by it and think it is incredible so I am studying it), here is a brief synopsis of only some of what it contains: It explains how the three branches of government have violated the Constitution. It then describes an infiltrating "4th Branch" of government that it terms "The Special Interest Branch". It then lays out a plan on how to force the government to fix loopholes in and to follow the Constitution that we already have, and by doing so, would also force them to fix each and every one of our issues. It then gives messages and warnings to those who may "wish for the system to remain broken because it is broken in their favor". It's pure genius. A "constitution" it is NOT. This document describes a way that this country can get back to being the Constitutional Republic that it is supposed to be, and to do that WITH the current Constitution that we already have.
It's a beautiful, elegant, amazing document. Please give it an honest chance and read it carefully. I don't think there is anything out there yet that can hold a candle to this, and I think it should be adopted as a way to unify us all (because it also includes our issues under ONE umbrella in a spectacular way) so that we may become even more unified while staying decentralized like we are. This document is perfect for us, and will give us a platform to stand on as we work towards change and expand upon it with more ideas (and future statements).
In short, this is a good first step. The document itself states that it is merely a "first word" and if used as such, could really, really help this movement grow.
So basically, it deals with the following questions and more:
Should we not fix the Constitution? Should the government not clean up its act? Should the 1% be allowed to do business as usual? Should big money be allowed to secretly fund and buy politicians still? Should the Supreme Court serve life terms without any oversight? Should the Federal Reserve stay private and control the currency? Should corporations legally be "people" when convenient yet not have to follow the same laws AS people when also legally convenient? Should special interests be allowed to run amok in Congress? Should the Federal government be allowed to continue to violate the Constitution? And should lobbyists have access to our legislature that WE do not even have?
If we can agree that these are core problems that need to be fixed, then we really need to support this document and help spread its message.
I hope against hope that the GA considers it fully and gives it an honest chance at ratification.
Thanks for reading!
The problem with the existing Constitution is that most of your elected and appointed representatives have ignored their oath to OBEY and protect that marvelous blueprint of checks and balances.
If the Constitution had been followed for the last century, it is doubtful that we would be in the mess we are in today.
One would be a fool to think that most of our representatives would follow a new one any better than the original organic version. Until we find a way to enforce their oath, we are whistling in the wind,
The answer, I believe, lies in more citizen activity in all levels of government, local, county, state and federal. We have been asleep too long.
http://www.constitutionattacked.com
Luckily this document isn't a new constitution at all. The headline is very misleading. Please see my statement above which explains what this document really is. Thank you.
Oh and I am not sure who "Occupy Revolution" is but whoever they are, they didn't produce it either. The document fully explains itself.
I read it and it is both quite interesting and quite elegant. I am interested in many of their ideas, especially campaign finance and lobbying reform and I do agree that continuing to concentrate wealth in the manner that has been occurring for the past three decades is both highly untenable and will have a very high cost for America and its people alike. I am also glad to see that Anonymous is calling for positive, quantifiable reforms rather than simply scrapping the system and attempting to remake the country in the image of their desires; that sort of talk is not only dangerous but quite quantifiably unproductive.
There are some concerns I would like to see addressed, though. Regarding term limits on Supreme Court justices: it's definitely an interesting idea, but how exactly do you plan for it to work without making things even more intensely volatile and partisan than they are now? I do believe that justices are a bit of a rare breed; they need to have the practical experience in applying the law that only comes with a prior judgeship but at the same time have the impartiality and expertise of a Constitutional scholar. You're right that the Supreme Court isn't really seen as an impartial arbiter so much as the ultimate prize for whatever ideology is dominant at any given time. The position demands the immunity from petty politicking that only comes with a life term and the accountability that comes with regular popular election. How would they suggest resolving this conundrum?
A reevaluation of where our government stands with respect to the Constitution sounds like a great idea, but broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights has at times saved a number of rights that you and others like you have come to depend on. Mapp v. Ohio and Griswold v. Connecticut have in fact defined the right to privacy as we know it today. If you decide to simply throw away all judicial precedent uniformly and take a literalist interpretation of the constitution you wind up repudiating cases like those right alongside Plessy and Citizens United. Would it not be better to treat the body of law surrounding the Constitution (while not with the same preservative zeal as the Constitution itself) with a certain modicum of respect rather than approaching the process with strict literalism in mind?
While we're on the topic of interpreted powers, a clarification of the power of the presidency would be a very nice thing to have. However, if all vagueness in the original writing of the Constitution is treated as strictly prohibitive rather than open to interpretation the president will essentially be reduced to a manager of generals and a procedural delay in the passing of legislation. I do not believe that executive orders and their cousins should be disallowed simply because they are not specifically provided for; rather their role in the shaping of policy should be defined far more sharply than they are currently. I believe the same should go for the elastic clause (also known as the "necessary and proper" clause) and the interstate commerce provision; such powers are subject to abuse but have also produced some of the greatest victories for the people in recent history (Truman's integration of the armed forces, for one).
Well, as for term limits, the document doesn't say to limit their terms or anything like that. It merely says to reconsider them and to make sure as part of the "inventory of government" that they are constitutional and if so, then to put it in as an Amendment so that there is clarity. That's what makes this document so beautiful. It is revolution through evolution, not revolution itself.
I think that is genius.
Fair enough; that's definitely important, and I am very interested in the idea of doing an "inventory of government" in order to see where things stand now compared to how they should be. My only point was that the Constitution, while a wonderful document, is neither holy nor infallible. Structures, policies, and divisions of power that are blatantly unconstitutional and abusive need to be scrapped, but if we find that a particular evolved power (i.e. the executive order) or a particular interpretation based on case law (i.e. the penumbra right to privacy) serves the nation well then the Constitution should be modified to explicitly include and clarify these powers and interpretations.
You're absolutely right.... and that is why it needs to be cared for, amended, updated and inventoried regularly. It was designed to be a "living document" and all living things must be cared for otherwise they die. That's the core point that The New Common Sense is making, I believe. :)
It's good to know that people see it that way. I felt the need to post that because there are a fair number of constitutional literalists here who see changing or interpreting the Constitution as tantamount to taking a Sharpie to the Ten Commandments. My fear was that the inventory process would be hijacked by people of that sort, which would effectively cripple the government. In that case we'd wind up living in a world in which the government would be free from corporate influence, but only because it would have so little power that it wouldn't be worth it to try.
Well, yes, that would be a danger if we were dumb enough to allow them to form some silly (and unconstitutional) "Super Committee" to deal with it. But since it would require the participation all 50 states (and the people in them), I think it would be a safe (albeit painful since things have degraded this far) process. But yes, those who think that the Constitution is sacred and thus carved in stone don't seem to understand the intention of the founding fathers. They absolutely meant for it to be updated and inventoried. Sure it's sacred, but it is also supposed to stay sacred, too. ;)
They speak about it in depth in the Federalist papers (and Anti-Federalist Papers).
The Constitution is not complete if it does not give the Member States power to declare U.S. Laws "unconstitutional". One could argue the Tenth already does that, but I think it needs a more formal procedure:
Amendment 28 - "If 1/2 of the State Legislatures declare a U.S. Law to be unconstitutional, then it shall be nullified retroactive to its date of signing by the executive." - Basically the same thing the Supreme Court does, but at the level of the states.
Interesting.