Introduction:
I’m talking about US citizens. That doesn’t mean, however, that I’m claiming, “Only the meek who happen to be US citizens will inherit the earth.” I believe all of the meek will share that inheritance. Though my comments are primarily for US citizens, there will be enough here to inspire others. I promise you that much.
So what about this “meek” stuff?
I know the Bible is the source of my quoted title. But I'm not going to Bible-thump; I’m just going to reflect on this particular quote.
“Meek” doesn’t mean we have to be doormats or allow ourselves to be pushed around. It does mean, “We have to stop thinking of ourselves as being powerless, ordinary citizens; and think of ways we can make a difference – small as these might at first appear.”
As for the “inherit” part – nothing gets inherited unless something or someone dies. The thing that must die is the Establishment.
But what can I do?
If you are asking “But what can I do?” – you are asking the right question.
The first thing you can do: Change the way you vote. Specifically:
· In the upcoming presidential primaries, ask for the GOP ballot. It doesn’t matter if you’re really an independent or even a Democrat. We have an historic opportunity to shake things up by voting for the Republican you’d like to see oppose Obama. Or even by voting for the weakest GOP candidate. Since Obama’s renomination won’t be contested, the time is ripe to use your vote to intentionally undermine the GOP field. [NOTE: The point is to show that we can undermine the system lawfully, which will be duly noted – especially by our kindred spirits. This will galvanize them.]
· Vote for independents whenever you have a chance. And I don’t mean “independents” running (for instance) in a Republican primary who are trying to challenge the party bosses’ favorites. But even that would be a step in the right direction.
· Vote against the incumbent in situations where the choice is between a Dem and a Pubber.
· Consider breaking your usual habit of voting only for Dems or Pubs – split your ballot.
The second thing you can do:
Rid yourself of the notion that amending the US Constitution will bring about those specific changes you hold near and dear. Remember: Even if amended, that Constitution will still be subject to enforcement and interpretation by the same players. You can’t have better government unless you have better people elected to office.
The third thing you can do:
Realize that we can throw out the old Constitution and completely replace it with a new one. I believe We-the-People have the right to do so, but (simply put) there is no legal mechanism in place to allow that to happen. The Founding Fathers never intended for anything to happen to their version of the Constitution – except for an occasional amendment to be tacked on.
To reinforce this point, I will quote a section from Article V:
QUOTE:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by … three fourths of the several states…
:UNQUOTE [source: US Constitution]
Translation? Only the Congress and the states are named as players in the amendment process. We-the-People were excluded. And nowhere in the Constitution are We included or is any mention made of possibly replacing the Constitution. [Update (Dec. 17, 2012): A careful reading of the Preamble, however, shows that We can indeed have the right to replace the Constitution.]
The fourth thing you can do:
Even though We-the-People were intentionally denied any direct role in amending the Law of the Land; even though the Founding Fathers were arrogant enough to deny any possibility of replacing this document – you must realize that we are not entirely powerless.
We have the power of the economic boycott. Since our system thrives on bubbles and market confidence, it wouldn’t really take much to undermine that. We cannot get what we want at the ballot box. And it would be suicidal (and entirely unnecessary, by the way) to engage in armed rebellion. If we can muster the awareness and unity of purpose to act – each of us in our own small ways – we can show the Powers-that-Be that we’ve got them by the balls.
Bottom line? Give us a Constitutional Convention or we’ll start “squeezing” even harder. I was going to add: “Or give us better governance or open the system to enable independents to get elected.” However, as must be obvious to any thinking person at this point, we’re way beyond fixing the system.
Taking this to a personal level:
This shows how we can conduct economic warfare:
· I have never in my life owned a car. I walk or take public transportation. For those of you who must have a car, buy a used one or an off-brand or hold off replacing your current ride.
· I stay away from major brand names when making my purchases.
· I have never owned a house. Therefore, I avoided taking out any usurious loans for that purpose.
· I don’t bank with any of the major banks – choosing to take my business to a smaller local institution.
· I no longer use credit cards. I told Discover and Visa I wasn’t going to be making any more monthly payments. Discover sued me in court – and lost – and Visa thought better of hauling me into court when I told them how I’d retaliate.
· I stopped drinking entirely (one year ago, as of July 17). Talk about pissing your money away for diminishing returns!
· I neither give nor accept presents, not even giving my own son a wedding present. [NOTE: I especially did this, since he’s well-off and any gift I might have made would have been better passed on to charity.]
· I haven’t bought clothes or shoes – new or used – for years. I barter with someone who is a professional dumpster diver. We both gain and remain outside the monetary system. [Don’t beat me up about wearing garbage clothes; I dress better than I ever did before, which wasn’t too shabbily.]
· I’ve changed my lifestyle. Ah, lifestyle choices are among the biggest reasons for our high-spending habits. For too many of us, if we’re not going out and spending, we wouldn’t know what to do with ourselves. Many of my “disposable hours” are spent meditating. There’s a way to do that, which is far more fulfilling than any more glamorous (say) nightlife-connected lifestyle.
· I don’t smoke or do drugs.
· I don’t own a personal computer. Whenever I need to “compute,” I go to a local university and use their facilities for free.
· I no longer buy daily newspapers. If a sizable minority of my fellow Chicagoans canceled their Chicago Tribune subscriptions, that sorry-ass rag would cease operations.
More on the Meek:
Where do the Tea Party and FOAVC* fit in?
*FOAVC = Friends of the Article V Convention
Both the Tea Party and the FOAVC believe in fighting the power of Big Federal Government by establishing power bases in each of the 50 states, and then agitating for states’ rights. However, this approach is doomed to failure simply because the Powers-that-Be are fully aware of this strategy and will engage fully to defeat it.
Indented comment: My last two blog posts (scroll down) briefly describe the FOAVC. Their website is worthy of your attention: http://foavc.org
What I fear most about both groups: What I suspect is a hidden agenda, and how easily both can be infiltrated and manipulated. I have devised a means to avoid these pitfalls, in my own movement, described in this essay:
A Zero Party system for US politics* (at)
*Indented comment: “A Zero Party” opens with this claim: “It’s time to establish a Zero Party system by means of creating a third party which is leaderless and without members – in modern parlance, a ‘virtual party.’”
The FOAVC in particular:
Certain aspects of the FOAVC are especially worthy of note. For that reason, I will conclude this essay by focusing on that group, instead of the newer, flashier, and more well-known Tea Party. [NOTE: As of this writing, I have no idea which group is better-financed; I do not assume it’s the Tea Party.]
I have concluded that the main goal of FOAVC is to undermine public confidence in Congress. If Congress can be sufficiently demonized, the coup d’état will be more easily realized. This will involve radicalizing rogue elements within the military, which is sworn to uphold the Constitution. The biggest club at the disposal of the Powers-that-Be is the military. So if that can be undermined or at least persuaded not to interfere, shifting power to the states will be easier to accomplish.
The Tea Party and the FOAVC have an easy target in Congress, which the public views as bloated, scandal-ridden, incompetent, and (ultimately) disastrous for the US.
The Tea Party and the FOAVC have an easy target in Congress, which the public views as bloated, scandal-ridden, incompetent, and (ultimately) disastrous for the US.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This claim appears on the FOAVC website:
“Despite the fact 49 states have submitted over 700 applications (an average of one application every four months by at least one state since our nation’s founding) Congress has refused [my emphasis] to call the convention as required by the Constitution.”
About this “convention” – according to Article V of the US Constitution:
“Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by … three fourths of the several states…
On the FOAVC website, Congress is being demonized for refusing to call this amendatory convention, even though “49 states” have requested this – even though only 34 requesting states are required. In fact, their website links to all 700 of those applications – including rescissions! Yes, some states have passed resolutions, sharing very similar language (interestingly enough) voiding their earlier requests for an Article V convention.
Since 1990 (that is, over the last 21 years), there have been only seven states requesting an Article V Convention and eight other states have withdrawn their earlier requests.
One of FOAVC’s co-founders – a certain Bill Walker – even brought two lawsuits to try to force Congress to call a convention. A federal court dismissed at least one of Walker’s suits claiming he didn’t have standing to bring suit since he is not a member of a state legislature. The point is: If Walker had been a legislator from a state that had voted to demand that Congress call a convention, then Walker would have had standing to sue.
So why was the FOAVC – a private citizens’ group – trying to sue, even though they are not an injured party. Article V isn’t for private citizens trying to change the Constitution; it was written to share that power with Congress and the states’ governments. More to the point: Not one single state legislator has ever brought a lawsuit; not a single states attorney general has; nor has the National Governors Association even once complained, let alone filed any kind of lawsuit.
Those parties could claim to have been injured and could rightfully initiate legal action. But they haven’t. Perhaps they’re satisfied to wait for Congress to propose amendments, which has been the one and only method used to date – no Article V convention ever having been called. Or perhaps they are Democrats and Republicans who, though “only” at the local level, don’t want to deviate from the business-as-usual approaches taken by their colleagues in Washington.
I have to question whether 34 states have in fact got active, current, and non-rescinded requests for a convention in place. The FOAVC website has no problem with overwhelming us by posting over 700 links to the legal journals, showing (since 1789) requests (including for issues long-since settled, like Direct Election of Senators and for the Repeal of Prohibition) and rescissions. But they somehow couldn’t manage to name the (at least) 34 states necessary for Congress to call a convention.
And suppose Congress did agree to call an Article V Convention. Then what? Any amendments such a Convention might propose would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. This would be such a near-impossible feat that I have to question FOAVC’s motives in demanding a Convention in the first place. My conclusion: They don’t really want a Convention; they just want to beat up Congress for not calling one.
And why would they want to do that? FOAVC and the Tea Party, by making so much noise, would drown out voices of serious reform trying to motivate We-the-People. Maybe that alone would satisfy them. However, I think their larger aim is to present such a threat to the Powers-that-Be (that is, threatening to shift power away from Washington in favor of the states), that the PTB would bribe them to cease and desist. Even if that meant letting elements of FOAVC and the Tea Party join the club.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Closing comments:
I leave you with these bullet points as food for thought:
· People are afraid to stand up to the government. But if they could do so anonymously, they might. My list (above) on how to conduct economic warfare as individuals – anonymously – should encourage the hesitant.
· Why should we tolerate three-fourths of the states as being necessary for amending the Constitution? Or even replacing it altogether? Supermajorities are inherently undemocratic and, in the case of the filibuster-proof, 60-vote Senate supermajority, lead to legislative gridlock. I’m in favor of a simple majority ruling in all cases.
· If you want to change things, don’t worry about trying to get the majority interested. A determined minority will be sufficient.
· Without provisions for due process to allow We-the-People to determine the rules, anarchy is the only answer. The question becomes: Which type of anarchy do you prefer: That which the Status Quo will lead us toward or that which is of our own choosing in the name of self-determination (and which holds out the hope of establishing long-term stability)?
· Faced with a choice between an Unknown (a New Constitution) vs. the Status Quo, most people would choose the Status Quo. We’ve got to show them Status Quo is a fool’s paradise.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“I offer this in the way of a Zen koan: ‘If you could choose a new name for the United States, what would it be?’” [Answer (posted on Dec. 17, 2012: "Just call it America; don't we, after all, call ourselves (though inaccurately, of course, "Americans?"]
No comments:
Post a Comment