Obama's Open Forum Opens Possibilities

[davidswanson]

Candidate Obama asked for our opinions through a website. Our top demand was that he keep his promise to vote against immunity for telecoms that spied illegally. He ignored us, promised to do better as president, and hasn't.

President-Elect Obama asked for our opinions through his transition website. Our top question was whether he would appoint a special prosecutor for Bush, Cheney, and gang. He refused to answer the question until asked by the corporate media, and then talked about "looking forward".

Now President Obama is asking for our opinions on a website. This is a good thing but should be gone into with some caveats. First, Obama has always ignored us before, and ignoring people who obediently type on your website as supporters of whatever you do first and citizens with their own opinions second is easier than ignoring just about anything else. Here are other actions you can take following the 30 seconds needed for this one: http://prosecutebushcheney.org

Second, we have representatives and senators whom we are supposed to lobby and whom we are much more likely to lobby successfully, and they are supposed to run the country, not the executive. Third, majority opinion and the clear mandates of our nation's laws ought to carry more weight than the opinions of a self-selected group of presidential advisors (I mean other than Congress which has devolved into more or less just that).

But what if a flood of American citizens were to give the president the kind of advice that is most useful rather than the kind that is most enjoyable to hear? What if we were to ask President Obama to (allow the attorney general to) prosecute his predecessors and (encourage Congress to) remove the unconstitutional powers they claimed from the presidency? Might someone hear our voices, repeat our questions on camera, begin thinking about our point of view, or ask about our issues before confirming a new Supreme Court Justice?

It's certainly possible. Here's a direct link to a proposal I've just posted on the president's new website. Please go there and vote the proposal up. The text of the proposal is below:

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3161-4049

End Imperial Presidency

Leave the White House less imperial than you found it. Prosecute Bush, Cheney, and their top officials in order to deter in the future the crimes of aggressive war, misleading congress, defrauding congress, misspending funds, war crimes, murder, warrantless spying, torture, domestic propaganda, violations of the Hatch Act and the Voting Rights Act, obstruction of justice, misprision of felony, retaliating against whistleblowers, etc. Restore to Congress the power to legislate, the power to begin and end wars, the power to raise and spend money, the power to approve or reject treaties and appointments, and the power to oversee the functioning of the federal government including through the power of impeachment and the power of inherent contempt. That means no more signing statements rewriting laws, and instead support for legislation that would criminalize such behavior. And it means similar action on each of the other offenses.

We, the people, must:

Demand that Congress ban the use of funds for any activities created in violation of the law by presidential signing statements.

Amend the Constitution to clearly ban the use of presidential pardons to pardon crimes authorized by the president.

Amend the War Powers Act and the Constition to include the requirement that Congressional authorizations of war include time limits of no more than 12 months, after which Congress must vote again to extend the war or end it, to disallow the unconstitutional initiation of wars without Congressional approval, and to make the law enforceable.

Make war profiteering by any war maker a major felony. This would apply to any employee of the federal government or anyone who had within the past decade been an employee of the federal government.

Legislate a requirement that, in any war, the military aged children and grandchildren of the president, the vice president, all cabinet officials, and all Congress members serve on the front lines in the most dangerous combat positions -- no exceptions, no exemptions.

Prohibit the use of mercenaries or any armed contractors, as well as the use of any military force on American soil except when directly engaged in defensive war against a foreign nation.

Repeal the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, the Protect America Act, the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the PATRIOT Act.

Ban secret budgets, secret laws, and secret agencies.

Change the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster.

Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate.

End all rendition, as distinct from extradition.

Amend the Constitution to make the ban on ex-post-facto laws include any laws that would retroactively grant immunity for crimes.

Amend the Constitution to bar the vice president from exercising executive power.

Amend the Constitution to clarify the congressional power of inherent contempt.

Amend the Constitution to include the right to vote and to have one's vote counted publicly at the polling place.

Give Washington, D.C., full voting representation in Congress.

Amend the Constitution to ban private financing of campaigns, create public financing, and provide free air time to candidates.

Sign and ratify the Rome treaty to join the International Criminal Court.

Vote for this proposal and suggest modifications here:
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3161-4049

[mmonk]

1. Great list. I'll see what I can do.

[Mithreal]

2. K&R nt

[Mnemosyne]

3. If not us, whom? Thanks David! knr n/t

[dotymed]

4. ELIMINATE THE SENATE?

I think Bernie Saunders is terrific. The other points seem
good though.

[davidswanson]

6. Does he like his name that way?

Here's a book explaining:
http://tinyurl.com/daybreakbook

Also, there are 99 other senators.

[MicaelS]

9. ELIMINATE THE SENATE? Not just hell no.....

Fuck NO!

[davidswanson]

11. well that's persuasive thanks

i realize i offered just a list and no arguments, but here's a start: Wyoming has same power as California. here's the key: The Senate has blocked millions of good proposals from the House and never once to my knowledge has the reverse been the case. I imagine a few exceptions could be found and I'd love to hear them, but they aren't the overwhelming pattern. And that was the intention from the start.

[MicaelS]

14. Eliminating the Senate could trigger another Civil War

At it's most basic tenet it is anti-democracy and anti-human rights. If you have only a unicameral legislative then it could and would be dominated by the handful of most populous states or metropolitan areas. They would make policy for the rest of the country. All well and good if it's policy YOU favor. If not then you would be outraged. Tens of millions, if not a hundred million or more, would feel rightly disenfranchised. A little thing like taxation without representation would occur. Something that just so happened to lead to the (First) American Revolution. Now if your intention is to incite the Second or Third American Revolution, (depending on your viewpoint) aka the Second American Civil War, resulting in the disintegration of the United States of America, then eliminating the Senate would be am excellent way to whip up emotion which would lead to that selfsame Civil War.

And lest you think that people as a group are always wise, I remind you of Prop 8's passage. The majority isn't always right, no matter whether they are progressive or conservative. The Founders set up our system the way they did for a reason. They were all students of Imperial Rome and knew that mobocracy was what helped lead to Rome's downfall. The Senate is supposed to be the senior of the two chambers and have a checks and balances effect on the House. That's why Senators serve for six years and Representatives for only two. They created the Senate to balance the rights of the smaller states against the larger.

I like our system just the way it is, thank you very much. I'm not interested in replacing it with a Commonwealth or another other such system. Just because you don't like the politics of Americans in red states does not mean you have to right to engage in de facto usurpation of their rights.

[davidswanson]

15. the people in small states

do not tend to favor campaign funding corruption, wall street bailouts, government secrecy, or even wars, torture, and illegal spying significantly more than the people in large states

but the people in the Senate tend to favor all such things significantly more than the people in the House

the House tried to end slavery 8 times blocked by the Senate and you can find a similar history on issues large and small for the course of this nation's existence

You can say that's the mature and responsible and aristocratic way to do things, but you weren't one of the slaves and you aren't living in Iraq

The small states eat up a disproportionate share of public services because they are disproportionately represented

And who strips the state governments of more power? You guessed it: US senators.

[MicaelS]

16. Most of the rest of your ideas in you OP I can agree, but

Your idea of the elimination of the Senate, no matter how well intentioned you might want to believe it to be, is a deal breaker for me, and I'm willing to bet, others. You drop that obsession with the Senate and I'm willing to talk, otherwise forget it. Lest you think I'm from a small state, I'm not, I'm from Texas, and I utterly reject your small state hate. The United States is more than California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Ohio and Florida.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Kicked so I can read this

at home--don't have time to do it justice on my break time at work.

[clear eye]

7. David, David, David--

You were going so well at really saying what's what and what we should do about it, and then threw in an idea from left field (pardon the pun) "eliminate the Senate"? Whether that is or is not a good idea, it has limited relevance to the rest of the recommendations, and definitely loses support from some people who passionately agree with the rest of the proposal. It also makes the whole proposal sound less serious to both potential voters and anyone in the Federal Government. Odds are, some readers of this page will decide not even to go to the voting page after reading that line. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Even eliminating the filibuster is not necessarily better than restoring the original rules for a filibuster, which require continuous speaking. The Senate leader should not be allowed to withdraw a bill coming up for a vote on the mere threat of a filibuster. Filibusters sometimes help the Senate really think about the implications of some very bad bill they were going to pass.

That said, I voted for your proposal anyway, but one commenter on the site did not, and drew attention to the "eliminate Senate" item.

[davidswanson]

12. it's good to know my book will serve a purpose

i hope you'll read it: http://davidswanson.org/book

then let's talk

[downindixie]

8. The only lobby that the WH and congress will

understand is when millions of people march there and demand they look after the people instead of corporations!

[emsimon33]

18. Man, oh, man, do I ever agree! If millions can show up for the inauguration

then millions should be able to get there to demand that our rights and future well being and security.

[bertman]

10. Two for the all-time greatest suggestions: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate,

and Legislate a requirement that, in any war, the military aged children and grandchildren of the president, the vice president, all cabinet officials, and all Congress members serve on the front lines in the most dangerous combat positions -- no exceptions, no exemptions.

Thanks for reminding me that I can still be ignored by President Obama and his staff. I had gotten so frustrated with the one-way communication that I stopped using it, but I'll make an exception for this.

[davidswanson]

13. thanks

appreciate it

we're within 12 votes of surpassing the legalization of pot and taking 1st place

legalizing pot is of course much more presentable than elimintating the senate

[emsimon33]

17. Done

I think that we could better control the senate if we had public financing of elections and elected senators every four years or less. Also if we had a law that if a senator or congressperson accepted any favors or money from a group, etc., he/she could not preside over a hearing or vote on anything related to that group (hear me, Baucus!!!).

Also, have a real 4th estate, free from big money monopolies, would also help.