Would you support the implementation of a legal mechanism whereby...

...the U.S. citizenry can, as a collective, invoke the right to take direct control of legislative matters/issues when they feel their Congress has failed them?

----------------------------------------------------

The People's Crusade of Mike Gravel

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader05082007.html

--SNIP--

For over a decade, given the failures of elected politicians, Mike Gravel has been engaged in some extraordinary research and consultations with leading constitutional law experts about the need to enact another check to the faltering checks and balances--namely, the National Initiative for Democracy, a proposed law that empowers the people as lawmakers.

Before you roll your eyes over what you feel is an unworkable utopian scheme, go to http://nationalinitiative.us to read the detailed constitutional justification for the sovereign right of the people to directly alter their government and make laws.

Among other legal scholars, Yale Law School Professor, Akhil Reed Amar and legal author, Alan Hirsch, have argued that the Constitution recognizes the inalienable right of the American people to amend the Constitution directly through majority vote. What the Constitution does not do is spell out the procedures for such a sovereign right.

The right of the People to alter their government flows from the Declaration of Independence, the declared views of the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, its Preamble ("We the People of the United States.do ordain and establish this Constitution,"), Article VII and other provisions, including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments...

that would make the changes that we all would vote on?

I like the constitution as it is... or was prior to 2000.

...Our right to take direct control already exists -- the details of how it would be implemented are what is needed.

Philadelphia II NOT be infiltrated and corrupted by criminals such as we already have in this admin? What are the checks on this new group's power? This just adds another layer over what we have already.

Sorry but securing the right to vote is more on my mind than adding another layer of bureaucracy to Washington.

...could strip away bureaucracy.

If citizens had exercised direct control over new voting legislation after the 2000 fiasco rather than leave it in the hands of our House of Corporate Puppets, don't you think we'd already have a secure system we can trust in place by now?

Here we are in 2007, STILL without what should be basic to any democracy: a secure, verifiable, accurate, vote casting and tallying system. Why is that? I think it's pretty clear it's because our supposed representatives simply do NOT represent us. They represent their corporate donors/keepers. What good choices does that leave us with other than exercising our right to take direct control?

the initiative process has gone hog wild. It seems that every year, there is a new initiative on the ballot "letting" the people vote on things that the legislature should be deciding.

I'd rather our representatives just do their freakin' jobs.

... I would rather they did their jobs too, but the reality of our current situation is they DON'T.

They report to and serve big corporate America and other special interest groups. That's the reality of our present situation.

So we would be turning over gov't to those activists who vote. That scares me too much.

Complacency wins in most elections. We can't afford to turn our gov't over to a minority of loud voices.

Gay Marriage, flag burning, anything the media can get people worked up about .... my guess is we would have slavery back pronto

...REAL health care, tax reform, immigration policy, budgetary allocations, etc, etc.

Corporate owned media doesn't own me, do they own you?

I don't think you're allowing yourself to imagine REAL citizen control as a realistic possibility. As if it would only be a slight alteration to a system still run by our Corporatocracy. If an organized, energized, informed citizenry ever gets direct control of legislative matters our Corporatocracy will be no more.

The anti abortion activists can get more voters to the polls with their hysteria than the reasoned voters can in some elections. The single issue voters will carry the day. It is a bad idea.

...over the years on the abortion issue, and to my knowledge, the population at large has consistently supported a woman's right to choose.

Are you suggesting that our corporate owned representatives are more likely to more often vote the people's interests on important legislative matters than the people themselves would? That just doesn't make sense to me.

That Pro-Choice voters are less likely to visit the polls. We have seen what the hysterical RW can do on gay rights. We can assume that they will do the same thing if abortion is on the ballot.

...on the Abortion issue and what you fear came to pass -- ALL abortions anywhere in the U.S. made illegal. How much time do you think would pass before the people started to realize what bad legislation this was, revisit it, and reverse it?

If polls were accurate, the majority of Americans supported our invasion of Iraq four years ago -- how do you think they'd vote if they had direct control to bring our troop home now or very soon? Virtually everybody knows we made a serious mistake.

The notion that we leave our fate in the hands of bought and paid for corporate puppets, because if we take control ourselves we, as a collective, might make some mistakes (maybe some bad ones) is not a compelling argument.

We make mistakes, we learn, we correct them, we try not to make them again. I would say leaving our fate in the hands of House of Corporate Puppets is a mistake that we can ill-afford not to correct -- and if not by direct intervention, then how?

...Organizations like MoveOn got people to turn out in droves for the '04 elections, setting record numbers.

How do you think being able to vote directly on issues, as opposed to just choosing which corporate puppet gets to hold a seat, might effect turnout?

There arte better ways to improve the system without tearing it down.

...The constitution already provides for people to take direct control, what it does not provide is the mechanism for how this would work -- that's what's needed.

How would working out these details of giving people direct control over legislative matters amount to tearing anything down?

Our Constitution provides for a representative democracy. Where do you find authority for direct referendum and initiative?

specifically to the question of referendum.

From the editorial:

... The right of the People to alter their government flows from the Declaration of Independence, the declared views of the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, its Preamble ("We the People of the United States.do ordain and establish this Constitution,"), Article VII and other provisions, including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments...

From the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I know this is does not provide the specific kind of language you're looking for, as I'm not a constitutional lawyer/scholar. I would think that it is implied in a representative democracy such as ours that the people would surely be within their rights to empower themselves to act as a their own "collective" representative if and when they so choose, on whatever matters they like.

That is what I mean by "tearing down". If we must destroy part of our representative democracy to allow single issue voters to run this country, I'm against it.

...to iron out the details of how it would work. I don't see how that, in and of itself, amounts to a tearing down.

If specific language allowing for referendum were already in the Constitution, would you then be supportive of the idea of citizens having direct control on some legislative matters?

Note: I misspoke in post #3, an Amendment certainly qualifies as an alteration, my bad.

We would have a track record on which to base our opinions. But it is not and we do not.

What we have is the story of Gay Marriage referendums that the RW put on every ballot available in the last two elections. The result was overwhelming defeat for Gay Marriage in most cases. It also got the RW hysterics out in force. That is no way to run a country.

Your proposal has strong appeal to single issue voters, but no appeal to those of us who vote for principles rather than issues.

...for cutting the people out of the process. Would you only want the people to be permitted to decide an issue when they decide the way you think they should? That's NOT democracy.

It has worked for two hundred years. It is not perfect, but I don't believe that your ideas are any better than those of our founding fathers. Just because it doesn't work the way you want it too doesn't mean we need a change.

...the illusion of representative democracy. To the degree that elected representatives no longer serve the interests of the people, but instead choose consistently to serve their corporate sponsors/donors and other special interests at the peoples expense, and very often contrary to their interests, then, we no longer have representative democracy -- what we have is, for lack of a better term, a Corporatocracy.

Do you not see where our nation is headed under this system? We're on the path to becoming a totalitarian state. BushCo has accelerated our speed down that path, but, truth be known, we were already on it.

If we learn nothing else from history we should learn that either the citizenry takes control of their government or their government will take control of them. How would you say that lesson applies to our current state of affairs?

That this is just one swing of the pendulum?

Remember Teddy Roosevelt who was known for his trust busting? Remember FDR who was known for his socialistic programs? I guess not.

One of the MAJOR problems with your proposal is that it empowers people who have shortsightedness and hysterical devotion to a cause.

We have a government that works slowly because that was the way it was designed to work. The pendulum swings slowly, but it does swing.

...totalitarianism as a "swing of the pendulum," not without some means by which to swing it back.

I think I remember Pre-WWII Germany having something of a representative democracy. Would you regard their evolution toward the totalitarian state as a "swing of the pendulum" too? Do we have to be conquered by the international community and then rebuilt before it swings back?

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Maybe you didn't notice but the pendulum began its reversal with the election of 2006. You can remember that far back can't you?

...So it's your supposition that we were on the path toward becoming a totalitarian state prior to November of 2006, but have since reversed course and are headed back toward becoming a truly representative democracy?

The first part of that statement is your supposition. The second part is just stuff you made up. I think it is called a straw man argument.

My supposition is that we were trending toward more conservative government. Now we are trending toward more liberal government.

Maybe you should spend more time reading about our government and less time talking about it. It goes back to that old saying about keeping your mouth shut and being thought a fool or opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

...Can you identify the things/changes which have occurred since November of 2006 that have lead you to conclude we are "trending toward more liberal government?"

But the President is not getting the blank check funding for the occupation of Iraq that he asked for. I think that is pretty significant.


Both the House and Senate have begun extensive oversight hearings. The agenda of the House and Senate are controlled by the Democrats now. That is also significant.

You really should keep up with what's going on.

...but I don't see how any of what you've cited makes a case for movement toward a more liberal governing philosophy.

BushCo is a bunch of criminal thugs bent on taking, and holding indefinitely, Iraq and probably Iran's vast oil reserves. What you've cited are the Dems hopefully sincere efforts to stop them.

Challenging criminality is not, in and of itself, indicative of conservative or liberal philosophy.

You are shortsighted and emotionally, almost hysterically, devoted to a single issue.

Our government was designed to change slowly. I'm sorry that doesn't fit your agenda. But you have demonstrated why it is a bad idea to change it.

...You say our government was "designed to change slowly." Would you say our government's been changing slowly (as designed) over the past 6 years or so? And if not, would this not serve as evidence that it isn't working as it was designed?

Or am I just being shortsighted and hysterical again?

Exactly which Article and section of the Constitution covers this. The preamble of the Constitution does not have legal standing.

Of course the popular vote can make laws that are unconstitutional and it happens a lot. Prop 187 was the biggest act of shooting yourself in the foot that the repukes ever did here. It put in a near permanent Democratic control of the state legislature.

Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it the best thing to do.

...I'm sure the collective citizenry would, on occasion, pass some bad legislation, but it wouldn't be because they're crooked or serving the interests of corporate entities.

When it became clear bad legislation was passed, the people could replace it with something better. The point is it would be in our hands, not the hands of make pretend representatives who don't really serve us.

registered voters in this country to make that viable.

...voter registration if people thought they would be able to weigh in directly on issues/legislation that's important to them?

I don't see a strong argument for discarding the notion of citizen direct control in not currently having as many people registered as we'd like. You could make the same argument for not letting the people choose the President and leaving that decision in the hands of House of Corporate Puppets too.

Westboro Baptist to name one, I dont want those people to be allowed in public much less make decisions. Now if they just came to me then yeah, it would be cool.

...matters because certain subset(s) of the citizenry might actually participate and legally influence the outcome on an issue so it goes differently from what you would've liked, is to reject democracy itself. It is in effect to say, "I trust big corporations to make decisions on important legislation more than the citizens themselves." I don't understand that.

Surely, you don't get your way on every issue under our current Corporatocracy? Do you really think citizens deciding important legislative matters would be worse?

In principle, direct democracy is a great idea but in practice, it's let down by the stupidity of the general public. There's this wonderful misconception that voters take their time, examine the issues and vote for teh candidate whose opinions most closely match their own. Which sounds nice except for the fact it's total horseshit. A person might do that as an individual but people as a mass are dumb, stupid, panicky, not very clever, actually resentful of cleverness and often just plain cruel.

Need some evidence? How about the fact that Barrack Obama's charisma and winning smile gets more attention that his policy positions or experiance? Or that John Edwards haircut is somehow a matter of public debate? Or that many people still believe An Inconvienient Truth was a pack of lies and Al Gore's home is an ecologist's nightmare (which wouldn't affect his arguement, even if true)? Or that Dennis Kucinich can't get taken seriously because he's a short guy, not especially good looking and not an especially wonderful public speaker?

Face facts, this is the era of perception politics, where people are elected for how they look and what they are (black, white, Christian, Jewish, athiest) rather than for what they think and do. This is the era of soundbite politics, where giving a passionate, articulate address is less important than getting a zing line in before the commercial (which is what sunk Kerry, he couldn't talk in soundbites). This is the era of pious politics, where saying the right words is more important than doing the right thing and anything can be excused if you can twist Scripture around it.

Yes, one could blame the media for that and that would be true to an extent but the people have accepted it; they have allowed themselves to be lulled to sleep by the siren call of Desperate Housewives and American Idol (and as a Brit, we're really sorry for passing that show to you). They have accepted it and therefore, they must also accept a degree of the blame for it. That doesn't mean the general public are evil but they do have a very short attention span.

Direct democracy is a lovely idea. So was the plebiscite and chances are very good, it would end the same way.

...it's going to end, if our beloved representative democracy stays on the course it is currently on?

I see two possibilites and I swing between them depending on my mood, the day's news and whether I've taken my meds today.

Option 1 is a slow erosion of everythign America once stood for (already well underway). Seen (or read) V For vendetta? Something like that, would-be or outright fascists in power, corporatism running the nation (already done in large part) and teh majority of the peopel too distracted by teh traditional bread and circuses to notice or much care.

Option 2 is little better. In this one, the political divisions in the US become too violent to be contained and the union falls apart, eventually coalescing into several smaller nationstates. In truth, that might well happen eventually anyway since the US, like the Roman Empire, might well prove to be too big and varied to effectively govern as one nation.

Option 3 (which I very rarely think is possible) is for the Congress to grow some balls, kick the bastards out, re-impose the Fairness Doctrine and do something about the education system so that the public actually wake up from their opium (of the masses) dreams.

Yeah, I'm a pessimist or, more accuratly, a cynic.

Note that doesn't mean we stop fighting. Always, always fight, if only so we can look at ourselves in a mirror.

...can't bring myself to give up on 3, if we could just somehow wrest control of House and Senate members away from corporate interests. I guess direct citizen participation is really more about going around them.

V for Vendetta or Very likely America's future, I'm afraid.

In the words of a great man: "We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them on the shores, we shall fight them in the streets and in the towns and we shall never surrender".

We have to fight. Always, always fight. If they knock you down, get back up. If they cripple you, bite their ankles. The dream is more important than the dreamer and if the dream is worth fighting for, worth dying for (as all good dreams are), then it moves beyond you. The world is changing, we are changing. Every second of every day, we move a little closer to perfection, stumbling and falling, taking the occasional wrong turn but like all things, we strive and like ripples in a pond, the dream moves outward, always spreading and the powerful thing about dreams is that they can beat me down, they can imprison or kill me but they can't kill us. We are all Edmond Dantes, we are all Evey Hammond and we are all Tom Joad.

In the words of another great man: "You can stop a revolutionary but you can't stop a revolution".