The threat must be aired

[eaglenetsupport]

Below is the second of 6 fact sheets supporting our proposal to reform elections via initiative. I put it on my server in two formats, text and Word, in case people want a copy. It's long, three pages, sorry.

http://eagle-access.net/research/articlefive.doc
http://eagle-access.net/research/articlefive.txt

Implicit to the 2006 initiative theory is an unspoken threat to fix it before it becomes necessary to fix it by the people in 2008.

Hope this works as it's my first thread I started at DU, enjoy.

*********************
FACT SHEET #2. ARTICLE V, The Amendment Process

Information on this subject was gathered from law journals
and reports, more than 50 federal court decisions testing
Constitutionality, The American Jurisprudence (AmJur) 2nd Edition under Constitutional Law, Volume l6; and U.S. Congressional Record,
Vol. 76 Dec. 5, 1932.

"The theory of the American political system is that the
ultimate sovereignty is in the people collectively, acting
through the medium of constitutions to create such govern-
mental agencies, endow them with such powers, and subject
them to such limitations as in their wisdom will best pro-
mote the 'Common Good.'" (First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 NW
762. Cited Am.Jr. 2nd.)

In all other constitutional theories the power is placed
somewhere else. The British theory for example: "According to
the English Constitution, absolute despotic power must reside
somewhere in all governments, and in Britain this power is
entrusted to Parliament." (Maxwell vs. Goetschius, 40 NJL 383.)
It should be emphasized that in the U.S. no less than 20 federal
precedents affirm that "sovereign power" resides in the people.

ARTICLE V, U.S. CONSTITUTION

Article V spells out the procedure for amending the Constitution.
Amendment was designed to be difficult. The founding
fathers, believing that the Constitution should not be subject to
whims of popular beliefs, designed a system that has withstood
the test of time. Were it not for this "difficulty," simple
majorities would have run roughshod over protected freedoms and
rights.

History of Article V

Perhaps it is more aptly put "Article V is history" rather
than "History of Article V." Some of the most fundamental
changes in American history have vented through this Article.

Article V is the point where social change meets legal
procedure to form law, and thereby implement that social change.
Issues such as the right of a woman to vote and the right not to
be enslaved are changes so basic and all-encompassing that only an
amendment to the basic law of the land would suffice. Indeed,
it is the Article of change.

One of the most interesting stories of this Article is that
of the 21st Amendment.

On December 5, 1932, the 76th Congress convened for the
first time after the November 1932 general election. The gallery
was raucous. The speaker had to suspend argument a number of
times throughout the day to quiet what was more attune to a party
than a legislative session.

There was a sense of urgency in the House that day. Years
before the Republican party had created the 18th Amendment
(Prohibition). The people had placed on the ballots, with initiative procedures, a measure to repeal the 18th
Amendment. The Republicans, President Hoover's party, in
their 1932 platform had held their position to keep Prohibition.

Immediately after the opening prayer, under a "motion to
suspend the rules of the House," with no committee hearings and
limiting all debate to 20 minutes for the “wets”, 20 minutes for
the “dries”, they voted 287-117 for the 21st Amendment. Within
a matter of days a House/Senate joint resolution was passed to
order the Constitutional Convention in the states to begin.

Thirty-six million people voted on the initiative. Twenty-
six million voted to overturn the 18th Amendment. As the
Democratic platform endorsed the 21st Amendment (repeal), half of
the House and almost a third of the Senate was turned out of
office around the issue. The President was soundly defeated.

Much of the mandate for FDR's new deal was actually voters
motivated by the empowerment of the initiative to amend the
Constitution.

PROPOSAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Article V splits the amendment procedure in two, that of
proposing amendments and that of ratifying amendments. Either
Congress or Constitutional Convention may propose a change to the
Constitution with either a vote of two-thirds in both houses or
by application of two-thirds of the states in convention.
Similarly an amendment becomes effective as part of the
Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths
of states or by conventions in three-fourths of the states.

"Article V provides that Congress on the application of two-
thirds of the state legislatures shall call a convention for
proposing amendments." l6 Am.Jur. 2d 333. The Supreme Court has
interpreted "shall" to mean "must" on this issue in Article V.
United States vs. Sprague, 282 US 7l6, 75 LEd 640, 7l ALR l38l.
Congress's job is "ministerial" or not a choice in this matter.

It is clear that there is a legally viable vehicle through
which election reform can be enacted by the will of the people.


"Under a state's constitution, it has been held
that submission of the question of convention or no
convention to voters and election of delegates in case a
majority of votes favor a convention would be valid, but
that the calling of a convention to pass on a proposed
amendment without submitting the question of convention
or no convention to a vote would be invalid." Re
Opinions of Justices, 204 NC 806, l72 SE 474.

"(V)oters of the several states are excluded by terms
of Article V from direct participation in the process of
amendment of the Constitution. Their participation is
restricted to voting for delegates." l6 Am.Jur. 2nd 337.

Therefore, because of the Republican form of government and
the restrictions that lie in Article V, leaving a direct voice of
the people out of the question at hand, the power the people
have in this case is that of calling a convention and that of
electing the correct delegates. To write an Initiative that
requires a State or Federal legislator to vote one way or another
is unconstitutional by Supreme Court case history.

Under this proposal we would urge our own committee members
who ran the qualification petition campaign to run as delegates.
We would not rely on talking politicians into our position.
The key factor is winning the initial election and being in the
majority. It should be noted here that while some states don't
have initiative procedures, all states have in their respective
constitutions the method of electing delegates to convention by
dictate of Article V of the Federal Constitution. Our campaign
in those states without initiatives will focus on selection of
correct delegates, and registration of our electors.

RATIFICATION BY CONVENTION

"The method of ratification by conventions in the
states rather than by state legislatures has been employed
in the past (21st Amendment) and will probably be employed
in the future." l6 Am.Jur. 2nd, Sec. 24, page 336. (The
21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment, Prohibition,
was the only amendment to the Constitution, which was
ratified by convention).

"Article V is silent on how ratifying conventions
should be called or constituted, and there is no federal
statute on the matter, so that these matters are left to the
states." Opinion of Justices, l48 So l07 (underlines
added).


It is within these state laws that our method of control of
the proposing and ratifying conventions should be imposed. These
procedures vary from state to state in the amount of time for
decision and campaigning required for the election of delegates.
Some states are 60 days, some 90, some l20 days. Other differences
are in the way candidate delegates may be arranged on the
ballot.

"In one state the justices were of the opinion that
delegates must be elected from various localities within the
state and not at large, and not by a group system or party
system by which the voter would indicate his choice by a
cross mark opposite a given group. In another state it was
held to be proper to require that electors should vote for
groups of delegates who are pledged to vote at the convention
as dictated by referendum." l6 Am.Jur. 336.

Therefore it can be seen that by winning the 200X election
in a given state, that state would call for an election to choose
delegates. By virtue of the majority position of the electorate
that had just voted for the Election Reform Amendment, our commit-
tee in that state would be in good position to help the voters
pick the delegates that best fit the desires of the majority.

[Peace Patriot]

1. Could you give us an easy summary of the Election Reform that you...

...propose? (Or is this just regarding HOW it could be done, not what?)

I don't understand the following sentence:

"Implicit to the 2006 initiative theory is an unspoken threat to fix it before it becomes necessary to fix it by the people in 2008."

-----

I have been very skeptical of a Constitutional Amendment ever since Jesse Jackson proposed it, because I think it's an easy out for the Bush Cartel and the pro-Mideast War Democrats. They can say they did something.

Well, on the matter of minority voting rights--or any discriminatory practices (such as widespread vote suppression against Democrats--the poor, the black, students-- in Ohio)--we ALREADY have a law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (and the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and they are not being enforced.

So you pass an amendment that says, for instance, right to vote, right to have your vote counted in an open, transparent process. Or some such. And who is going to enforce this? Alberto Gonzales?

Will this fascist coup not misinterpret every word, and twist every word, and break the law--and do whatever it has to do, with total impunity from the news monopolies, to retain power? They've done that so far. The Constitution is a crap rag in their hands.

You see my problem. It makes everybody look good and it doesn't mean dick.

Furthermore, 1) such an amendment might forever remove the power of the people at the state level to achieve honest elections, through state control over the rules (really, our only hope at the moment, given the fraudulent Congress); and/or 2) the process could be entirely co-opted via news monopoly power, Bush Cartel propaganda, unlimited resources with which to destroy its true purpose, and other nefarious activity. (It's so high profile that they will either kill it, or control it.)

I'm not saying don't go for it. I'd never say that! Because our Constitution is OURS to amend as we the people will it to amended! I'm just trying to look at the ups and downs, in's and out's.

Prior to the 2004 election, I had determined to spend the rest of my life pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to ban all money in political campaigns. Enough! Fini! Period. End of corporate rule. Rebirth of democracy!

Got diverted by Stolen Election II. Can't clean up our DIRTY ROTTEN FILTHY political system without the right to vote. First things first (as this fascist coup undoes each of our rights, grass roots activists have to step back further, and further, and further, to catch that latest human or civil right they have destroyed!).

Ah, me! Well, I'm with you! Maybe if it was detailed this way: Paper ballots. Hand counted in every precinct in full public view, and the precinct result immediately posted in public. National weeklong paid holiday for voting and counting the vote, and tallying up the results. Absolutely no private companies involved at any point.

Damn hard to get around that.

And maybe add: End of all private money in political campaigns. Take back a portion of our public airwaves for political debate. Devote 1% of the federal budget to candidate access to the voters, and to the integrity of the election process.

Democracy requires no less.

[eaglenetsupport]

2. threat to pursue a federal fix in the booth

Our proposal is to use the initiative procedure to fix elections fraud. This is a state-by-state ballot proposal. Our vision is to create a national agenda via simultaneous filings in multiple states on July 4, 2005. We will use the language for Colorado and assist other statewide committees to buff our provisions into the proper form to that individual states statutes. Our ballot measure is slated for release this Friday.

I believe ours will be the model for the nation. Our initiative covers all the bases. We viewed all the tactics being put to use by the republicans, with particular emphasis on the final ten points released at the end of the Conyers Report (Preserving Democracy – What Went Wrong in Ohio) on what occurred in Ohio. All paper hand counted ballots. Same day registration, the law. Party partisans paid or volunteer can’t hold a position in election processes. Random audits that trigger recount events. It creates a Commission that is charged with the responsibility of maintaining fair elections by the strict guidelines set out in the Act, The Independent Elections Commission. The Commission is charged with regulating such matters as number of booths per precinct and procedures governing the conduct of poll workers. The Initiative creates two class 3 felonies for those who would attempt to disenfranchise voters by any means and a conspiracy statute when two or more commit an act in furtherance, is a class 2 felonies. The initiative gives broad public investigative powers including the right to subpoena and compel testimony, and the requirement to promulgate administrative rules for it’s conduct under The Administrative Procedures Act. The Act will pretty much dump everything added in the HAVA (Help America Vote Act) and replaces it with something that will actually count every vote.

This is a proposal for the 2006 election. After I pubbed over the Article V material I realized that it might be confusing as the Article V material deals with the after math of the election of 2006 and the potential necessity to conduct a second round of initiatives that would address federal reforms should they continue to blow off our concerns. In my opinion the ballot measures of 2006 will bring great pressures to bear on the remainder of the states that didn’t fix their systems yet. Most will choose to get to work on it if history is any indicator. Governments have notoriously resisted citizen legislators, in fact they hate it. The 2006 election will spur them to action once we demo our resolve.

Similarly the federal system will come under pressure to reform the items that need to be addressed at the federal level. The point of the Article V material is that we have avenues available to us that few know are possible. We should demonstrate our resolve all the way up to and including fix the federal level problem if they don’t do it.

Your points you make that the government is not and will not enforce election law as in the Civil Rights Act, is precisely correct and speaks to the need for further reform at the fed level and not another indicator that we should throw up our hands and say ‘oh well there is nothing we can do as they won’t enforce anyway’. The need is for better law that can’t be ignored, and violators go to jail. The fact that they can ignore is prima-facie evidence of a need for reform and not evidence of impossibility. So I disagree with your premise, good law can be enacted that will fix our systems.

[sacxtra]

3. THE FINAL FIX - LITERALLY

BAN electronics, digitized data, and insecure networks.





Paper Ballots
Count by hand
BAN electronics, digitized data, and insecure networks.