The Network of Spiritual Progressives* is advocating a new amendment to the US Constitution: The Environmental & Social Responsibility Amendment [ESRA].
[NOTE: I posted the text of this Amendment in its entirety at:
In support of this movement, we have this Resolution, which I quote in part:
QUOTE:
House Resolution 156 on ESRA
1st Session
H. Res. 156
House of Representatives
March 9, 2011
Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
RESOLUTION
Calling for an environmental and social responsibility amendment to the United States Constitution. [Pause…stop right here for a moment…Mr. Kucinich is “calling for an…amendment to the United States Constitution,” but he waffles after the word “Resolved” (below). So let’s jump ahead** to the part that says “Resolved.”]
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that, as articulated in the environmental and social responsibility amendment to the United States Constitution, the:
(1) Constitution of the United States
(2) laws of the United States
:UNQUOTE.
So, what’s wrong with this Resolution?
Even though Kucinich’s text is “calling for an … amendment to the…Constitution,” after the word “Resolved,” he writes, in point # (1), that the Constitution should be amended “to subordinate the political rights of corporations…” So far so good, but he waffles when he says in point # (2) that the “laws of the United States United States
So, what’s wrong with Kucinich?
Kucinich’s proposed Resolution is lame since it only half-heartedly gives support to the ESRA. I’m sure a lot of pro-Kucinich guys are running around saying, “See? Our guy submitted a Constitutional Amendment to the House.” Actually, no he didn’t. His proposal is only a Resolution that the House declares its “sense” that certain changes be made, one of which involves a proposed Constitutional amendment. But he did NOT submit the text of a proposed Constitutional amendment to the House. There’s a world of difference between declaring a “sense of the House” and submitting an actual amendment for consideration by the House.
Since Kucinich was so tepid in his support of ESRA, my suspicions were aroused. So I went to his website: http://kucinich.house.gov . I wanted to see how hard he was trying to sell the ESRA to his constituents. I was massively disappointed – nowhere on his website did he even mention that he’d submitted a Resolution (albeit in tepid support). I thought he’d have issued a Press Release saying: “I fully and unequivocally support the ESRA. Our Constitution needs this amendment.” But…there was no such Press Release. At least, not posted on his website.
In fact, on his entire site, he doesn’t say one word about this Resolution or the Amendment he (half-heartedly) endorses.
To directly answer my own question, there isn’t anything wrong with Kucinich. He’s just engaging in saber rattling. In other words, his “support” for this amendment is a feint, just a means to draw attention to the unquestionably important goal of campaign finance reform, which the ESRA addresses – among other things. It’s those “other things” that worry me – as well as the way the ESRA chooses to address campaign finance reform.
So, what’s wrong with the Network of Spiritual Progressives?
On the NSP website appears this statement: “This Amendment, proposed by Rabbi Michael Lerner and Peter Gabel, has been refined and advanced through the work of the NSP.”
I had sent an email to Rabbi Lerner on May 18 of last year, saying exactly why I thought the ESRA was a bad idea. I will elaborate “bad idea” in a bit, but one point I emphasized in my e-mail:
The ESRA, with 1527 words, is 3.5 times wordier than the Fourteenth Amendment, the currently wordiest of them all.
That was one year ago. Well, now the amendment is 2461 words in length, which makes it 5.6 times wordier than the Fourteenth. Or, put another way, since the entire US Constitution (main body only, minus the amendments) is 4440 words in length, the ESRA has 55% of its word count.
At the time, I told Rabbi Lerner, “Why not just rewrite the entire Constitution?" Which I proceeded to declare was my proposed strategy.
After reading the ESRA (in its current, expanded version), I could see what Michael Lerner was trying to accomplish. However, I strongly feel that in this case, the proposed cure would be far worse than the disease. By even proposing such an Amendment, the NSP risks a powerful backlash which, I feel, would be justified. There’s an old saying, “With friends like that, who needs enemies?”
Rabbi Lerner and the NSP have a basic strategy of working to promote this Amendment over a period of many years, focusing at the grassroots level. For instance, they mention efforts to educate the public and to solicit the endorsements of local city councils all across the country. Even if that approach worked and they managed to build up a powerful grassroots momentum, even succeeding in passing their Amendment, they still would have fallen short of their spiritual goal. For you cannot have a better government merely by rewriting laws, not even if those laws are invulnerable to Supreme Court tampering.
You can only have a better government, if you manage to elect better people.
And the ESRA can’t do that. In fact, it very much leaves intact the Two Party System, which has been the greatest source of our collective grief. So much so, I’ve designated the following as my campaign slogan as I seek the presidency in 2012:
Join the New American Revolution:
Declare your independence by voting for independents.
So, what’s wrong with the ESRA?
I’m going to QUOTE from the ESRA, and follow with COMMENTS:
QUOTE:
The First & Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution shall apply only to human beings, and not corporations, limited liability associations, and other artificial entities created by the laws of the United States.
COMMENT:
I’m sure a lot of people would have been happy if the ESRA contained only this one sentence – though it would have to be renamed. At first blush, it seems to restore the supremacy of the rights of humans over those of corporations. However, it doesn’t address “other artificial entities” NOT created by the laws of the United States
QUOTE:
Money or other currency shall not be considered a form of speech within the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution, and its expenditure is subject to regulation by the Congress and by the legislatures of the several States.
COMMENT:
This single sentence is a bombshell, for it gives Congress and the states more power than they ever had under the current Constitution. Our lawmakers would get to tell us how to spend our money. That’s what it says! So for those citizens who think Obamacare is unconstitutional since people can’t be told what to buy (in this case, life insurance), the ESRA wipes out that argument.
The Amendment becomes downright vague when it states “its expenditure is subject to regulation by the Congress and [my emphasis] the…States.” Suppose the Congress wanted to regulate one way and my home state of Illinois
Last but not least, if I wanted to pay a newspaper to publish my views (which I myself have done), the Congress or my home state could step in and say, “You don’t have any right to spend your money that way.” They could even say, “If you want to buy a car, you have to buy a Honda, since your last name begins with S and you’re 59 years old.” Who’s to say that such regulations couldn’t become that intrusive?
QUOTE:
Congress shall regulate the amount of money used to disseminate ideas or shape public opinion in any federal election in order to assure that all major points of view regarding issues and candidates receive equal exposure to the greatest extent possible.
COMMENT:
What does “Congress shall regulate” mean? Does this mean the President cannot veto in this area? Don’t be surprised at this – since the President has no say when it comes to new states being admitted to the Union . [UPDATE (8/14/12): I was wrong in the preceding sentence, at least in the way the Constitution has been applied, by saying, "the President has no say."]
What does that last part mean: “…to assure that all major points of view…receive equal exposure…?” If I’m running against an incumbent Congressman, who’s had (say) 14 years of free publicity (whenever he’d held a press conference or used the franking privilege), does that mean Congress will give me (say) twice as much funding to disseminate my relatively unknown ideas so as to obtain “equal exposure” with my more senior adversary? No, I don’t think so. Remember: Incumbent Congressmen pass laws to help their fellow incumbents. They don’t care about “equal exposure to the greatest extent possible.”
QUOTE:
COMMENT:
1) When will this money be forthcoming? Before or after the election? If after, that might be difficult for major candidates who aren’t so major, who might have to depend on loans (from whom?) for upfront, operating expenses.
2) As for “primaries,” an independent like Ross Perot who did not run in primaries (in his 1992 run for office), would not qualify for Congressional funding. As for his 1996 run as candidate of the Reform Party (a party he founded), Congress might claim an entity like the Reform Party isn’t a real political party but is only a front group in support of one man (the founder/“owner”). In fact, Congress could dictate that only candidates from bonafide political parties may run for the presidency. Nice way to eliminate the competition.
3) “Congress shall fund” means the President (as I indicated earlier) has no say in the matter?
QUOTE:
During the three months prior to an election, no candidate, no political party, and no organization seeking to influence public policy may buy time in any media or form of mass communication or any other form of mass advertising including on the Internet.
COMMENT:
There is one glaring omission above – what about extremely wealthy individuals? Can they spend at will during those “three months prior to an election.” ESRA says that “no candidate, no political party, and no organization…may buy time,” but it is silent concerning the wealthy.
There are two pertinent sections of the amendment in this regard:
(1) “[The expenditure of money] is subject to regulation by the Congress and by the legislatures of the several States.” That sentence is immediately followed by this:
(2) “Congress shall regulate the amount of money used to disseminate ideas or shape public opinion in any federal election.”
Point (1) gives the option of exercising blanket authority to regulate the expenditure of money at all times, while Point (2) says Congress must regulate money “in any federal election.” Congress could decide that Point (2) does not cover the time preceding the election cycle – for instance, during a Representative’s first full year of office. During that off-year, wealthy donors could spend without limit to propagate their ideas and support (obedient) incumbent candidates.
QUOTE [Note my boldfacing below]:
(1) “Congress shall fund all major candidates for the House, Senate and Presidency…”
(2) “Major candidates shall be defined as: (a) those who have at least 5% of support as judged by the average of at least ten independent polling firms, at least two of which are selected by the candidates deemed “not major,” 3 months before any given election, or (b) any candidate who can collect the signatures of 5% of the number of people who voted in the election for that office the last time that office was contested in an election. These petitions can only be signed by people eligible to vote in the relevant electoral districts.
COMMENT:
Since major candidates are not defined until three months before any given election, the Congressionally-funded campaigns could only last three months. Of course, the ESRA also gives Congress the power to regulate how money is spent – at all times (and not just during elections). But suppose Congress sits on its hands and doesn’t pass any such regulations. Or suppose Congress doesn’t “regulate the amount of money used to disseminate ideas or shape public opinion in any federal election,” even though the ESRA states that it shall do so. How on earth could such issues be addressed by the Supreme Court?
What about the vagueness of (2) above, where it says, “Major candidates shall be defined as: (a) those who have at least 5% of support as judged by the average of at least ten independent polling firms, at least two of which are selected by the candidates deemed ‘not major’…?”
What is meant by “average?” Suppose five polling firms show a 4% level of support and five others show a 6% level of support. The average would seem to be 5%. No problem, right? However, suppose the five firms showing 4% had a greater polling sample with a small margin of error, while the other five firms had a smaller polling sample with a large margin of error. How then does one calculate an “average?” If the concept of “weighted average” is introduced, our luckless candidate does not meet the 5% threshold and can’t be considered a major candidate.
QUOTE:
Every citizen of the United States and every organization chartered by the U.S. or any of its several states shall have a responsibility to promote the ethical, environmental, and social well-being of all life on the planet Earth and on any other planet or in Space with which humans come into contact.
COMMENT:
This preceding sentence is a prelude to portions of the ESRA which seek (especially) to hold corporations liable for their environmental conduct. But that sentence says that “every citizen…[also has] a responsibility.” This could pave the way for Congress to pass micromanaging laws forcing individuals to behave in certain politically-correct ways.
QUOTE:
[and, later on, appears this quote]
… the jury shall solicit testimony from the corporation’s board of directors, from its employees, and from its stakeholders (those whose lives have been impacted by the operations of the corporation) around the
COMMENT:
OMG, you’ve got to be kidding! This Amendment creates a grand jury and describes in great detail how it is to proceed in its evaluations. And it even states that this jury should reconvene in three years to consider the case of a corporation it had put on probation.
The ESRA doesn’t say how many members this grand jury must have or if its decisions must be unanimous. After I read the detailed nature of any such a grand jury’s investigative responsibilities, I can’t see how the average man on the street could even be competent to pass judgment on corporations with extremely elaborate business models – which, these days, is the majority.
QUOTES (with parenthetical comments):
1. The degree to which the products produced or services provided are beneficial rather than destructive…(That means cigarette companies couldn’t have their charters renewed?)
2. The degree to which it pays a living wage to all its employees and the employees of any contractors with which it does business either in the US or abroad, and arranges its pay scale such that none of its employees or contractors or members of its board of directors or officers of the corporation earn (in direct and indirect benefits combined) more than ten times the wages of its lowest full-time wage earners…(If I was a CEO limited to making only ten times the wages of my company’s lowest full-time wage earner, I’d take my considerable skills to the EU or Asia – talk about creating a brain drain!)
4. The degree to which it encourages significant democratic participation by all its employees in corporate decision making…(Let me get this straight: By means of a Constitutional Amendment, we are going to let the workers run our enterprises? And the sponsors of the ESRA actually think Americans will buy into this?)
QUOTE:
1. the skills and capacities necessary to develop a caring society manifesting love, generosity, kindness, caring for each other and for the earth, joy, rational and scientific thinking, non-violence, celebration, thanksgiving, forgiveness, humility, compassion, ethical and ecological sensitivity, appreciation of humanity’s rich multicultural heritage as expressed in literature, art, music, religion, and philosophy, non-violence in action and speech, skills for democratic participation including skills in how to change the opinions of fellow citizens or influence their thinking in ways that are respectful of differences and tolerant of disagreements, and how to organize fellow citizens for non-violent political action and engagement in support of causes not-yet-popular; and in…
COMMENT:
Sounds monstrously expensive. Not to mention: How does one teach “the skills and capacities” listed above? Will Congress decide the standards, curriculum, and methods of outcome evaluation?
QUOTE:
Any part of the Constitution or the laws of the U.S.
COMMENT:
In case anyone is thinking, “The Courts will decide in favor of the Constitution when in conflict with the ESRA,” they’ll have to think again.
Conclusion
I’m not sure what makes a genuine Conservative these days, but I can venture this much:
They are very much against the kind of social engineering and outright communism (with a small “c”) that’s embodied in the ESRA.
I don’t care how many years Rabbi Lerner and the NSP dedicates to passing this train-wreck of an Amendment – it ain’t gonna happen. Now, I suppose the same could be said of my efforts to elect independents to Congress, thereby replacing all Dem/Pubs. And also said of my efforts to replace the US Constitution entirely, which is based on a fundamental governing principle I’ve developed – to wit, Cross-Sectional Representation.
However, on my blog (this site) I’ve offered practical reasons why we need CSR and how we could go about replacing the Constitution – even though Congress and the Shadow Government would be very much opposed. Though my goals seem more outrageous than those of the NSP and Rabbi Lerner, I believe my proposals have an inherent logic that will eventually persuade those whom I need to persuade.
I believe a critical mass of activists will be reached who will see things as I see them – that is, if we persist in maintaining the fiction that is our Constitution or in supporting the Two Party System, even the most dense will see the writing on the wall concerning our demise. Those activists will not only be reached but will be willing to work for the changes I’ve described – which will be seen as necessary and indispensible.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“If not now, when? If not us, who?”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
* NSP has a website: http://spiritualprogressives.org on which the entire text of the ESRA is posted, in addition to other positions it has adopted.
** The original text of the Kucinich Resolution also has five Whereas Clauses, which can be viewed at http://spiritualprogressives.org/newsite/?page_id=1399
No comments:
Post a Comment