Post by jondenn on Jun 9, 2012 20:36:16 GMT -5
There are many different strategies we could adopt for the 99 Declaration, Redress of Grievances. Here are a few in question format.
Should all the grievances rise to the standard of; if it were possible for a constitutional amendment to be voted on today, would this grievance/solution pass?
If not, how long are we willing to fight this fight? Example, the ERA still hasn't passed.
How many of the 99 are we willing to leave behind? Others might call this the tyranny of the majority.
There are grievances that are considered nonpartisan (almost everyone agrees), bipartisan (no one may love the answer, but no one hates it either), and partisan (we think we can force this through without conservatives and a few independents): what are the merits of each for the package?
Now, I'd like to suggest a strategy.
The last time an Article V was threatened, it was over electing Senators instead of them being appointed. The Senate caved, because they were afraid of what other things the States might put into the constitution. Without the catalyst, the Article V didn't come to pass.
I'd like to suggest we divide the grievances into two categories. The "nail" and the "hammer." The "nail" are items that clearly have enough support to become an amendment, today. The "hammer" are ALL the rest of the items submitted, that will all be on the table if Congress, and the President don't pass the nail into law.
Currently, I believe the strategy, is to ask elected officials and the candidates to sign a pledge to support the RoG. The problem here is that since Grover Norquist's pledge to not raise taxes, members of congress aren't signing pledges like they used to. Even if it were to just show public support for, the only "if you don't" we have is to run candidates against them next time. Without the basic electoral reforms needed to level the playing field for independents, like Open Top-Two Primaries, No Political Party Shall Be Privileged, and Ending Gerrymandering, it would take a MONUMENTAL paradigm shift for this strategy to play out.
I believe we (the reform movement) have already hit critical mass to pass any near consensus legislation we want. Conservative reformers have more in common with independent and liberal reformers than they do with the rest of conservatives.
We can all get on the same page here, but the type may look a bit different than we thought, for if we truly listen to each other, very slight wording changes and maybe settling for most of an issue, instead of holding out for a my-way-or-the-highway win, will get us stunning change, and perhaps way sooner than we think.
I'm listening. What's your counter strategy?
Should all the grievances rise to the standard of; if it were possible for a constitutional amendment to be voted on today, would this grievance/solution pass?
If not, how long are we willing to fight this fight? Example, the ERA still hasn't passed.
How many of the 99 are we willing to leave behind? Others might call this the tyranny of the majority.
There are grievances that are considered nonpartisan (almost everyone agrees), bipartisan (no one may love the answer, but no one hates it either), and partisan (we think we can force this through without conservatives and a few independents): what are the merits of each for the package?
Now, I'd like to suggest a strategy.
The last time an Article V was threatened, it was over electing Senators instead of them being appointed. The Senate caved, because they were afraid of what other things the States might put into the constitution. Without the catalyst, the Article V didn't come to pass.
I'd like to suggest we divide the grievances into two categories. The "nail" and the "hammer." The "nail" are items that clearly have enough support to become an amendment, today. The "hammer" are ALL the rest of the items submitted, that will all be on the table if Congress, and the President don't pass the nail into law.
Currently, I believe the strategy, is to ask elected officials and the candidates to sign a pledge to support the RoG. The problem here is that since Grover Norquist's pledge to not raise taxes, members of congress aren't signing pledges like they used to. Even if it were to just show public support for, the only "if you don't" we have is to run candidates against them next time. Without the basic electoral reforms needed to level the playing field for independents, like Open Top-Two Primaries, No Political Party Shall Be Privileged, and Ending Gerrymandering, it would take a MONUMENTAL paradigm shift for this strategy to play out.
I believe we (the reform movement) have already hit critical mass to pass any near consensus legislation we want. Conservative reformers have more in common with independent and liberal reformers than they do with the rest of conservatives.
We can all get on the same page here, but the type may look a bit different than we thought, for if we truly listen to each other, very slight wording changes and maybe settling for most of an issue, instead of holding out for a my-way-or-the-highway win, will get us stunning change, and perhaps way sooner than we think.
I'm listening. What's your counter strategy?