Skip to main content

View Diary: I am Spartacus (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  why not just amend? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mimi, Granny Doc, dolphin777

      one amendment to the constitution can and will reverse trends we see as fatal to democratic governance. one amendment to the constitution can secure The Vote from private interests and purge institutionalized corruption from the legislative branch.

      we need to hold a national convention so folks like your dad can show up and propose the common sense solutions the politicians never will.

      Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

      by john de herrera on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not that simple (4+ / 0-)

        and the good old days weren't so good, either.

        Fixing our problems is going to take perseverance and lots of energy. The efforts of this grassroots community to elect more and better Democrats is certainly part of the fix. In time, a Constitutional Amendment or two might help. But there's no panacea. We have to keep working to educate voters and support better politicians.

        •  yes, there is a panacea (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Granny Doc, dolphin777

          it's the u.s. constitution.

          that's the panecea, that's the silver bullet. that's what the framers sat down to write, so that if tyrrany ever reared it's head, any future generation of americans could hold it up and end it.

          the declaration of independence was written into the constitution in the form of the convention clause.

          http://www.foavc.org

          p.s. how much time you do yout we have to secure the voting process from private interests? how many election cycles?

          Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

          by john de herrera on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:52:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  When was this era (5+ / 0-)

            of perfect Constitutional democracy? The internment of Japanese during WWII? The McCarthy era? Jim Crow? Watergate? The Reagan years?

            Civic progress requires education and effort.

            •  or the era (6+ / 0-)

              when "women who chose to work did so for her own pleasure"?  For poor families, and particularly people of color, this was NEVER the case!!!!  Let's face it, lots of women (poor white women, farmer's wives, African-American women, immigrant women, etc.) have ALWAYS had to work, and not for her own pleasure, but in order to feed her family.

            •  correct (0+ / 0-)

              that's why you should help educate people that the convention clause of the u.s. constitution is part of the contract for a reason. and the reason we've never held a nationl conveniton is because corporate interests quite rightly fear it.

              you want to talk about the constitution and what an article v convention means, then educate yourself about the truth of the matter.

              Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

              by john de herrera on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:52:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I fear it, as should everyone who understands (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Granny Doc

                the corruption of our government now.

                Ronald Reagan wanted a constitutional convention, in part to end equality between the races, end habeas corpus, a free press, the freedom to dissent and redress the government.

                Ronald Reagan, like McCarthy and Goldwater before him, were the advance guard of the facist enterprise that is swamping the country.

                Anybody who advocates a constitutional convention now is asking for national suicide.

                •  wrong: (0+ / 0-)

                  a convention cannot ratify anything.

                  a "constitutional convention" and an Article V Convention are two different things: the former is to is meant to write a constitution, the latter is only allowed to propose amendments "...to this Constitution...." meaning the only thing a national convention can do is have state delegates show up, place ideas for amendment proposals on the table, and go home.

                  then the ratification process begins where the entire country examines what's on the table.

                  national suicide is to watch and do nothing while corporate interests allow corporate interests to enslave the electorate.

                  and by your logic we don't want to let a fox into the henhouse, because a fox is already in the henhouse.

                  Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

                  by john de herrera on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:07:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You forget that the 1789 convention (0+ / 0-)

                    was charged only with modifying the Articles of Confederation. Constitutional conventions can do whaterver the hell they like, and in today's atmosphere enough people can be scared into passing their recommendations that we would be royally screwed.

                    For proof, only look at how many people support the idea that the right of habeas corpus (forcing the government to state why you are being held) is threatening to our safety. Or at the lack of outrage that American citizens, arrested on American soil, have been thrown into military brigs and held incommunicado and in isolation for years without being charged.

                    Asking for a convention to cure the current administration's abuse of power is like taking cyanie to cure a blister.

          •  A native of Philly, I keep track of the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Granny Doc

            great political cartoons of Inquirer's Tony Auth.

            Today's a doozy: Several black-robed individuals
            (SCOTUS, perhaps?) are depicted patching back together, not unlike a jigsaw puzzle, the torn 'n tattered bits of the Constitution!

            Luvs it sooo much, must send an appreciative email to Auth!

            Aloha   ..  ..  ..

      •  This is extremely dangerous, (5+ / 0-)

        As I am sure people have pointed out.

        It would be better to amend the constitution through normal methods I think, than throw open the entire thing to revision, which could be swayed and controlled by a few powerful interests.

        Rick
        08 Preference - Obama
        -9.63 -6.92
        Fox News - We Distort, You Deride

        by rick on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:34:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I made that point (0+ / 0-)

          on the Larry Sabato diary.  No one seemed to think it was salient...

          Some people are like blotters -- they soak it all up but get it all backward.

          by Granny Doc on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:35:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as i've told you numerous times now: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            liberalconservative, dolphin777

            the constitution cannot be thrown open. the article v convention is merely a civic ceremony which proposes ideas. those ideas cannot somehow accidentally become new law.

            ratification is set at 3/4. you need 38 states to agree to an idea before it becomes law. to get 3/4/ to agree is extremely difficult, in the meantime, the country gets to come together under the constitution--which is precisely what corporate power does not want to have happen. wake up granny doc.

            Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

            by john de herrera on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:56:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  John, I lived through the attempts (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Foxwizard, dolphin777

              to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.  I know full well that getting "good ideas" or "improvements" through a state legislature co-opted by the pols and Money Boys, is not easy.  There is no reason to believe that anything good could come of letting the same people who make our stupid laws, and rush to restrict our rights now, can be trusted to find enlightenment.

              Some people are like blotters -- they soak it all up but get it all backward.

              by Granny Doc on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:27:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  the very act of opening the convention (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Granny Doc, monkeybrainpolitics

              will undermine the rule of the (already weakened) constitutional framework. Today, when the Supreme Court has once again reaffirmed the right to habeas corpus, prsidential candidate McCain (and almost all the repug spokes-animals) are decrying it as unpatriotic and a threat to the country.

              What we have to realize is that we are still fighting facism, and facist zeal will out at a constitutional convention.

              Bannana Republics and dictatorships rewrite their constitutions frequently, in order to assure the continued rule of the corrupt.

              I really don't want that for our country. Neither should anyone else.

        •  there is only one "normal" method (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          liberalconservative, Granny Doc

          to amend the constitution: ratification. whether an amendment is proposed by the congress of corporate politicians, or a convention of citizen delegates is the only choice the constitution offers us.

          ratification is what amends, not the discussion of what to propose.

          you obviously do not know what you're talking about, or have not examined the process with some critical thought. i do not say this to be rude, i say so because it's important you know where your thinking fails in logic.

          a convention can only propose ideas. the convention clause has very limited powers, i.e. delegates place ideas on the table and go home. discussing an idea does not somehow accidentally turn into new and unwanted law.

          the u.s. constitution cannot be thrown open, so please erase that thought from your thinking. it's invalid and false.

          the only "powerful interests" which will have say in anything are 38 individual states agreeing to any one idea.

          http://www.foavc.org

          Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

          by john de herrera on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:50:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  the problem: Santa Clara v S Pacific RR (3+ / 0-)

        US Supreme Court held that a corporation is same as a person.  But corporations are way more powerful. Need to get this precedent overturned, and could do so be law, no amendment needed.

        •  This single event changed the course of our (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cathy Willey, madhaus, zett, Granny Doc

          nation's history.

          Prior to this action, corporations were approved by state or local governments, and given a charter to incorporate for a given reason, for a given time period - after which time, and after reasonable profits had been re-couped by investors, the corporation was disolved.

          Most importantly, the notion enshrined in modern discussion on Santa Clara v South Pacific RR always fail to assert the true facts -

          EXCERPT from Wikipedia

          The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims ... before oral argument took place, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

          This quotation was printed by the court reporter in the syllabus and case history above the opinion, but was not in the opinion itself. As such, it did not have any legal precedential value. Nonetheless, the persuasive value of Waite's statement did influence later courts.

          Thus did the rise of the Corporate Masters begin.

          Only a federal law, upheld by the Supreme Court, will reverse the modern american corporate stranglehold on the United States, in manners political, economic and environmental.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site