Face reality

You remain addicted to the current political system which totally prevents true political competition.  This two-party controlled system is nothing but a criminal conspiracy.  Third party candidates cannot win important elections because the system is rigged against them.  Only effective systemic political reforms achieved through constitutional amendments will create a trustworthy system that justifies voting in it.  So please seriously examine our effort at www.foavc.org and become a member.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (113 articles, 20 quicklinks, 46 diaries, 428 comments) on Monday, December 17, 2007 at 5:36:56 PM
 

A Constitutional Convention is a Viable Option for Change

Here is a post I made on an elist the same day as this article.

 The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is one more act in the history of the Presidency that has demonstrated that the current powers of the Executive Branh of the US Government is not consistent with the Consitution. This evolution towards a Unity Executive has taken place during both Republican and Democratic administrations and represents the singular aspect of Constitutional law that needs to be addressed through a Constitutional amendment or a Constitutional convention. The discussion when it is focused solely on Afghanistan or Iraq fails to distinguish or define political objectives that present solutions to this usurpation of power. Impeachment of Cheney and Bush represents an avenue of redress more than a Constitutional remedy, but it is a provision of the Constitution that establishes authority for the Congress to act decisively. This would be step one.

Step two would be to begin to establish state powers and policies that provide them with the capacity to act within their own powers and authorities. The formation of civilian emergency response and fire corps in state establishes the needed manpower to replace the functions that are currently under the jurisdiction of the National Guard. There are sufficient examples to demonstrate that current deployments overseas undermine the states' ability to respond to emergencies and allocate needed manpower. Current US military deployments are heavily dependent on state units of the National Guard. Governors have been concerned for some time at the impact of deployments regarding the need for responses to natural disasters.

Regarding political solutions within Iraq, there is nothing that the US can do that will prove anymore helpful than the efforts of Britain and France after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. It is inaccurate to say that the US has been promoting a breakup of the Iraqi state. It is inaccurate to say that the conflict between Shi'a and Sunni do not predate US invasion and occupation. It is inaccurate to say that Kurdish national aspirations are based solely on US occupation. It is also inaccurate to obscure and disregard the active roles of the governments of Turkey, Iran and Syria in the region. There should be NO U.S. alliance with the governments of these nations and all military aid to Turkey should be halted. Within the United Nations the issue of the indigenous nation of Kurdistan needs to be addressed. There is no political solution within the region that does not acknowlege the fundamental right of self-determination of the Kurdish peoples. US and British reparations should be disbursed to the regional capitals that function adminstratively for the various groups- that is Irbil, Basra and Baghdad.

Non-intervention is a policy that has been addressed directing by the former Libertarian candidate for President Harry Browne with a proposed Constituional amendment that is worth supporting.

The language reads:
"Section 1. The United States shall be at war only after a declaration of war, naming the specific enemy nations, is approved by the President and by a two-thirds vote of the eligible members in both houses of Congress.

Section 2. The members of the House of Representatives and the Senate eligible to vote on a declaration of war are those who are between the ages of 18 and 35, or who have children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren between those ages.

Section 3. In the absence of a Congressional declaration of war, the President may deploy the military to repel an armed invasion of the United States, but may not deploy troops or engage in hostilities outside the United States.

Section 4. The United States shall enter into no treaty with any nation or organization if such treaty could oblige the United States to be at war without a declaration of war by Congress, and the United States shall not be bound to engage in war by any action taken by any organization of which they are a member.

Section 5. Except in time of war, as specified in Section 1, the United States will provide no weapons or other resources to foreign governments, will engage in no military action outside the borders of the United States, and shall deploy no military personnel or weapons outside the boundaries of the United States except that at any one time up to one thousand members of the military may be outside the United States for no longer than thirty days.

Section 6. Upon any violation of this article by the President, Congress shall institute impeachment proceedings within 14 days.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/ForeignPolicy.htm

Martin Zehr
 

by Martin Zehr (36 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 75 comments) on Monday, December 17, 2007 at 7:22:14 PM
 

The Democrats have a deal

The Dems aren't screwing up, they're doing their job.

The Dem party behaves as if it has a deal with the GOP.  Don't rock the boat, and pretend to be an opposition party, and keep new political parties locked out, and you can keep all those safe congressional and state legislative districts.  We all get to share power with each other, as long as we prevent anybody else from getting any.

Look at it in that light, and suddenly the Dems' behavior makes perfect sense.  They can "cave" on every issue that matters, and they're really not caving at all.  They can run "progressive Democrats" like Larry Agran (remember him, cropped out of the Dem primary by the New York Times?) and Kucinich until the cows come home, as long as they never let them have any real power.

Kucinich has a special role.  He makes it seem as if the Dems tolerate, and even listen to, internal dissent.  But he's walled off like a tuberculosis node, neutralized.

This isn't a conspiracy theory.  There is no conspiracy.  Nobody ever got together in a smoke filled room and discussed this deal.  All it takes is for the relevant individuals to know what they can get away with and what would be career limiting.  Kucinich can "call for" ending the war all he wants, as long as after the primary he falls in behind whatever corporate-controlled warmonger the Dems elect.  Kucinich knows where the line is, that he'll get the Cynthia McKinney treatment if he crosses.

Once you understand this deal, it's a lot easier to make rational decisions about "progressive Democrats" versus new political party candidates.

by clsgis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 2:08:39 PM