Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NCcoast

(481 posts)
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 01:15 PM Jun 2014

99Rise - Let's get serious, here's what these guys are proposing.

Listen to this radio interview. These guys have a plan. They're calling for:

1) A federal constitutional convention under article 5 of the constitution to enact a 28th amendment to the constitution declaring that money is not speech, corporations are not people and that congress can regulate campaign spending.

2) They want a vote for this amendment on the California ballot.

Is this a functional legal path? I don't know, that's to be debated but, it ain't going to happen at the national level and this is a model we can duplicate state by state.

The interview with Thom Hartmann.

99Rise's Facebook page.

99Rise's Webpage



24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
99Rise - Let's get serious, here's what these guys are proposing. (Original Post) NCcoast Jun 2014 OP
I'm concerned we could lose more antiquie Jun 2014 #1
I'm not sure exactly what you mean NCcoast Jun 2014 #3
Please see #4, #6 and #10. antiquie Jun 2014 #12
Thank you antiquie NCcoast Jun 2014 #16
That's wonderful. I did not get that from the posts. antiquie Jun 2014 #18
Antiquie Le Taz Hot Jun 2014 #23
I think they are incorrect that the scope.... lastlib Jun 2014 #24
. bigtree Jun 2014 #2
Sorry, I am dyslexic, so I rely on the kindness of strangers such as yourself NCcoast Jun 2014 #5
oh me too, NCcoast bigtree Jun 2014 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author NCcoast Jun 2014 #9
A Constitutional Convention is very dangerous. Benton D Struckcheon Jun 2014 #4
Did you see the response of the marchers below? NCcoast Jun 2014 #15
What is to stop the total takeover of this convention by those who would destroy it and turn it into jwirr Jun 2014 #6
I see your point NCcoast Jun 2014 #8
Now that is a very hard question and the reason we have not used this route before. A safer route jwirr Jun 2014 #10
They all happen to be right here in my family room Le Taz Hot Jun 2014 #11
Hello marchers! Speak your minds NCcoast Jun 2014 #13
From the marchers: Le Taz Hot Jun 2014 #14
A Couple Things... One, It Could Goose Congress Into Doing It Themselves, See 17th Amendment: WillyT Jun 2014 #17
Good point WillyT NCcoast Jun 2014 #19
+1. SammyWinstonJack Jun 2014 #20
success would cause incredible damage mikehiggins Jun 2014 #21
I take your point NCcoast Jun 2014 #22
 

antiquie

(4,299 posts)
1. I'm concerned we could lose more
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 01:20 PM
Jun 2014

through the constitutional convention remedy.
Who will represent us?

NCcoast

(481 posts)
3. I'm not sure exactly what you mean
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 01:28 PM
Jun 2014

My understanding, having just read article 5, is that a convention can be called by 2/3 of the states (or 2/3 of both houses of congress, but that's not going to happen as they are the agents of the corruption) and that the proposed amendment would be enacted with the support of 3/4 of the states.

And perhaps more to your point, we've got to do something, and this is as solid an idea as I've seen.

 

antiquie

(4,299 posts)
12. Please see #4, #6 and #10.
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 02:35 PM
Jun 2014

Do you know a method to limit the convention to just one amendment?
Just because I do not know of a good solution, does not make me want to back what I think is a dangerous attempt.

I don't trust my representatives.

NCcoast

(481 posts)
16. Thank you antiquie
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 03:03 PM
Jun 2014

I'm not trying to be a bully, I'm just saying it time to find a path together so we can move forward. I put that question to the marchers who are currently in the home of our own Le Taz Hot. You can see their answer below but they're suggesting the scope of the convention can be controlled by resolutions from the states who are calling for the convention.

 

antiquie

(4,299 posts)
18. That's wonderful. I did not get that from the posts.
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 03:18 PM
Jun 2014

I am not a concern troll, that is insulting and let's me know which activists not to affiliate with, thank you.

(Ratification did not work for ERA but is the saffe word for this???)

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
23. Antiquie
Sun Jun 8, 2014, 10:54 AM
Jun 2014

Sorry if I offended. It was inadvertent. I'll change the post. However, if one inadvertent offending post makes me persona non gratis . . .

lastlib

(23,652 posts)
24. I think they are incorrect that the scope....
Sun Jun 8, 2014, 10:59 AM
Jun 2014

...of a convention can be controlled by state resolutions. If half of the states calling have resolutions to limit it, and half do not, then what happens? Remember the 1787 convention was only supposed to "consider amendments" to the Articles of Confederation, and we got a whole new document. So I'm leery of the convention approach.

NCcoast

(481 posts)
5. Sorry, I am dyslexic, so I rely on the kindness of strangers such as yourself
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 01:33 PM
Jun 2014

I had to get over any reluctance associated with that dysfunction, otherwise I'd be forced to sit silently in the corner and watch the rot progress.

bigtree

(86,316 posts)
7. oh me too, NCcoast
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 01:36 PM
Jun 2014

I have to go over and over everything I do (really fast) to make sure I haven't overlooked anything.

Response to bigtree (Reply #7)

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
4. A Constitutional Convention is very dangerous.
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 01:31 PM
Jun 2014

Remember, Ted Cruz would make sure he was there.
But the idea of building pressure state by state for the amendment is a good one.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
6. What is to stop the total takeover of this convention by those who would destroy it and turn it into
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 01:34 PM
Jun 2014

the total opposite? I am not against a convention to get rid of the money in politics but I fear the results of any convention that will discuss other issues.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
10. Now that is a very hard question and the reason we have not used this route before. A safer route
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 02:02 PM
Jun 2014

would be election a Democrat House and Senate in 2014 and then raising hell. But that is also questionable. Is it possible to have a constitutional convention limited to a specific topic? That would be one answer.

I honestly do not know what would work but I know something has to be done because either way we lose our rights.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
11. They all happen to be right here in my family room
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 02:31 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Sun Jun 8, 2014, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

as we speak. All 15 of them!

To those with questions -- Adding a Constitutional Amendment is an uphill battle. Even for good, positive causes (the ERA comes to mind), it's difficult, at best. For right-wing whack job causes it's virtually impossible.

If the Congress isn't going to propose it, We the People via the states must. ANYTHING is better than letting Citizen's United and the McCutcheon decision stand as is.

NCcoast

(481 posts)
13. Hello marchers! Speak your minds
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 02:48 PM
Jun 2014

So what do you think of the idea that calling for a constitutional convention is fraught with danger? Can the scope of a constitutional convention be controlled before it is convened?

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
14. From the marchers:
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 02:52 PM
Jun 2014

It' s debated. If it gets that far, the danger is limited by the need to gain ratificatons by 3/4 of the states. I think that is overstating the case. The real safeguard we can rely on is the strength of the movement of our organization. Tluhere could be things that could be harmful, but there is a high bar to cross it would have to be agreed upon by different states with various different viewpoints.

Scope: The resolutions that are passing throughout the states are defined by the states themselves via their individual convention calls.

 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
17. A Couple Things... One, It Could Goose Congress Into Doing It Themselves, See 17th Amendment:
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 03:17 PM
Jun 2014
They were just 1 state away from going to convention, when Congress stepped in...

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures; this was intended to prevent the federal government from indirectly absconding with the powers and funds of the states. However, over time various issues with these provisions, such as the risk of corruption and the potential for electoral deadlocks or a lack of representation should a seat become vacant, led to a campaign for reform.

Reformers introduced constitutional amendments in 1828, 1829, and 1855, with the issues finally reaching a head during the 1890s and 1900s. Progressives, such as William Jennings Bryan, called for reform to the way senators were chosen. Elihu Root and George Frisbie Hoar were prominent figures in the campaign to maintain the state legislative selection of senators. By 1910, 31 state legislatures had passed motions calling for reform. By 1912, 239 political parties at both the state and national level had pledged some form of direct election, and 33 states had introduced the use of direct primaries. With a campaign for a state-led constitutional amendment gaining strength, and a fear that this could result in a "runaway convention", the proposal to mandate direct elections for the Senate was finally introduced in the Congress. It was passed by the Congress and, on May 13, 1912, was submitted to the states for ratification. By April 8, 1913, three-fourths of the states had ratified the proposed amendment, making it the Seventeenth Amendment. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan formally declared the amendment's adoption on May 31, 1913.


Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution explained: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution


NCcoast

(481 posts)
19. Good point WillyT
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 03:51 PM
Jun 2014

If congress sees that we have so little faith in their ability to act in our interest, as I think the recent Princeton/Northwestern study clearly shows, and that we're serious enough to come at this through the state level, they just might do something useful.

As antiquie pointed out, the ERA was never ratified by this method but I do remember those days and the issue stayed in the news for years because of that effort. At the very least this action will facilitate a debate on the corrupting influence of money on our elections at every level.

mikehiggins

(5,614 posts)
21. success would cause incredible damage
Sun Jun 8, 2014, 10:03 AM
Jun 2014

Look around you, people. Do you see a nation where the popular will carries the day? Or even exists?

Way back when, in the days of Barry Goldwater, et al, the real Right discussed this same idea to stop those damn libruls from ruling the roost with their unions and civil rights and things and stuff. Most disagreed with the concept because the fact is that no matter what enlightened legislatures like Kansas might do (yes, that is sarcasm) once the delegates convene with legal authority for a Constitutional Convention all bets are off. You might think that just proposing an amendment to do away with the finance decision would be cool BUT open that door and you will be faced with the prospect of an entirely NEW Constitution being written with a very good chance of being adopted.

This idea plays into the hands (IMHO) of the very people we would like to see hamstrung, even if they themselves don't see it as yet. This is a world of lies, falsehoods and Fox News. How can anyone seriously entertain the prospect of letting the rich and powerful take what they have learned over the last two centuries and use that knowledge, and their vast wealth, and the base of frankly indifferent and/or stupid people eligible to vote in this nation to control the methods and outcome of a Constitutional convention?

All it would take would be erasing a couple of lines and you know where your SCUSA protection would be? Erased.

ANd things would go down from there.

Seriously, folks, better the devil you know than the one you don't.

And we haven't done all that well doing that.

NCcoast

(481 posts)
22. I take your point
Sun Jun 8, 2014, 10:51 AM
Jun 2014

The question then remains, what do we do? What seems very different to me from those times is the level of institutionalized corruption. As I like to say, the way we've dealt with corruption in America is we've made it legal. We now have a federal government which is wholly owned by special interests. What can we do to bring about the necessary changes?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»99Rise - Let's get seriou...