Add a Comment

Comment by Mark E. Smith on March 13, 2012 at 11:09

 Petition for Redress? Which king, dictator, or tyrant are you petitioning for redress, Ruffrbear? Kingt George? Julius Caesar? Josef Stalin? Crawling on your knees to beg favor of your rulers is not action, it is abject submission. If they cared about you, they wouldn't have abused you in the first place and you wouldn't have to beg them to be more merciful. Besides which, they won't, no matter how abjectly you beg.

I didn't call for you to be hung from a lamppost. I merely predicted that when people see you for the anti-Occupy, anti-direct-democracy, pro-hierarchical-government agent you are, that's is what is likely to happen.

So have you explained to the Supreme Court that they don't have the power to interpret the Constitution and that therefore money isn't speech? Or are you still asking Congress to allow you to hold a Convention where you'll pretend that you have some power that the Supreme Court can't or won't overrule?

You belief, trust, and faith in the 1% and their wholly-owned governmental institutions is despicable and not at all in keeping with the Occupy movement.

Occupy will either restore power to the people, or it will fail and the 1% will continue to rule. There is no possible compromise where the 1% will continue to rule but do so a bit more benevolently because you petitioned them to do so. They wouldn't wipe their elite asses with your petitions.

Occupy is nonpolitical and most Occupies have issued Statements of Autonomy that they will not get involved in the political process. Your irrational belief that there must be some way, if only enough people got together and worked for enough decades to accomplish it, to work within the system, is designed only to undermine Occupy and perpetuate the corrupt system.

You are fully aware that the States have submitted the required number of petitions to Congress many,many times, and that you don't have any more votes in Congress now to allow such a Convention than they did before--in fact there are a lot fewer votes now because more politicians are beholden to corporations.

In a democratic system of government where power was vested in the hands of the people, the Constitution would say that the people have the right to vote directly for ALL their representatives, and to directly recall those representatives any time that they fail to represent their constituents, that the votes must be counted and must be verifiable, and that the popular vote is the final say and cannot be nullified or overturned by any elected or appointed governmental body, as no servants of the people have the power to overrule the will of the people. Many countries have Constitutions which say precisely that. The US does not.

You cannot bring about a democratic form of government by amending a Constitution that established an undemocratic form of government. We need a new Constitution that vests power in the hands of the people, even if you are fearful of what the people might do. As if we would kill as many millions of innocents as our current government does, or steal as many trillions of dollars, or take away our own civil and human rights. You're not really afraid of such absurd notions, you're afraid that the system you represent, the system of corporate rule you trust, believe in, and abjectly petition, might lose power to the Occupy movement. And you are correct to be afraid, because that is exactly what is going to happen in spite of you, and you and your kind will have to learn to become responsible citizens instead of whiny children asking mommy and daddy government for the convention car keys.

Comment by Ruffbear7 on March 13, 2012 at 10:17

We seem to have been operating under two distinct definitions of what it means to "interpret" the Constitution. You have been talking of the narrower idea of jurisdiction whereas I have been talking about the broader idea of the constitutionality of laws and actions resulting from the exercise of the powers granted under the Constitution. The SCOTUS usually attempts to avoid interpreting the Constitution in cases that arise under that document. Any textbook on the SCOTUS or American national government explains this distinction and the importance of being able to rule a law or action unconstitutional, which was not established in the document itself but rather the case of Marbury v. Madison.

How can you say "there is no way to force" Congress to call a convention when no one until this year has ever made the attempt?

You called for my hanging from a lamppost, Mr. Smith. I do not "think" you are threatening violence. You did so.

Since you have been so arrogantly incorrect in comprehending my views so far, it is no wonder you dismiss the path I propose as lacking in direct democracy. In the Proposed Petition for Redress and Pledge of Action, I was the first in the Occupy movement to include that last part, a pledge of action by people signing on to the petition. Previous declarations of grievances issued by Occupy did not ask those who agreed with their grievances to step up and become a part of the remedy. So, in fact, I have been calling for direct democracy since I wrote the Proposed Petition on 8 November 2011.

Comment by Mark E. Smith on March 13, 2012 at 4:07

Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America, Ruffbear, states that the judicial power vested in the Supreme Court by Article II, Section 1, "...shall extend in all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."

Judicial power is the power to decide and interpret the law, and in cases arising from the Constitution this means interpreting the Constitution.

There cannot be a case arising under the Constitution unless there is a dispute as to what the Constitution says. In cases of such disputes, the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the sole power to decide how to interpret the Constitution.

Are limited reading comprehension skills a requirement for a teaching certificate?

Enough states have submitted petitions to Congress to hold an Article V convention many times, but Congress has declined to do so. There is no way to force them to do so. All you can do is try to elect more representatives who will represent your interests instead of the interests of the 1%, until, hopefully, in a century or two, if the government stops rigging the elections and the Supreme Court allows the votes to be counted, there will be a majority who will listen to you, and unless you have more billions of dollars to spend on mass media campaigns than the 1%, that is not going to happen.

You think I'm threatening violence? All I did was predict what will happen when people see your true establishment motives. If you want to see a threat of violence, read the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, the original Occupy statement did say "in the spirit of direct democracy." Your proposal is neither in the sense, nor the substance, no less the spirit of direct democracy. Your proposal is to reject direct democracy and to stick with politics as usual because it has always worked for you in the past and you believe it will continue to do so in the future. You are not in solidarity with the spirit of direct democracy, you oppose it because you think it would involve too much work. Of course it would involve a lot less work and has a lot more chance of success than your Article V convention, but then logic was never your strong point.

Comment by Ruffbear7 on March 13, 2012 at 2:38

Mr. Smith, you can read the U.S. Constitution for as long as you want. You will never find the SCOTUS granted the authority to interpret the Constitution. It is not there. You are the one stating falsehoods, not I.

I said nothing of Congress allowing an Article V convention. It is mandated by the Constitution if enough states submit petitions to hold one.The ratification process can take decades. It also can take months. The SCOTUS has never interpreted any part of the U.S. Constitution the exact opposite of what was written, so I doubt it will begin doing so now. It has, as in Citizens United, interpreted the Constitution in ways that stretch the meaning beyond common sense and reasonable judgment. So, since I don't believe your hyperbole regarding how long it takes to amend the Constitution, it stands to reason that I find the amendment process quite satisfactory to address the issue presented to us now.

The first statement of Occupy did include that language at the end of a very long description of the socioeconomic ills that plague our country and require justice. Note that even the quotation you offer speaks of the "spirit" of direct democracy, not of requiring direct democracy. The approach I and others are taking demand direct democracy to drive the elucidation of the issues and the crafting of the remedies; they use the structures of representative democracy to organize and strengthen the enactment of resolutions based on the will of the people. And that is where you clearly do not understand. We operate from the principle that the people will actively participate in civil discourse and become engaged citizens again. We are far from lazy, Mr Smith. We are the breath that will reanimate our political system. And we will do all of this without threatening violence as you so carelessly do in your last paragraph.

Comment by Mark E. Smith on March 13, 2012 at 2:00

If it wasn't the Constitution, Ruffbear, what then was it that gave the Supreme Court the power to grant itself more power than had been granted to it by the Constitution? It was because the Constitution granted it the sole power to interpret the Constitution. Stands to reason that you are a teacher, since you are spreading nothing but ignorance and lies.

As for asking Congress for permission to allow you to have an Article V convention to attempt to appeal a Supreme Court ruling, I already explained to you that the process of ratification can take decades and still might not be successful, but that even if it is, the Supreme Court can then "interpret" the new amendment to mean the exact opposite of what it clearly says, and you'd have to start all over with another decades long effort to hold another Article V convention to attempt to appeal that new decision.

You're okay with that, apparently, as you don't seem to think that change is needed within the next few centuries.

The first official statement of Occupy Wall Street said, "To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal." Are you saying that it was not an official statement and that direct democracy is not the goal of Occupy? That the real goal of Occupy is the Democratic or Libertarian Party and the electoral system funded by the 1%?

The goal of economic and social justice is not just for the white middle-class US citizen, but also for the billions of people that neoliberal capitalist imperialism is exploiting and murdering worldwide.

If working within the system could bring about change, there would be no need for an Occupy movement, we could all just vote for Congressional puppets more likely to be amendable to allowing your to hold an Article V convention. Of course they may not have time to consider it, since the President will be busy starting wars without consulting them and demanding that they fund those wars with your tax dollars. But since you're voting to allow them the power to make such decisions, so that you can avoid the hard work involved with direct democracy, we all just have to stuff our dreams and settle for satisfying your lazy ass.

One of these days people are going to see you for what you are, a system toadie, and you'll be hung from a lamppost along with those you consider competent to make everyone's decisions for us because you voted for them.

Comment by Ruffbear7 on March 12, 2012 at 16:26

You know very little of constitutional law and political change movements or you would not have cited the examples you cite or state that the Founders invested the SCOTUS with the authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution. You would flunk my American Government final. I need only look at Deng Xiaoping's reforms in China in the 1980's and the transformation of eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall to find political change movements that peacfully used the existing structures to create new, democratic ways of giving the people a voice in decision making. The authority of SCOTUS to be the last say in constitutional interpretation was established by the decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1804 by the SCOTUS itself, not by the Founders. Moreover, their judgment can be appealed through the Article V amendment process. The Article V effort underway by the Occupy movement is based on the theory that Congress is required to call a convention if three-quarters of the states ask for one; petitions are on file with the National Archives to meet that requirement and the Attorney General is investigating a complaint filed to verify. It would be in this administration's interest to allow an Article V convention to proceed, so odds are it will happen. Occupy will be ready by then to educate and influence the American people in how to go about setting up that convention and running it. Last, I will point out that the goal of the Occupy movement is not direct democracy, it is economic justice for the 99 percent. By obtaining that justice, the 99 percent also regain control of their political system. Should the 99 pecent choose to reform that system to include greater direct democracy, that would be most pleasing. However, direct democracy takes a lot of work (ask the Swiss) and tends to be rather conservative, so I'd be careful of what you wish for.

Comment by Mark E. Smith on March 12, 2012 at 12:22

Ruffbear, you are working to get Congress to allow an Article V convention without allowing Congress to set the terms of the convention? Why would Congress allow a convention if it can't set the terms for that convention? Do you think that Congress exists to serve the common good instead of its own self-interests?

You cannot ask the tyrant to stop being a tyrant, because tyrants happen to enjoy being tyrants and aren't likely to stop being tyrants just because you ask them nicely in accordance with all their tyrannical rules and protocols. You either have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people (direct democracy), or you have  government of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%, as we have, which is called a "representative democracy" although the only people it represents are the 1%.

Getting Occupiers to agree to working within the system instead of opposing the system would be a great help to the system.

It wouldn't matter if you got every single US citizen to agree with you, the President and Congress do not allow public opinion to influence policy decisions, have said so openly many times in various administrations, and they don't have the choice of embracing change because if they did, their big donors, the corporations and the 1%, would pull the billions of dollars in funding that they need to get elected in a country where they don't represent the will of the people and have a less than 10% approval rating. For those not good at math, that means that 90% of US citizens already don't approve of government.

As for those "successful peaceful political change movements" you claim used the system to change the system, please tell me what they were, where and when they happened, and what they succeeded in changing. I do know that the colonists petitioned King George for reforms, but it took war to get those reforms. I do know the Abolitionists petitioned government to end slavery, but it took war before it happened. Not even the vote was obtained without violence, but by the time that blacks and women got the vote, the government had already stopped counting the votes and had substituted the results it wanted for the actual results.

So do you bank with and purchase shares in Bank of America, Wells Fargo, CityBank, and other big banks in order to bring about change within instead of avoiding those structures?

As anarchist Emma Goldman, who was deported for being the most dangerous woman in the US, said over a hundred years ago, "If voting could change anything, they'd make it illegal."

The Article V Convention effort is great for getting donations and selling t-shirts, but it won't bring about change because it has to ask Congress for permission and Congress doesn't want change. Also there's the little matter of the Constitution having been written in such a way as to ensure that those who owned the country, the 1%, would always run the country, and so that the government, not the people, would always have the final say.

Even if you giot your convention, the Amendment passed, and within ten or twenty years of passing was ratified by the States, the Supreme Court could still interpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it clearly says. Since the Supreme Court has the sole power to interpret the Constitution and their decisions cannot be appealed, if they decide that your amendment means the exact opposite of what it clearly states, there's nothing that you, your children, or your grandchildren can do about it.

You are attempting to work within a system that was designed to ensure that you would never be able to do any such thing. Rather than vesting supreme power over government in the hands of the people, as would be the case in any democratic form of government by definition, the Framers of the Constitution vested supreme power in something they mockingly called a "supreme court," knowing that the mob and rabble would be too stupid and ignorant to understand what they had done.

The goal of the Occupy movement is direct democracy. Your goal is to reform representative "democracy" and is not in agreement with the stated goal of Occupy.

Comment by Ruffbear7 on March 12, 2012 at 11:40

You do not understand me correctly. People are working on an Article V convention whereby the standards and conditions under which the President and Congress are elected are changed to reflect the will of the people, not of the corporations. And they are trying to determine how to do this without relying on Congress to set the terms of the convention (the President having no say in the amendment process). At the same time, we are trying to demonstrate that the Occupiers have the support of the American people in proposing these changes by asking them to agree to the Proposed Petition. That initiative opens our lines of communication with the American people, communicates to them what the Occupiers are all about, and asks them to not only signal they agree with us but also stand ready to participate in effecting the changes we are seeking. If we can use our resources to get tens of millions of Americans to agree to the change the Occupiers have identified as being needed, the President and Congress will have the options of either embracing and facilitating that change or going against the will of the American people. The most successful peaceful political change movements in history have used the structures at hand to effect the change they desire rather than tearing down or avoiding those structures.

Comment by Mark E. Smith on March 12, 2012 at 11:04

Excuse me, Ruffbear, but do I understand you correctly to be saying that there are people "working to change the standards and conditions under which the Congress and President are elected," by voting in elections where the standards and conditions have not yet been changed?

Isn't that like ordering chocolate ice cream, and when you're given vanilla instead, you eat it anyway in hopes that it might just change itself into chocolate?

If you vote in elections where the standards and conditions are not to your liking, how would anyone ever guess that you're doing something you don't like to do?

A diversity of tactics is great if all the tactics have the same goal. But if the goal is chocolate and one of the tactics will only and always result in vanilla, it isn't a diversity of tactics, it is working against our own goal.

Apathy is hoping for change while voting in elections that are designed to perpetuate the status quo. #Boycott2012

Apathy is casting ballots you know don't have to be counted, because you don't really care if your vote is counted or not. #Boycott2012

Apathy is voting to give people the power to ignore you, and then asking them not to. #Boycott2012

Apathy is knowing that no matter who wins the election there will be more war, but voting anyway because you don't really care. #Boycott2012

Apathy is voting for elected officials to make all your decisions for you because you've got more important things to do. #Boycott2012

Apathy is claiming to oppose Citizens United but voting in elections funded by billions of corporate dollars. #Boycott2012

Apathy is voting for a President you hope might appoint Supreme Court justices who won't take your reproductive rights. #Boycott 2012

Apathy is voting to elect people you hope won't bail out the banks at your expense, but who always will. #Boycott2012

Apathy is voting to delegate to government the power & authority to decide whether or not to assassinate you without trial. #Boycott2012

Apathy is voting to give the government the power to suppress civil dissent while thinking that you can express civil dissent by voting. #Boycott2012

Comment by Ruffbear7 on March 12, 2012 at 10:07

And there are Occupiers working to change the standards and conditions under which the Congress and President are elected so the people's voice can be heard more clearly, which means ending the corporatocracy, by interweaving elements of direct democracy in the present system. What say you of them? Are they "genuine" by your standards? When were you chosen to determine what constitutes a "genuine" Occupier? Has this definition been submitted to a vote under your own standards of direct democracy? It's one thing to call for a course of action within the movement that varies from that which others are taking. It is quite another to attempt to purify the movement by deciding who remains a part of it based on the courses of action they choose to support. What Mr. Smith puts forth is an argument for weeding out the movement, just as others have done in political change movements throughout history. Haven't we learned by now that our strength comes from the diversity of our viewpoints and the range of remedies we offer to correct the course of our nation? Why exclude so early in our history, when we are still finding out who we are as a movement? We should be confirming who our allies are at this stage, not labeling them as "not genuine."

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 16
• Next ›
• Page