Nice term to apply John. Basic good strategy too. Appropriate overview.
Perhaps a variation and paradigm shift on it would introduce a the "nuance" that has already been a part of the response I've gotten relating the 99% position on Article V.
I think that our time in the convention
To position your point more formally is it correct to assume the convention is one called by us to assemble those who have published a grievance or represent on from the formal list of delegates the organizing non profit is building.
For example, he says: "Ending Corporate Personhood is a deal breaker. And since it appears near or at the top of the list on the website, it needs to be addressed." If we vote in favor we may lose a significant amount of our delegate support and, if we represent the country, a significant amount of their support. Although shamelessly interpreted by the courts, it was originally designed to give Corporations needed rights. Our grievance does not want to give rise to unintended consequences.
Interesting point there, and I think it correct, but not because America is particularly in love with corporations. More because they fear them and depend on them too much. If that were true, then a viable alternative to fear and dependance would be embraced as well as the notion that groups of people contracting to do business cannot become an autonomous individual with rights such as each of us hold dear.
Surely we can create a grievance that is nuanced, and effective, since most would decry the abuses resulting from interpretations of this "legal fiction" over time. Our outrage should not lead us to shoot ourselves in the foot.
I think this is what I've been trying to do and point out. Diverting some, let me equate that to my strategy for change to show how it is "nuanced" and how that is being perceived generally while also generating a perspective for grievance that may meet your criteria.
An Article V convention has the greatest possible authority under the law of the land. These grievances people are assembling for petition here apply under the authority of the 1792 Bill of Rights (BOR) of the Constitution for the United States of America, First Amendment. Logically Article V, by amendment, can be used to uphold the function of the First Amendment of the BOR.
The First Amendment of the BOR does not call for authority to take any action on the petition of grievances the people have a right to present. Article V can restructure the operating parameters of the federal government and the states within the environment of intent of cooperation that the constitution is a manifestation of acting to protect Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Accordingly all grievances can be addressed through Article V.
People do not know Article V, they do not realize it is their first constitutional right and that it was violated 100 years ago with the current situation in our world resulting from that continuous violation of constitutional right. They think, "Oh great, now we have to hammer on the state to get them to get the fed to be constitutional." So the entire 99% Declaration applies to a theoretical remake of the Declaration of Independence which is factually superseded in legal process by the constitution then specifically movement legitimized by the BOR First Amendment as a "petition for redress of grievance".
NOW, NUANCE:
A few serious Americans here have stated, "Okay, if they ignore the petition THEN article V."
What if the 99% Declaration was for the people to show authority that they know Article V was ultimately needed, because the grievances can only be redressed by things congress and the elite will never do, but without a meaningful right to free speech to move fellow US citizens of other states, Article V is out of reach.
MORE NUANCE:
The grievances are converted to "emotional reasoning" perspectives. This uses, on ourselves, what semiotics and subliminally of media achieves at the behest of corporate profit interests. We do it openly to create a better understanding of the EXTREME cost of failing to unify on legal process in defense of rights and freedoms.
Drafting a careful, well thought out grievance, alone would take lots of time. I think we should have a model, nuanced, grievance, with broad support ready before convention. Why not start by picking the top ten grievances and working together on suitable wording?
Within this concept, the above would amount to the 99% recognizing that all the problems do come from the congressional failure to call an Article V convention then list the problems that came from that failure to follow law. List them in terms of emotional reasoning making them more visceral, which is actually more relevant to the economic problem.
Let's keep the final document short with broad appeal. Lets clearly state the grievance only and refrain from any rationales for it. They would add verbiage turning a clear set of grievances into a long dissertation.
It would be great to have at least the top ten grievances well articulated before the start of the congress.
Yes! I've even made a thread at a forum with a polling feature so we can give the grievances the needed priority to them.
articlevconvention.org/forumdisplay.php?63-99-Declaration-Grievance-and-Strategy-PollingDo you think a thread there, with a poll on this proposal for "nuance" for the RoG petition, should be made?
If that were the case the beginning of the petititon would read something like this.
Whereas the People of the United States of America have been deprived of their right to propose amendments to their constitution for 101 years. From that deprivation has come great destruction and continued deprivation to a degree where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, guaranteed 236 years ago, are in question for many citizens. The right to petition for redress of grievance is hereby invoked by petition influencing and relevant to a majority deprived of free speech and truth of the conditions of their nation over the preceding 101 years.
Citizens that have not been provided their right to work through their states, as the states duly applied for the Constitutional right to do so, and provide solution to problems as needed by amendment now list the grievances authority needs to begin to redress now.
Add the ugly impacts of grievances unmet, with proper order