john
New Member
Texas-12
Posts: 39
|
Post by john on Jun 18, 2012 9:46:25 GMT -5
I have taken the first four items in the list of grievances and separated out the actual grievance from its possible solution. What do you think of this approach?
Corporations Are Not People [ok as is]
Corporations, unions, political organizations and all entities created by operation of law are not human beings and any law, rule, regulation or court ruling so holding must be overruled, repealed or overturned even if it requires a Constitutional amendment
Money Is Property Not Speech [ok as is]
Money is not speech it is property and any law, rule, regulation or court ruling so holding must be overruled, repealed or overturned even if it requires a Constitutional amendment.
People control of elections has been replaced with money control of elections
Solution:
New legislation to enact a 100% public campaign finance system requiring an immediate ban on all direct and indirect private contributions of money, or anything of value, from all sources including individuals, to all politicians or political parties to be replaced by a "blind" public trust whereby taxpayers will fund all federal election campaigns. Private donors may also contribute to the blind trust for a tax deduction but those private contributions may not be earmarked for a specific candidate or political party.
In the interim a total ban on corporate and union political expenditures to or in favor of political candidates or political parties or elections should be put into effect with limitations on individual contributions.
We do not have a single payer universal health care for all like all the non-third-world countries do. The profit motive drives decisions in health care.
Solution:
Repeal of prior healthcare laws and immediate enactment of "Medicare for all" or a new single-payer healthcare system. There are enough systems out there to provide models.
Citizens who are willing and able to work can't find jobs.
Solution:
Businesses hire when and only when their is demand, when people buy their products. Demand is the major determinant of job creation. Fund infrastructure maintenance. Tax incentives should to replace American Jobs with outsourced ones.
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jun 18, 2012 20:47:26 GMT -5
I like this approach. It shows that we have "real grievances", similar to the original Declaration of Independence, and that we have the ideas to resolve them, similar to our Constitution. Nice work!
|
|
|
Post by christopherabrown on Jun 19, 2012 13:49:29 GMT -5
The only problem is that under the First Amendment there is no authority to enact anything. No authority compelling legislation. No authority compelling officials in anyway.
A right to petition for redress of grievance is a right to complain, and that's all.
By only complaining and not recognizing universal solution, we may lose our opportunity to solve any problem then lose our right to complain having wasted it on complaint when the ultimate complaint or real solution is ignored and neglected.
Article V convention
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 19, 2012 16:55:02 GMT -5
John's complaints seem like real complaints, and by your own logic, using our document to petition for an article V doesn't hold any power either, and in my view is far less compelling than the grievances John listed because the rules surrounding an article V are murky, and there is a well-accepted reason why a convention hasn't been called, which I explain here: 99declaration.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gld&action=display&thread=100
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jun 20, 2012 11:20:07 GMT -5
I am curious as to what made the steering committee abandon the original form for most of the grievances that was printed, described, and voted on by the public on the links from the original website? at www.the-99-declaration.org/The presentation there was effective and seen by many of our supporters and delegates. Most of them had at least 40-70 votes last time I looked. Do we really need to rewrite those that we agree on? But more importantly, why were the originals turned into such choppy pieces of text that are almost solely about solutions rather than grievances for the "list of 100" for us to vote on?
|
|
|
Post by craigwood on Jun 24, 2012 14:40:48 GMT -5
John's right. Separation of Grievances and their many possible Solutions is needed. I know that when folks see a problem they want a solution and the first possible solution that comes to mind gets the solution cart placed in front of the horse -- which is the old saying of wisdom telling you why the separation is needed.
The Grievance may take a few words like a book title, but a solution may take a whole book -- folks are not going to read the whole book before knowing the title.
|
|
|
Post by christopherabrown on Jun 24, 2012 14:55:22 GMT -5
John's complaints seem like real complaints, Yes they are, that fact is a non issue for most delegates. What you continue with in the same sentence as if the non issue verifies what you say, seems erroneous, manipulative association. and by your own logic, using our document to petition for an article V doesn't hold any power either, Power and legal validity are 2 separate things. Article V is a legal process. Like all grievances for redress under the First Amendment, Article V has no legal authority. However, legally speaking, the deprival of our first right NEEDS to be articulated immediately to the guilty because all of the rest of the grievances were basically caused by the deprivation of our first right. The elite infiltration needs to stop Article V from having proper recognition both socially, where its power now resides as a part of the petition because of future legal process it validates. IF that happens socially THEN the people are in in position, both through agreement as a group AND with legal process in their states, after the formal articulation of the deprival of peoples first constitutional right as a grievance. The power of the grievance now is social. The unity and participation in the first step of legal process, giving notice via the petition. The reason for a convention not being called is a murky area, fraught with potential for error. It is not the direct problem. The fact a convention has not been called is the problem. Our focus should be getting one, and we are focusing, or trying to. Accountability is critical here. The notion of a solution denied 100 years ago, as not being related to the problems now, not addressed then or now; but instead, then, not addressed has matured into many grievances we try to list; does not cognit well. Copy and paste the quoted explanation you refer to here to justify dismissal, but please do that in a repost there because I'm certain I reasonably and cognizantly addressed there, what you term an explanation here.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 25, 2012 8:57:32 GMT -5
I was thinking about taking some time this week and re-writing the list of 100 "grievances" and converting them into language that would actually have them read as grievances. I like the formatting on this. Give me some time today and I'll have something up.
|
|
|
Post by tonydestefanis on Jun 25, 2012 12:32:13 GMT -5
I like this approach, but what I feel is missing is some sort of introduction explaining why we are petitioning. We have to make the emotional appeal. We have to show concrete examples of how these practices are hurting everyday people and how it is in their interest to work for change. We have to demonstrate how these current policies are not only opposite to the principles that governed the foundation of our nation, but how the later developed "American Dream" is being pushed out of reach for a greater number of Americans while corporate profits are at a record high and the gap between the rich and everybody else conti. We will never get popular support until we can get people to understand that this is about fairness and decency and about saving the possibility for a better tomorrow. We have lost the vision of country that can be great and fair and just. Throughout our history we have strived to increase opportunity, not we are asked to just accept that it is not possible. The only real potential power this declaration can have if people are prepared to work to vote out legislator's who continue to ignore these concerns. Of course there is no way that congress would ever adopt the grievances wholesale, but the important part would be for them to be considered. It is a tool to try to steer the discussion back to policies that help everyday people and not corporate or special interests at the expense of Americans. I was reading William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech the other day and his critique of people's low opinion of labor still resonates today. We need a square deal, a new deal a better deal anything but the raw deal we keep getting. Banks got bailed out, we got sold out. "Everybody knows that the dice are loaded, everybody rolls with their fingers crossed. Everybody knows the war is over. Every body knows the good guys lost. Everybody knows the fight was fixed. The poor stay poor the rich get rich. That's how it goes. Everybody knows." Leonard Cohen
|
|