Why is such "State Amendment" Amendment so necessary and so empowering? I conclude in any case that a three-phase strategy (at least) is in fact in order: First, the adoption of the "People's Rights Amendment" referred to above, along with another Amendment embodying what is really the most fundamentally-popularly-empowering section of the "Populist Amendment" referred to above, its section 9, which allows the adult citizens of the States to amend the Federal Constitution without any participation by President or Congress, breaking the stranglehold thereof over further populist Constitutional reform second, using those new popular powers to adopt whatever other "Populist Amendment(s)" are deemed necessary and, third, adoption of whatever "Antiplutocratic Amendment(s)" are deemed necessary.
In my blog-posts here "Beyond Plutocracy and Its Two-Plutocratic-Party System" and "Beyond Plutocracy and Its Two-Plutocratic-Party System: A Populist Amendment" and a related post on "A Two-Phase Strategy for Reform", I call for a two-phase strategy to roll back the savage plutocratic gains made in this country (and our world) over the last thirty years: first, the adoption of a "Populist Amendment" to take law and justice out of the hands of the wealthy and the corporations and the plutocratic politicians, the "two" plutocratic "parties", and the legal profession which so devotedly and so relentlessly serve them, and put them back into the hands of the people and, second, leverage that empowerment of the people to pass a specifically "Antiplutocratic Amendment" to make up for our Constitution's total lack of explicit protections against plutocracy (as compared for example with those against aristocracy and theocracy).īut what would undoubtedly be the most popular section of any such "Antiplutocratic Amendment", the anti-"corporate-personhood", anti- Citizens-United "People's Rights Amendment", has already been introduced into the US Congress, if not indeed already safely (the "two" main plutocratic "parties" no doubt hope) buried in committee there.Īnd the "Populist Amendment" I have proposed, dealing as it must with varieties of plutocratic subversions and antiplutocratic protections, is considerable of a chunk to digest (nine sections at present, with others referred to in parenthetic note), let alone recommend to the people, even though still unfinished, and embodies several novel concepts (eg, its reform of the courts, making juries the finders of all cause, fact, law and appeal, and its implementation of public, randomly-selected ethics committees to watch over the ethics of all corporate bodies, including legislatures, professions, corporations and unions), which might better be studied, formulated, recommended and adopted on their own (maybe it would all be better written up as "the Ohio River Valley Resolutions", except that sounds like something you would recommend to a Constitutional Convention and I'm too frightened of what a present-day Convention would be like, dominated and gamed as it undoubtedly would be by the plutocracy).
0 kommentar(er)
