This is a big fucking deal... CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION at a GA

[nadinbrzezinski]

Now speakers talking about a constitutional convention.


This is per Joshua Holland from Alternet

This is at the Oakland GA. I don't know if they will get consensus, but firms what I am already thinking. The Occupy sites ARE the modern day equivalent of the Committees of Correspondence. Yes, this is a big fucking deal! A REAL BIG FUCKING DEAL.

[FirstLight]

1. ya, i heard those guys!

a guy & gal actually...they have an excellent idea! it is a great concept, like creating another 'party' as it were, but not...the anti-party!

[Ter]

2. A Con Con will NEVER happen

The liberals, neo-cons, paleo-cons, moderate DINO's and RINO's, Greens, and Libertarians all oppose it, all fearing the other side will get what they want.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. It is not that it will or not

it is that we have had a real call for one... this is a BFD... of course there is something else... many here predicted a general strike would never go off...

At this time never is not quite the word I will use.

[Magoo48]

20. Never say never.... :--)

[Occulus]

42. I think a Constitutional Convention to fire all of Congress could be viable

Both sides correctly believe Congress isn't working in its current makeup.

Fire them all, forbid them from holding corporate or public office for life, and hold special emergency elections.

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. OUR country. OUR Constitution. I welcome an army of lawyers on the subject

and/or an army of US! :applause:

[Initech]

5. Yes it is, and my answer to it is not just no, but HELL FUCKING NO.

This is a very very dangerous idea, but do you think the 99% are the ones who are going to change our constitution? No. The religious fundamentalist fucking nutjobs are the ones who will change it and then we'll have a fundamentalist theocracy in place. This is the fundies' wet dream - they will change it to Biblical law and things will be way worse than they are now. We cannot allow this to happen.

Our constitution isn't perfect but it's better than a lot of the competition. Just completely changing it is a bad and dangerous idea.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Getting it proposed does not mean it will not get blocked

but the fact that they are doing that is a BFD...

[Initech]

7. It is a very very dangerous idea they're playing with.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. My recommendation is go to a GA and BLOCK IT

[vcc]

64. its VERY FISHY !!!!!

Who in their right mind would do this?!?! Especially NOW with all the Repukes running the states ?!?! I have a VERY creepy feeling about this, and this Constitutional Convention thing cannot be allowed to happen. Anyone calling for it who isn't scared to death of how it will turn out ALREADY KNOWS how it will turn out because they've fixed the outcome. Either in cohoots with Repuke states or their own planted delegates or both, to cover all sides. That's the only reason anyone would do it, think about it. This is extremist over-reaching and jumping the gun to solve problems and who the hell are these few GA people to take this HUGE FUCKING DEAL of an action for the whole country ?!?! Something VERY fishy going on. OWS has either been infiltrated by radical right-wing or has been their false front from the start. Plenty of hate group/militia types who'd love to secede and there's already encampments set up for them in all major cities! They've been wanting their "revolution" for a long time and I wouldn't put it past them to use well-meaning people to hide behind. Notice they just DECIDED to this themselves, a few hundred UNELECTED people out of our whole population deciding things? Not exactly "consensus" or "participatory". THIS REEKS!!! SPREAD THE WORD!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Now this is an interesting meme

Go to your local occupy...serious.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Now this is an interesting meme

Go to your local occupy...serious.

[FirstLight]

8. see and i was thinking of another type of convention...

like a OCCUPY convention, with delegates from all the sites... and have a NATIONAL GA!

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. That they are also playing with

[FirstLight]

11. ...

:evilgrin: love it!

[JDPriestly]

14. I'm with you, Initech. In the end we would lose if we tried to write

a new Constitution. We just need to amend it to clarify the fact that corporations are not human and do not have the rights of humans -- none of the rights of humans.

Corporations can't bleed, cry or break their bones. They are not persons.

[Laelth]

21. Most importantly, corporations can not be thrown in jail.

That makes them, effectively, immune from criminal prosecution. As such, they should be heavily regulated by the state to insure that they continue to serve the public good. If unregulated and endowed with rights they should not have, they become uncontrollable and dangerous--i.e. exactly what we have now.

-Laelth

[On the Road]

36. I Agree that Corporate Personhood is Central

And while a constitutional convention might not be feasible or desirable, a constitutional amendment might be.

If the amendment were clear and narrowly worded, it could get support from both sides of the political fence, which would be extremely important.

[vcc]

67. there are other SANER ways to amend

There've been other amendments passed without opening up the whole damn Constitution to the slaughter. I DO NOT LIKE that a handful of people are running amuck speaking for the whole country on this and proposing something so INSANE--- who knows what could happen?!?!

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. A proposal does not mean it will go forward.

Nor does it mean that one ga speaks for all GAs. I am sure you understand this.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. You do realize that a constitutional convention has to be called by...

2/3 of the state legislatures. That's in the Constitution we now have. Then, 3/4 of the states have to ratify the changes.

With all but Nebraska having two houses, that means 66 or 67 state legislative houses have to vote to order a convention. Even then, though, no one knows what this really means or how one would function. And this is just to AMEND the Constitution-- they never thought seriously about a way to rewrite it completely.

So, since we're a long way from 33 states calling for a convention for the first time in history, or 38 states ratifying it (and what would happen to those states who refused?) I wouldn't take too seriously what some guy in Oakland has to say about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. It is not what I realize or not

it has nothing to do with the mechanics. I undersand that. But again it has noting to do with the legalities, but what is going on at the ground level.

THis is a big fracking deal... at a very sociological level.

By the way you are looking at this from the point of view of how things are... but I am sure (and it better not get there, all bets are off) that when a few people threw tea to the side into a certain bay, to give a well known example, some people had the same exact thought. But you realize you can't do this as a british citizen...

I just report in so many ways, but these GAs are an incubator of ideas... will they get a Con Con? Probably not. Will I say never Nope.

[Rabblevox]

15. This IS a Big Fucking Deal. Its not so much about changing the constitution at this point, as...

planting the seeds that the constitution NEEDS to be changed. And the Committees of Correspondence is exactly the model we should be looking towards.

[MadrasT]

30. The Consitution we have now is FINE.

The problem is that we are living in a nation run by oligarchs who do whatever the hell they want anyway.

We don't need a new Constitution, we need to get the idiots who think it doesn't apply to them thrown out on their ears.

[Modern_Matthew]

16. We need a national general assembly and a declaration of separation from Capitalism. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

34. Agree........

nm

[mmonk]

17. It is set up in a democracy type format.

[madrchsod]

18. more huff and puff.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Like the general strike that DID go off?

I saw right here people saying it would never happen.

Given that history, not likely, but never is not a word I'd use.

[redgiant]

65. gen•er•al

adjective
1 affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread:

Whatever it was, it wasn't a general strike. If it was a general strike, it was a flopped general strike.

But, the huff and puff factor was high.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. You hate the fact that it was NOT LABOR

and you do not like this one bit...I get it, I truly do.

[redgiant]

73. Apparently, accuracy is not high on your list...

...of journalistic values.

Regarding the Nov. 2 General Strike of Oakland, what I said is 100% accurate. It was either a failed general strike, or a very narrowly focused strike that successfully targeted the port (which preemptively shut down). Bravo! But, that was a localized disruption and *not* the widespread, generalized economic disruption of a truly successful general strike.

[Magoo48]

19. It cccurred to me a few weeks ago that a call for a CC would naturally grow from OWS.

The movement must still evolve for some time, but the more people hear Constitutional Convention, the less radical it will sound. the Cons are really helping this process along with their obvious attempt at further tanking the economy. We all play a small part, see what happens.

[greytdemocrat]

22. Sorry kids...

Not gonna happen. This is one of the silliest things I've read in a while.

Does anyone here REALLY think the US is going to listen to a bunch of
drug addled kiddies playing revolution??? Christ.

Yeah, I'm gonna take seriously kids waving their fingers around
while taking bong hits...

So no Nadin, it isn't a BFD.

[TheKentuckian]

23. When you come like this, it says where you are coming from

"
drug addled kiddies playing revolution??? Christ.

Yeah, I'm gonna take seriously kids waving their fingers around
while taking bong hits..."

They make a hell of a lot more sense than those you think of as "serious".

[greytdemocrat]

24. Oh...

You mean the real world and not the land of make believe???

You are correct.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I am sure I've read primary sources

Of British citizens using equivalent language go in the early 1770s. We get it by the way.

[Zorra]

27. Who do you take seriously? Reality Fucking Check! John Boehner, Mitch McConnel, Rick Perry,

Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson?
:wow:

Because that is your Fucking Status Quo leadership right now That's them, those are your fucking leaders.

Good Lord, people need to wake up and turn off their damn idiot boxes and start living in the real world.

I have actually been there, in the real world, having discussions with these kids:

They are much smarter, more aware/perceptive, and so much wiser than all the Fox News MSM addled idiots that sit in front of their TV's on their sofa drinking beer anxiously awaiting the next episode of American Idol put together.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Well your choice of words

Tells me you have no idea what OWS really is. Free clue it is not just kids or drug addled for that matter. Once you get off the media meme we can talk like adults.

[Zorra]

25. Jumping joyfully out of my chair! Mic check!

I propose

Here are two general, brief suggestions for ideas to discuss in General Assembly with which we can begin the process of petitioning the government to address critical concerns that require immediate redress:

1) Immediate drafting, passage, and implementation of one comprehensive Constitutional Amendment, or several Constitutional Amendments, that effectively render(s) moot the Citizen's United SCOTUS Decision, outlaws corporate personhood, outlaws all donations in any form, direct or indirect, to political candidates and legislators, and abolishes all lobbying of political candidates and elected legislators.

2) Immediate drafting, passage, and implementation of a Constitutional Amendment abolishing electronic voting and establishing a uniform nationwide foolproof transparent federal voting process.

Oakland is a warning flag, an example of what we can do on a moment's notice. Magnify Occupy Oakland's direct action today times twenty, on steroids, and imagine this taking place in every major and not so major city and port in the US in June of 2012.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2232661&mesg_id=2233224

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2257416
:bounce:!!!

[redgiant]

26. More like a delusional convention n/t

[xchrom]

28. Why? Nt

[MjolnirTime]

29. The Rent's too damned high!!!

[Zorra]

31. kick

[FarCenter]

32. 32 states have apparently voted for a consitutional convention

Some of those have also since voted to withdraw their call, but it is unclear whether this matters, since Article 5 does not have a provision for a state to withdraw its call.

So there is some thought that another 2 states could trigger a constitutional convention.

The states' legislatures would then choose delegates to the constitutional convention.

Once called, the constitutional convention could entertain any ammendment to the constitution, including an ammendment to replace it in its entirety with new text. The ammendments would come into effect upon approval by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states.

[Zorra]

33. This will never happen. Any effort by states to enact a constructive

constitutional amendment would be shot down by state republicans before you could say Koch Brothers.

The same goes for US Congress. No republican will ever vote for the constitutional amendment necessary to regain democracy for the 99%.

[FarCenter]

44. A new constitutional convention would likely resemble the last one

It would be initiated and controlled by the politically and economically influential people.

[vcc]

66. not if it's Right-Wing plants calling it!!!

The distinct possibility of the fact that it could be a right-wing inside job is reason enough not to call it. If it's called and states agree, there's no going back and lord only knows what they'll do.

[randome]

35. First it's local skirmishes with the police.

And now this.

Anything but knocking on the doors of the people responsible for our current economic downturn. To hell with addressing the problems, it's much easier to go AROUND the problem and fight some other battle.

Constitutional convention? For a collage of groups that pride themselve on not having any organizational skills?

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. You do realize they have talked

Of removing corporate interest from our elections and shit like that, right.

Stop paying attention to the media narrarptive. I report, but I can see some media narratives that are powerful.

[randome]

41. Sure, but who are they talking to?

OWS and DU'ers? I'd have a lot more optimism if OWS was organized enough to take the battle to the legislators who opened the barn door for the financial industry.

I'm 'paying attention', basically, to DU and 'Talking Points Memo'. Those are my news services so please don't box me in with the 'media narrative'.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. They are leaderless on purpose

JFK, RFK and MLK are the reason. That does not mean people will not run for office. That does not mean it is just what eight weeks old. It took real grassroots. About two years to het there. From an owser who is very aware, timeline for the changes they want, it is systemic...five years.

I highly recommend to attend at least one ga / encampment. Are a few peope there all but aware, yup...but you will be surprised.

[Zorra]

45. Here

are two general, brief suggestions for ideas to discuss in General Assembly with which we can begin the process of petitioning the government to address critical concerns that require immediate redress:

1) Immediate drafting, passage, and implementation of one comprehensive Constitutional Amendment, or several Constitutional Amendments, that effectively render(s) moot the Citizen's United SCOTUS Decision, outlaws corporate personhood, outlaws all donations in any form, direct or indirect, to political candidates and legislators, and abolishes all lobbying of political candidates and elected legislators.

2) Immediate drafting, passage, and implementation of a Constitutional Amendment abolishing electronic voting and establishing a uniform nationwide foolproof transparent federal voting process.

This is, of course, just one possibility for consideration at General Assemblies that meet to discuss the constitutional issues that must be addressed if we are ever to attain a genuine egalitarian democracy.

It wasn't until 1787, after years of squabbling amongst themselves, then, a bloody 8 year War for Independence, and then a few more years after that, for the People to organize a constitutional convention. That was hundreds of years ago.

We have adapted and evolved since those days. We're going to do it a new way.

We are no longer genuinely represented in government. We are doing what we can to remedy this situation without any of us engaging in acts of violence.

If you have any good, or better ideas, would you mind please heading down wherever your most local Occupation is occurring? We can use all the help we can get.

[randome]

46. I'd narrow it down.

Outlaw corporate personhood. Then most of the others would fall into place, wouldn't they?

Not quite on board with doing away with electronic voting. It can be made more reliable.

[Zorra]

50. I don't think so. IMO, money and lobbying must be removed from influencing

campaigns, legislators, and subsequently, our government.

In order to achieve egalitarian democracy, wealth must be completely eliminated from the equation.

Simply outlawing corporate personhood would not solve the problem of the wealthy controlling our elected officials and government.

Also, electronic voting is not transparent, and the process is partially privatized and in the control of GOP supporters. Even after money is removed from influencing campaigns, legislators, and government electronic voting can be used by the wealthy to manipulate vote counts in order to subvert democracy and the will of the people.

I suggest you search out the DU Electronic Voting Library, if it still exists. It contains a vast wealth of factual information regarding the anti-democratic nature of using electronic voting systems that are not transparent and are easily manipulated on a mass scale.

Bradblog is an excellent source of information about electronic voting as well.

[randome]

52. Thought corporations could donate all they wanted because they are 'persons'.

If they are re-defined as 'not persons', I thought that might remove a lot of the bribes.

Of course I could be wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. That's part of it. Some GA's have spoken

Of just dealing with citizens united. Last night one spoke of rewriting the constitution. There are a few valid reasons for that as some things like two paries (due to how the document reads) needs rewriting. Things like multiple parties...

As I said in the op, they are like committees of correspondence.

[Zorra]

59. Eliminating corporate personhood will help, but that is only

one part of the problem. Simply eliminating corporate personhood from the equation does not solve the problem of wealthy private interests using their wealth in many other ways to influence government and transform it into a non-democratic entity.

There is an entire street in Washington DC, known as K Street, that is pretty much a central hub for wealthy private interests shamelessly lobbying/bribing government officials.

Jack Abramoff is a good example of a lobbyist.

Jack Abramoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

[Codeine]

47. Honestly, is there anything that isn't a BIG FUCKING DEAL to you? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Honestly if you do not get why this is

I can't help

:hi:

Honestly I could post the sky is blue and you'd find exception...

Honestly that's the truth, so why be coy about it? HONESTLY.

[Codeine]

49. Not true. Sometimes you're right on the money.

I recall the Haiti relief situation wherein you were one of the few rational posters. :shrug: I don't ALWAYS disagree with you.

Mostly, however, you seem to have a penchant for dramatics that quickly morph into hysterics and sanctimonious/self-righteous posturing with a superiority streak a mile wide and a foot deep.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Yup, look at the mirror

And no, you ain't going on no fracking ignore list no more.

[Codeine]

53. Good. I won't have to see you endlessly posting about your "iggy list."

That rapidly grew tiresome.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Getting ignored, I get it...

Don't get me started on what I think of distraction. Suffice it to say, I can't help you if you do not get what Joshua holland reported is important at a sociological level. I really do not expect you, or a few others, to understand this one bit.

Perhaps, after a few years, once the dust settles and this becomes history, not current events, things like this will become transparent to you.

Right now it might be difficult.

And that's all I gotta say to YOU. I really can't help you, or to be honest, have an interest in doing such.

[randome]

55. Hey, you two.

Let ME get the last word on this sub-thread, okay? Then you're both winners!

[Codeine]

57. Shit.

I lost AGAIN! :mad:

[Codeine]

56. You're so awesome.

Teach me more, oh Wise One.

[greytdemocrat]

60. Now THAT made me lol!!

:thumbsup:

[former9thward]

61. You do know, don't you, that the Committees of Correspondence were the 1% of their day.

They were the richest of the colonists. George Washington was widely believed to be the richest person in the colonies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Hmm no, they were also the members of the working classes

The makeup of the one in Philadelphia is a good example. They were also closely tired to the masons who were the first laboratory of direct democracy in both Europe and the Americas, by the latter I also mean the Spanish colonies.

[FarCenter]

74. Half of the 42 had college degrees; 9 of them from Princeton

They were not your average illiterate working class individual of the time.

They were by definition white males of property.

[former9thward]

Hmm, not really, but if you want to re-write history to make your arguments go ahead.

Since you brought up Philly let's look at the leadership. There were only 3 people who were elected to all of the various committees in Philly. Thomas Barclay - a merchant and son of a wealthy merchant and ship owner. John Dickerson who was a lawyer and son of a wealthy plantation owner. Joseph Reed a lawyer and son of a wealthy merchant. All these were the 1% of their era. No knock on them but that is a fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_correspondence

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. No I am not rewriting history

But go ahead in thinking that ONLY the 1% were involved in the committees. I guess next I will learn that no working class trades were involved in the lodges either.

[Zorra]

63. Of course. They were the only ones at that time who could afford higher education.

I'm so very glad that they were altruistic, compassionate, democratic and egalitarian.

However, this is a new day, and a great many of us that are involved in OWS are educated, either through academia and/or experience and we are aware.

We have adapted and evolved since those days, and we are using our imaginations to conceive solutions for problems based on new information combined with a keen awareness of the mistakes of he past.

[Mr Gerrity]

72. Fustian Histrionics - nt

[Codeine]

75. Ostentatious theatrics. nt

[yellowcanine]

76. A Constitutional Convention would be a fundamentally stupid idea.

Many more opportunities for mischief than for good, imo. If the Constitution needs to be changed, do it by amendment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. As I said above, will it happen because one person at a GA proposed it?

Not likely, will I say never? Nope.

Discussing matters don't mean they will go ahead... This is what DIRECT democracy looks like. I is just as messy as congress actually with a lot less theater.

But, the fact that they are even discussing the real problems ( winner takes all comes to mind, Ammendment could fix it) IS A GOOD THING. I get it, it's threatening.

[yellowcanine]

82. It is important to point out that some ideas are stupid lest they flourish - yes discuss it because

sometimes it is important to illuminate the problem behind the stupid idea and maybe come up with a more elegant solution. Of course, as with Groucho and cigars, sometimes a stupid idea is just a stupid idea and there is no problem behind it which needs fixing. Photo IDs at the polls, for example.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Alas as posted bellow

This idea is not exclusive to a General Assembly.

[yodermon]

79. Chris Hayes talked about this recently

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/is-it-time-for-a-new-constitutional-convention/6xf30gn?cpkey=a62a0202-1e00-4376-b893-271abbabfc49||||

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Thanks, fascinating.

That raises the chances of this to more likely.

[chaska]

81. If you haven't read this ... PLEASE READ IT!

http://anoncentral.tumblr.com/post/12409353866/for-the-99-the-new-common-sense-must-distribute

This is exactly the approach we need. A list of demands will tear the whole movement apart. We have to demand a return to principle. We need a floor to stand on, a place from which we can stage our fight.

Conversely, a very short list of very concentrated demands, specifically, a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood, and publicly funded elections and little if anything else will give us a base from which we can win.

Without this sort of approach - if instead we make a list of demands, for example - we will only get a few little, inconsequential things, enough to shut us up, and then it's back to business as usual with corporations buying legislators and the thousands of consequent evils that follow as a result.

[crazyjoe]

84. BFD