Of course I intimate towards the recent diary rhetorically asking if President Obama is stupid: http://www.dailykos.com/...
And then there was the one today about the progessive agenda: http://www.dailykos.com/...
In the latter diary there was this:
Help Poor People
Help Minorities
End Bogus War on Drugs
Universal Healthcare
Natural Resources Reform
National Income
Global Population Stability
National High Speed Rail
To which I replied:
Objectively (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:shaharazade, Nulwee
the only way to achieve anything on a Progressive agenda--seeing how multinational corporate power runs our elections and directs policy decisions, is through the Constitution--specifically the Article V Convention. With all we know to be true, calling for a federal convention is the litmus test of a genuine Progressive.
So--are you stupid? Daily Kos diarist Lenny Flank has written about who currently controls the agenda in part 10 of his diary series: http://www.dailykos.com/...
The decision-making body within the WTO is the Ministerial Conference, which consists of trade representatives from various countries (none of these representatives are elected by popular vote—they consist of corporate lawyers or trade officials that are appointed by their respective governments). Underneath the Ministerial Conference is the General Council, which forms various Committees to handle different areas of the economy. Representation within WTO is theoretically on a one-nation one-vote basis, but no actual votes seem to have ever been taken—most decisions are reportedly taken by small groups of economically-powerful nations (called "Green Room negotiations") and then presented to the rest as a fait accompli and adopted by consensus. Small nations realize they cannot even hope to engage in a trade war with the richer nations, and so have no choice but to agree with whatever is presented--in some reports, small nations who opposed some WTO rule were threatened with loss of IMF or World Bank funding if they continued to object....
Any WTO member may file a complaint against any law or policy (whether national, state or local) implemented by any other member. When a charge is filed, it goes to a panel made up of three members which meets in secret. There are no policies or regulations concerning conflict of interest or bias on the part of panel members....
Theoretically, the decisions of the three-member panel can be appealed to the WTO’s Ministerial Conference. In reality, however, no such appeal is possible, since the panel’s decision can only be overturned by a unanimous vote of the Conference—which of course includes the representative who just won the disputed ruling....
Although the citizens of democratic nations have no say in the making, interpretation or enforcement of any WTO rule or policy, the WTO has the authority to order any member nation to modify or withdraw any national law or policy that conflicts with WTO decisions. In addition, any national regulations in areas such as environment, workplace safety, product safety, labor laws, etc., must be "least trade restrictive"—in other words, if WTO decides unilaterally that the same aim could be done with a more business-friendly policy, then the regulation is ruled to be "more burdensome than necessary" and is an illegal violation of free trade. In WTO hearings, the argument that a given policy is necessary "for the public good" is specifically disallowed.... In essence, the WTO has literal veto power over the democratically-decided public laws of any member nation. And indeed in many cases, the WTO has actively forced nations, including the United States, to modify or withdraw laws that they had passed through the democratic process....
We already know multinational corporations spend unlimited amounts on political speech. Is it unreasonable to say then multinational corporations--its brain-trust the WTO--thus controls public opinion/elections here in the United States and worldwide? If so, why should those forces fear talk of a convention here in America? Because they can't control the political dynamic of a convention--it takes on a life of its own--consensus--a non-binding referendum.
Slowly enslaved by institutionalized corruption, for fear of a non-binding referendum? Of course I can't tell the future--but the common refrain against the Article V Convention is: A Constitutional Convention would be Co-opted by Corrupt Corporatists and Crazy Christians.
- Once called, a Constitutional Convention becomes its own authority and cannot be limited;
- A corollary to the point above is that a Con-Con may become a "runaway convention" that drastically alters our form of government, or throws out the Constitution altogether and establishes an entirely new system of governance.
- It is absurd to believe that a majority (or even a sizable minority) of the individuals likely to be delegates to a Con-Con today would compare favorably with our nation’s Founders or share their commitment to liberty and limited government.
- The general public’s understanding of our Constitution has deteriorated greatly, while dependence on government programs has dramatically escalated since our founding, with both of these factors militating for bigger and bigger government.
The Framers did not place a self-destruct button in their masterwork. The Article V Convention does not become its own authority, in fact it’s strictly limited to proposing amendments "...to this Constitution...." If a delegate or group of delegates wanted to re-write the Constitution (the Seven Articles), they’d first have to propose an amendment allowing for that, go out and get it ratified by 38 states, then come back to draft a new constitution (and then get that ratified).
Does anyone believe an amendment allowing for the re-writing of the Constitution would be ratified today? Unlike most political situations the minority controls the process: to stop any amendment is a nay in 13 state legislatures, or more specifically, a nay vote in one house of each of those legislatures, or even more specifically, a nay vote in a committee of one of the houses. As those committees are run by chairs, a nay vote can be obtained with no more than 13 people, and the constitutional proposal will await ratification in vain.
In addition to that safety--consider this: a federal convention convened would contrast sharply with the modus operandi within Congress. It would be a unicameral assembly, with no conference committees required to reconcile divergent House/Senate bills. Nor would a supermajority of two-thirds be required: rather a simple majority to propose an Amendment to the States for ratification. There would be no labyrinth of autonomous standing committees, with autocratic chairmen, to pass through; and no Filibuster to overcome. Salutary checks and balances would be deferred until proposals reach the States, and again, where three-fourths 38 States would have to ratify anything emerging from "...a convention for proposing Amendments...."
Then consider the process of electing delegates:
Delegates will be elected to their positions of office. In Hawke v Smith (253 U.S. 221 (1920)) the Supreme Court addressed the issue when it discussed ratification conventions saying: "Both method of ratification, by Legislatures or conventions, call for action by deliberative assemblages representative of the people...." The court thus defined what the word "conventions" meant in the text of the Constitution: deliberative assemblages representative of the people, and equates that with legislatures, all of whom are representatives elected by the people of the state.
Beyond this, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause as well as Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution make it clear that all citizens are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must be citizens of the United States and that they must be elected to that office. The Fourteenth Amendment creates two citizenships for all citizens of the United States: citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside or, state citizenship. Citizens, whether elected to Congress or to an Article V Convention receive, as a result of that election, the privilege to offer amendments to the Constitution and therefore the 14th Amendment requires that both sets of citizens, members of Congress and delegates to a convention must receive equal protection under the law. This means as members of Congress are elected and receive the privilege to offer amendment proposals, delegates who are given the same privilege to offer amendment proposals, must also be elected.
Such elections will be about how to alter the status quo via amendment--not vague rhetoric of change. The constitutional process itself is more important than whether or not 38 states can agree today. The process returns us to the Constitution and educates us. Article V Convention delegates don’t need to reinvent the wheel--they just need to offer up some non-partisan ideas. We do that here on Daily Kos all the time.
Consider that the dynamic of a convention is one of complete openness. If someone proposes an amendment to strip corporations of personhood, those who slander that idea will expose themselves for who and what they are. Everyone knows it's common sense that allowing a legal fiction the same rights as a living/breathing person is a dangerous proposition. Yet, the WTO is a real organization, with real people, making real decisions, all in secret--and they don't want a convention.
This link is the database of state applications for the Article V Convention, all fifty have applied, and thus according to the rule of law, it's currently mandated, it's just a matter of getting enough Americans signed on to the idea: http://foavc.org/...
These articles by Justices Van Sickle and Brennan provide an overview on the matter--some out of date, but you can read between the lines. In the true spirit of a Progressive, print them, read them, learn how to talk about a convention with others, and share the idea:
http://www.foa5c.org/...
http://www.foa5c.org/...
http://www.foa5c.org/...
There is such thing as an invalid opinion--you realize that, don’t you? Any Progressive with half a brain, and who has been paying attention to the last decade of American politics, knows well the gig is up. Multinational corporate power is Anti-Progressive. Yet if we held a federal convention today, operating on standard parliamentary procedure--a deliberative assembly which cannot ratify whatever suffers debate--it is through that process consensus will be built to break the status quo and the lock corporate funding has on governance. Whether or not 38 states could agree to ratify anything coming out of a convention--again--it’s the constitutional process of convoking and convening one which will return is to the Constitution and educate us all about what it means--that this is government for the people, by the people--not government for Anti-Progressive forces, by such forces.
http://www.articlevconvention.org (coming soon)
On a personal note, today I turned in final edits to book I've been working on for some time--a translation of the plays Hamlet and Macbeth.