occupied wall street and a constitutional amendment

Everyone I know has asked me what I think about the "occupation".  I have been quiet because at least it is a place to vent but come on, really?  Everyone with any political experience knows how this ends.  These sincere brothers and sisters will either be recruited into electing democrat politicians or they will be dispersed permanently.  We will eventually find out they have been funded and recruited by the left oligarchy. (Ads on EBay recruiting as I write this - clever). 

And after one year, the democrats (these occupiers helped elect) will openly and contemptuously work for the Wall St oligarchy that supports politicians with continued funding.  Politicians have to work for the oligarchy.  They must obey the party bosses if they want any credibility or funding for the next election.  And those cushy political positions can fund a whole family in collateral fields.  The wife gets a no show job as a lobbyist, the kids work for Wall St hedge funds -- it is too good to throw away on campaign promises.  Just vote as a block with your party and let your aides take care of the constituents. And watch your congressional pension grow you into a billionaire while you and your family get the kind of free medical care that insures you will live long and enjoy every penny of that pension.

Example: WI Representative Tammy Baldwin who asked to be elected so she could reform the medical system.  She has voted a straight party line ever since. She voted for the forced insurance, Obamacrapcare bill without any talk about the corrupt medical/insurance/hospital/pharmaceutical complex.

Perhaps the occupiers will channel their efforts into passing obama's jobs bill which will help some but not all of us.  I believe, in some way, the job's bill will channel more money to Wall St and the multi nationals than it will benefit workers.  Every single bill obama pushes always does just that.

And so acts every Democrat elected or they are soon booted from office.

Nothing changes institutionally.  New boss same as the old boss.

But there is a way.  What if, instead of the usual 2 (or 3) party, elect your savior solution, the occupiers devised constitutional amendments? And saw those amendments through the entire process with demonstrations instead of "clean for gene" typical tactics?  The oligarchy would not fund that and would move quickly with violence to crush that effort.  But they might not win.

How about a constitutional amendment which erects an iron wall between legislators and big money?   That constitutional amendment could require substantial free air time for debates and travel but deny all private contributions. 

What about a constitutional amendment that allows impeachment  for campaign pledge reversals? 

What about a constitutional amendment which limits the difference in income between the bosses and the workers with equal benefits for all? 

Let's pass a constitutional amendment which negates the idiotic SC ruling that corporations are people.

How about a constitutional amendment that gives the states total rights to enforce immigration laws since they pay for the results of federal oligarchy controlled non-enforcement?  Such an amendment could include restrictions on  foreign aid (see the IVAWA)  which require it to be used for the building of freedom, security, individual rights and democracy in our immigrant's home countries.   How about a constitutional amendment which demands that every USA trade treaty includes USA labor and environmental laws?

The repubs and dems both agree on obama's Korean trade treaty which ought to tell American workers they will be competing with third world wages.  NO, they are so cowed and afraid.  They still cheered obama's lies at the GM factories. They want to believe.  It isn't even funny anymore.

How about a constitutional amendment which makes reproductive choice a woman's right?  The ERA because of its language will probably do more for transsexuals than it will do for women so I strongly urge we end the debate over who controlls our reproduction as the first priority.

But most of all, let's pass a constitutional amendment that eliminates status based tax standards. 

Right now the tax breaks go to multinational corporations instead of domestic corporations because the oligarchy has no domestic allegiances.  

Tax is based on what you ARE not your financial ability to pay - your status in society determines how much you pay.  This translates into govt approved life styles being rewarded financially as opposed to less respected life styles being punished financially.

Tax breaks go to those who are married instead of those who are single because the churches want to encourage marriage and tax laws are made by the married  -- tax breaks go to those who have children instead of those who use less resources by remaining childless.  This is tax based on status instead of  individual income.  Individuals should be taxed as individuals regardless of their marital status. Corporations should be taxes regardless of their status.

How about a progressive tax code that does not discriminate based on status but is calculated only on income, i.e. class?

Of course this Answer requires more from the protesters than does the electoral solution. 

You can brag about community collectives and consensus as long as you have nothing.  But these amendment will require compromise, majority rule, - whatever.  The requirement is agreement and that means ego sacrifice for the common good.  The oligarchs have no problem because they are always clear about their interests.  Teachers are required for our side.

BTW, FOX wants you to think these people are riff raf smelly idiots -- go here/hear and listen to the truth.

How the constitution is amended here. BUT READ HERE FROM SOURCEWATCH - SHOCKING

Popular Amendment
One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography.


The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."


It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.

http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/In-Pictures/Best-signs-of-Occupy-Wall-Street-protests/(photo)/390929

GOOD NEWS:

A religiously based homeless shelter in Washington, D.C., will no longer require the homeless to attend religious services as a condition of getting food and shelter, and the D.C. government no longer plans to pay tax dollars to the shelter, as a result of a lawsuit filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital.

Because of these changes to the terms of the deal, the groups today dismissed the lawsuit, which had challenged the District’s planned support of the shelter.

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, “Organizations that want to promote religion should rely on private donations, not taxpayer support. I’m glad that taxpayer dollars will no longer be handed to a religious rescue mission.”

Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital, explained, “No homeless man should have religion forced upon him in order to keep from going hungry and sleeping on the street. We’re pleased that the D.C. government will no longer be supporting such religious coercion.”

More at Americans United for Separation of Church and State here.


Bad News:

Oh No, not chocolate!