Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 16, 2011 at 5:35pm

 

I've also been having a lengthy discussion, first on Fubar and then by email, with an organic farmer friend, Jim Eldon, one of the smartest people I know, who got very excited about one of the proposed Constitutional amendments floating around, Mike Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy.

It took a lot of back and forth, but I was eventually able to convince Jim that as long as the Constitution remains the Highest Law of the Land (Article 6), a condition the NI4D says it would not attempt to modify, the Supreme Court retains the right to reject any Amendments passed outside of the Article 5 process as having been passed unconstitutionally.

Jim cited one Constitutional scholar who claims that the people can pass such an amendment under the Principles of Sovereignty invoked by George Washington. Jim finally understood the problem when I explained that while anyone can claim sovereignty, existing sovereigns don't have to recognize that claim. Many Native American tribes have been attempting to claim sovereignty, and some claims have been recognized by the US government, while others have been rejected. 

While citizen George Washington and President George Washington may have asserted the Principles of Sovereignty on behalf of the colonists against King George, it was General George Washington who actually won them, and then only at great cost and with much bloodshed.

The NI4D would leave the Constitution, the Presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court in place, unmodified, and would therefore retain the entire current power structure in the US against which it would be attempting to assert sovereignty. If the Constitution had wanted the people to have sovereignty, it would have been granted to us. Instead it was granted to a sovereign or supreme court, which the Framers called the Supreme Court because they had granted it supremacy or sovereignty. To ensure that the people did not gain sovereignty, they ensured that the sovereign court would be appointed by the President, not elected by the people. And to ensure that the President would always either be a member of the ruling 1% or a puppet of the ruling 1%, the Framers prohibited citizens from voting directly for President, and established many ways that the 1% could overrule the popular vote just in case that provision was ever amended.

The foresight of the 39 members of the 1%, the wealthy ruling elite of their time, is remarkable. To ensure that they and their ilk would always rule the country, they thought of every possible way that the people might gain power and inserted clauses in the Constitution to avert any such possibilities.

The Constitution is a very short, very simple document. But it is exceedingly difficult to understand because it says exactly the opposite of what we were all taught to believe that it says. Constitutional law scholars spend enormous amounts of time reconciling the lies with the reality so that law students studying Constitutional law won't see and acknowledge the truth. But the Constitution is a lie from start to finish. It starts out with a lie, saying, "We the People," instead of  "We the 39 rich white male slaveholders who intend to betray the Founders, betray the principles of the Declaration of Independence for which they shed blood, in order to seize and hold power and ensure it to our wealthy descendants," and it never gets any more truthful.

Several countries have succeeded, to a greater or lesser extent, in ousting their ruling oligarchies and getting new constitutions that vest power in the hands of the people. Here in the US, most people still think that the Constitution protects them or could be amended so that it would protect them. The Framers foresaw that possibility and ensured that it couldn't happen. We been Framed.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 16, 2011 at 6:15pm

Here's somebody else who seems to understand that the Framers knew exactly what they were doing in establishing corporate rule:

"Combine all this and you have a powerful formula for making rules that favor corporate interests over human interests, something that the framers of the U.S. Constitution understood more than two centuries ago."

The Corporations that occupy Congress, by David Cay Johnston

http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/column-the-corporations-that-occ...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 16, 2011 at 6:25pm

You're very persuasive when you're calm and not accusing anyone of being a genocidal baby killer. ;)

What are the countries you believe have ousted oligarchies and established constitutions that vest power in the hands of the people? What do their constitutions say, and how do they manage government and power?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 16, 2011 at 7:35pm

Ecuador has a new Constitution that guarantees not only human rights, but the rights of nature. Venezuela got a new Constitution that allows people to vote directly on Constitutional amendments--there was an instance not too long ago when Hugo Chavez wanted to amend the Constitution but the people voted against it so he couldn't. They're not perfect, either in theory or in practice, but they did away with corporate rule, to the horror of the 1%, and did not result in chaos, in fact both countries seem to be doing better than they did under US-backed oligarchies.

I don't know too much about Ecuador, but Venezuela has elections and they use electronic voting machines. But the machines print out a receipt for every voter showing how they voted, which can be used if a recount is necessary. Thanks to years of corporate rule, most people in Venezuela are poor, so the revolutionary government has a vested interest in ensuring that the voting machines are accurate so that the wealthy minority can't steal elections. Venezuelans are also allowed to vote directly for all elected officials, including President and Vice-President, and they can also directly recall any elected official at any time. The Chavez government has had to exercise power in many areas until the local councils learned to do it themselves, but with government encouragement, they've been doing it. The government also funds worker-owned cooperatives and collectives instead of capitalist industries. By renegotiating the country's contracts with foreign oil companies, they got a lot of money to use for eradicating poverty and they've been very successful. Chavez himself avoided being corrupted by power by surrounding himself with wise indigenous women elders. It makes sense. Who's going to keep you from doing bad things, your friends, or your mother, your grandmother, and that nosy old neighbor lady? Venezuelans thought this was so funny that instead of calling him the Father of the Revolution, they jokingly called him The Grandmother of the Revolution. But the only protests, mostly very violent ones, have come from the wealthy elites backed by the United States which pours millions of dollars into trying to manipulate their elections. To my dismay, Chavez rarely arrests those criminals and doesn't shoot them the way that Obama would. He seems to think that it is better to tolerate them and do things democratically. I fear for his safety, but I admire the way he sticks to his principles. Fidel Castro survived literally hundreds of assassination attempts by the US, so maybe Chavez will also. If I were him, I don't think I'd be as principled, but maybe if I surrounded myself with wise indigenous women elders, they'd keep me from making a mess of things.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 16, 2011 at 8:01pm

an exquisite and poetic constitution.. I vote for canning ours and adopting this..this is everything we have been talking baoit here at Occipu Cafe..this is a consitution with inner structure from which a thriveable economy will arise.  Absolutely beautiful

http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html

 

thanks Mark..any others up your sleeve?

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 16, 2011 at 8:27pm

I read that Chavez couldn't eradicate all the corruption in the existing system. As the local councils organize themselves he just keeps transferring money and power from the mayors to the local councils. I think that is pretty brilliant. He isn't getting rid of them, he is just making them more and irrelevant.

I also read that he created government grocery stores that sell basic staples so everyone can afford the basics. When the constitution was written he had it printed on food containers so everyone could judge it and know their rights. Who doesn't read cereal boxes at one point or another?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 16, 2011 at 8:32pm

That's funny, our Congress and Supreme Court both recently had our Constitution printed on toilet paper. Even more considerate!

I like continuing the conversation about alternatives and possible roads to get there. You can't just point to a mountain 50 miles away and say --- THAT'S where we need to be.

How do you get there?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 16, 2011 at 9:12pm

Been thinking about that question a long time myself, Victoria, so I kept asking my friend Gary, who lives in Caracas, how the hell they did it.

I mean they had a totally corrupt system, the corporations owned the media, there was a two-party lock on politics, and they even used voting machines. Yet they managed to elect Chavez. So I wanted to know how. 

Well, Gary explained that their voting machines print those receipts showing how people voted, so the results are verifiable. I think the corrupt oligarchy had wanted it that way to make it easier to be certain that people who had been paid to vote in a certain way had actually done so, but whatever the reason, that's how it was. And they had never been prohibited from voting directly for President, so there was no Electoral College. And the votes really had to be counted. But they had an advantage we don't have. Most people there were really really poor, so poor that they didn't have electricity, which meant very few radios and TVs. If a village had one, it was usually tuned to sports or music anyway. And most of the really really poor people hadn't been to school and were illiterate, so they couldn't read newspapers. So they hadn't been brainwashed and when organizers went from town to town, they listened. And they knew they could trust Chavez because he was a revolutionary who'd been in prison for attempting a coup against the oligarchy, so when election time came they all turned out in vast overwhelming numbers and voted him for President. 

And lo and behold, the votes were counted, weren't overridden because nobody had the power to override the popular vote, and the two major parties which had controlled more than 90% of the votes before then, got less than 10% of the vote. It was a real blow to the US, which immediately had their loyal minions kidnap Chavez and take over the government. But the people came out into the streets in the millions and there were some decent people among the kidnappers, so they kept Chavez alive and he was returned to power. 

It's all about the system. If the votes have to be counted, cannot be overridden, and the results can be verified, all you need is to find a trustworthy person (they don't have to be very qualified--Chavez was a soldier--because there are plenty of wise elders around to advise them if they're not a corporate shill), raise social consciousness, and a relatively nonviolent yet successful revolution is possible. 

Honest elections are definitely the key, but you can't get honest elections if you're willing to vote in rigged elections. That's where my boycott advocacy comes from. If somebody offers me a job working for ten cents an hour and I accept, that's what I'll be paid. If I refuse the job, even if I have no other job and no other source of income, and insist that I'd rather die than work for ten cents an hour, I then have the possibility of holding out for a living wage. Elections where the votes don't even have to be counted aren't worth a plugged nickel. 

People kept telling me not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, that there was some value to voting in rigged elections, but they couldn't name the baby or describe the baby to me. Voting in rigged elections isn't a precious right, doesn't give you a voice in government, isn't a way to influence policy decisions--it's just a way to gamble your country's future away in a rigged game because you're a gambling addict and you always think that even though the game is rigged, maybe next time you'll win. And occasionally you do win a little something here and there--just enough to keep you playing--but you know the game is rigged in favor of the house because otherwise they couldn't stay in business. But it's fun and all your friends do it, so why not? And then the 1% spend billions of dollars telling you how great one candidate is or how evil the other is so that you never have time to think about the fact that the Constitution established a rigged game to ensure that you'd never win and the rich would always rule.

I too would like to know how we get from here to there, and I'm sure everyone else wants the answers too. I know we can't do it by voting in rigged elections. Would boycotting elections get us honest elections? Probably not. There's no percentage in it for the house. But it would demonstrate clearly that we know that the game is rigged and that we're not going to play that game any more. If we can recover from our addiction, we might be able to put our energies to better use. It's not the answer, but it might be a start.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 16, 2011 at 9:31pm

I think we need a new thread comparing democratic systems in different countries and their constitutions. You could start it by explaining what happened in Venezuela and the current structure. Then we could compare various systems, not to choose one, just to give us an idea of the possibilities. The Venezuelan system must have faults, and as you noted they were all poor and had a different system to begin with.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 16, 2011 at 9:38pm

Gisele, I have a project going on that I'm doing with the national Organic Consumers Association called BioDemocracy.

On the BioDemocracy website we're going to be mapping and comparing a lot of different proposals and strategies for democratic change.

I can promise you that ANY work you do along the lines you just described would be utilized by the website and promoted directly to their 1 million members, and the general public, and the entire activist community.

Gathering data on the different Constitutions would be AMAZING. I'm serious. If you have any time for this . . . 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 16, 2011 at 10:17pm

Unfortunately I couldn't do that. I was hoping Mark would. I don't know about different constitutions and political systems. Trying to learn about it through reading about individual systems would take me years. I'm learning about it here because Mark is explaining by comparing and not going into too much detail.

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 16, 2011 at 9:34pm

Ok. So here you are actually somewhat interested in, possibly advocating for, a process that includes elected representatives. You even seem mildly excited about it.

I understand all the ways we're not like Venezuela, but in the abstract we could possibly have a similar revolution IF PEOPLE CARED AND WERE ENGAGED.

Now this is where we differ on the fine point of strategy. You advocate the boycott for reasons I understand BUT I don't think we are at a place where a boycott would lead to anything more than the further cementing of the police state.

Though truly this is something neither of us know for sure and it all depends on how it's done. If it's a loud strident boycott with associated demands for a different system, that's much different than just a silent dropping-out. 

And, what is the different system we would be wanting? I like the model we've been talking about where there is actually a government aided TRANSITION toward more local self governance through community councils, etc. We all understand we need transitions, we can't just metamorphose overnight. Strengthening communities is something we could elect people to help us do with our own frigging tax money.

But . . .as you say, we need to COUNT THE BALLOTS.

Now, the paper trail thing is only good if you actually count the damn paper. No good to have the paper and not count it. That is nothing but a false sense of security.

SO! This brings me to WHAT I AM DOING NOW. Working with activists to figure out how the hell to get those frigging paper trail ballots counted.

Of course, none of this matters without really good candidates. We know we're not going to get any from the top of the parties, so that's ruled out for 2012. But at the local and state levels we might just get some truly decent people.

Now Mark . . . If what we want is an engaged, enraged populace . . . if what we want are people waking up and caring about their world . . . and if we KNOW that many people are not ready to boycott elections yet  . . . doesn't it make a little bit of sense to tell them to vote for the good candidates if there are any, and then to make sure the ballots are counted?

Jeannie Dean, I know, not your favorite person, nevertheless Jeannie is going to Wisconsin to engage in a lot of activism around the Walker recall. And part of the plan is to possibly engage in civil disobedience in order to demand a full counting of the ballots, while Live-streaming the whole thing to Occupy movements all around the country.

There's more to this, but that's all I'm going to write at the moment.

You have to realize that this is why you are SO persona non grata for people like Jeannie who are up to their hips in the muck of activism, because the only way their work is going to matter AT ALL is if people give a shit.

What would be great is if you could support the strategy of the election integrity activists this year, 2012, just to help us see what we can accomplish.

But in the end, if you are dead set on boycotting, the best thing would be to boycott loudly, stridently, and with a clear message why. Not to advocate the dropping out silently, because I don't think that does jack shit to help anything, anywhere.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 27
• 28
• 29
• 30
• 31
• …
• 58
• Next ›
• Page