by Roxeanne De Luca | September 24th, 2011
My bloggy fingers are falling off and Da TechGuy must be ruing the day he asked me to blog with him. (On a side note, it’s semi-embarrassing to be recognised as the girl who wrote, “They told me that if I voted for John McCain, women would be forced to strip….”
Below the fold, the Strategic Panel, discussing the circumstances under which they would support a Constitutional Convention.
Annabel Park, Coffee Party founder: encouraged a conversation about this with people whom we are not used to allying ourselves with.
Bill Walker, co-founded Friends of the Article V Convention. Sole purpose is to implement a convention call; due to lawsuits, Congress has stated the standards for a federal call. Hawk v. Smith (1920): states operate under the federal constitution when engaging in the Amendment process. Unless textually expressed in Article V, any restrictions on the process are unconstitutional. Congress and the President are prohibited from engaging in the process.
George Friday, Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Independent Progressive Politics Network. “History” does not make some people warm and fuzzy. Assumes that we will have a Constitutional Convention, but understands that history does not resonate the same with all of us in all communities. Has observed that her NASCAR fans are fueled by “fear, not faith.” States that a lot of the work needs to be done – implies that the room is far too old and white, and probably male. (I’m one of the few young women here.)
Her definition of a win: facilitate building relationships with skills necessary so that diverse communities have the capacity and collective power for transformational change. That includes, but is not limited to, a Constitutional Convention.
Jefferson Smith: Can we generate a mass movement without a militant event? Analogises to game shows; the best strategy in “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” is “ask the audience”. The one time in which this does not work, in game theory, is when the competitor says that he thinks the answer is, for example, B. That will skew the poll. Thus, we must be able to craft a conversation in order to get better answers.
Shane Larson, Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Georgetown Law school alumnus: CWA has approximately seven hundred thousand active and retired members from everything from media to aviation, and it represents all ideologies. Unites membership is the “fundamental American belief” in checks and balances against the concentration of power. Work on collective bargaining, health care, retirement security, and for good jobs for all.
Believes that the current system is fundamentally broken because “those issues” are not even on the agenda of what the leadership of the country should be addressing. Corporate benefactors dictate what the political leadership in Washington will have on their agenda, which is reinforced via the corporate media.
Last winter, wanted to reform the Senate rules in labour (which is not a monolithic force in which everyone is on the same page). Asked about getting a united labour front and a broad coalition to fight for the reforms. They joined with Common Cause and the Sierra Club, focusing on the filibuster. The membership is frustrated and angry, because it isn’t addressing the issues that they care the most about.
Larson incorrectly states that you need to have sixty votes in the Senate to even have a debate on the issue. No, the filibuster means that you can end, or not end, debate. Then he makes the correct point that a filibuster should at least be about “strapping on a pair of Depends and walking out onto the Senate floor and talking and talking and talking until you are done.”
Curtis Olafson, North Dakota State Senator and National Spokesman for RestoringFreedom.org. National Debt Relief Amendment:
“An increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate States.”
Olafson believes that this would have bipartisan appeal, is straightforward, and is easy to understand.
Bill Norton, constitutional coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, Arizona Constitution Week.
Two years ago, his then eight-year-old daughter asked why they couldn’t shoot off fireworks in their own backyard. He runs the fireworks at the Constitution Week. Distinguishes this from the pre-Revolutionary War American colonies, with the right to vote, petition government for the redress of grievances, and by other peaceful means.
Thinks that Article V Convention is a great provision, but this is not an appropriate time to do it. First, we are not educated enough; the Founding Fathers worked together in Philadelphia, read about philosophy, government, and history. (My classics professors often pointed out how the Founders were fluent in Greek and Latin, and read about the first democracies in their original language.)
Addressed the attacks on corporations, how they are buying Congress and our political process: in the late 1800s, corporations began to control all of the state governments, and we put the power into the federal government. Now, our Senators are even more corrupt, and special interests dominate the political discussion, because it is easier for them to buy off Washington than every single state.
Discussion with moderator David Segal:
Would Coffee Party and Tea Party be willing to have these discussions with their groups?
Annabel: the Coffee Party is not the left version of the Tea Party; it is a “transpartisan” movement aimed at getting Americans engaged in the democratic process.
Bill Norton: does not speak for the Tea Party, which is a bit like herding cats. The Tea Party is not partisan and is an equal-opportunity offender in eliminating politicians who do not want to solve our country’s problems.
National Debt Relief Amendment: North Dakota and Louisiana have both signed onto it. North Dakota has a surplus and almost zero unemployment; over 50% of Louisiana’s budget comes from the federal government.
