I read something in the paper this weekend. To praphrase, the corporation you work for will soon be able to tell you whether you're allowed to eat donuts on the weekend. If you want to be covered by its insurance policy.
Do we really want this? I know some people do, but they're a tiny percent of the total population.
An e-mail sent off recently. I don't care. Steal it if you want. I just want to see the movie.
Dear [blank],
As you know, the status quo, and injustice caused by it, is systemic. A particular symptom you're knowledgeable about is the medical system, but whatever symptom one is focused on--whatever policy issue or legality--they're all tied to the "supreme law." Whether it be how to dispose of paint in Oregon, how to apply for a tractor license in Texas, or how a corporation is required to test a new drug--all laws and political action are tied directly to the U.S. Constitution.
Having traveled the country in making documentaries (sixty days on the 2002 Olympic Torch Route, another sixty days on the 2004 presidential campaign), and in discussing politics, the conversation often ends with someone saying, "Well, there is no silver bullet." I heard this quote once again this year when I went to Chicago at YearlyKos, but when those old guys with funny hair and weird clothes sat down to write the Constitution--that was their intention: to create a silver bullet, so that should institutionalized corruption and/or tyranny come about, any future generation of Americans experiencing such could escape it. Yes, the framers were wealthy, white, slave-owners, but they knew the enterprise they were creating would need a tune-up every now and then. It's not so important to know who wrote the document, as much as it is to know what the thing says.
The specific clause which contains the legal mechanism to break the status quo is the convention clause of Article V. Last year I was part of an effort that saw a federal suit go before the Supreme Court. The evidence in the suit is/was the Congressional Record, which shows there are over five hundred applications from all fifty states that have piled up over the years, and one Congress after another has failed to carry out its constitutional obligation and issue the call.
Since the lower court ruling stands, it's now law of the land that America will have an Article V Convention for proposing amendments when the politicians in Congress allow it. In other words, in terms of political science, as soon as fifteen to thirty million Americans catch on that it's time to dust off the Constitution and put it to work for us, the government will get out of the way.
For over fifty years Americans have been told if we hold a national convention, simply discussing things might somehow accidentally turn into new and unwanted law. In fact, like Pavlov's dog, when we hear the phrase "constitutional convention" we've been conditioned to perceive the event as the re-writing of the Constitution. This is not true in the least because the convention of delegates cannot ratify any of their ideas, they simply show up in the Capitol, place ideas on the table, and go home. Then a national discussion takes place about which ideas are best, and as soon as 75% of the states sign on to any one idea, it's ratified. With the country as polarized as it is today, likely the only thing to be ratified would be an amendment concerned with electoral reform. But then think about what the national discussion would do to the status quo. Think about what politicians with corporate money in their pockets would have to start talking about.
OK, so Americans have been conditioned to fear what we need most, and can't be told their assumptions are irrational and illogical--they have to be shown.
The best way to do that is to bring together 100 college students and
Robert's Rule of Order, have them carry out the convention clause, and
document it. Of the 100 students, of course a dozen or more will emerge as charismatic/leader types, place focus on them, and the country can fall in love with young Americans doing the quintessentially American thing. Besides the actual process of them building consensus, there'll of course be the human interest stories and comedy that'll emerge alongside, and that will make for entertainment. We take that documentary and enter it into all national, and international film festivals.
It's my opinion, based on research as a political/social scientist/activist, that doing exactly what I've stated has the best chance to capture the public's imagination and in turn break the status quo. I'm not in it for the money, but as an incentive to consider the idea, it has a decent chance of becoming an enduring documentary of American pop and political culture. There is no arguing that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of this nation, and when a project has it and a generation of Americans as the main focus, can you really go wrong?
Such a project will be fun to work on--it's the logical thing to do based on everything we know at this point. Also, as far as documentaries are concerned, this would be really simple to produce: fly the kids to a symbolic location (Arlington, Virginia, perhaps), rent out a ballroom for a weekend, and boom, we're done.
A previous documentary: http://www.articlev.org
I figure seventy/eighty grand has the potential to change the course of human civilization. Let me know your thoughts if you get a chance.