Today we face a crushing burden of foreclosures, dropping incomes, and a financial elite that has bought our government. The elite consensus is powerful enough to prevent change, no matter who is elected. The situation seems, at least in electoral terms, hopeless. Yet, America has been here before, and has shown remarkable resilience in the darkest of times.
So just how do we get the debate we deserve? How do we root out the corruption, greed, and fraud in our system? Clearly, the root of much evil in our system of government comes from the financing of political campaigns by powerful interests. And the Supreme Court has said that money is speech, and thus, protected by the Constitution. So we must pass a Constitutional amendment to speak back to the Supreme Court, and assert the primacy of government by the people.
But how do we do this? How does one pass a Constitutional amendment in the American system to ban money from politics? It's not a question with an obvious answer, but history has some clues. There have been only twenty seven amendments to the Constitution in over two hundred years of history, ten of which were ratified with the Constitution itself and several of which were procedural in nature. Yet, the basic path to serious Constitutional change is almost always the same -- it requires organizational focus by a dedicated small group, a willingness to build alliances across factional and regional lines, a belief in playing hardball, and a strong and sustained outcry by a large group of citizens. Often, it is accompanied by local, state, and Federal laws that move the legal system in the direction of the amendment for many years before the Constitutional question emerges. Sometimes it is accompanied by sympathetic court cases.
The response to a situation like today's is often Constitutional in nature. In one historical era long past, crowds of Americans similar to the Occupy Wall Street groups gathered to protest foreclosures, to show anger at economic depressions brought on by corruption, and to check banker control of the monetary system. They used well-orchestrated disruptions to block judges from making unjust decisions, to stop sheriffs from foreclosing on properties, and to enforce no-buy covenants when properties went up for auction. They called themselves "regulators", and created a broad-based movement against the corrupt collusion of government officials and a financial elite.
This was the period from the 1760s to the 1780s, and it produced the most magnificent series of Constitutional amendments we have -- the Bill of Rights, which includes the right to free speech and the right to bear arms. The conflict over the Constitution was in fact bitter and based on conflicts between debtors and creditor-bankers. The first draft of the Constitution was written by a small group of wealthy men, and it was a document with strong economic implications. The Constitution granted the right to coin money to Congress, and took that right away from states who had varying democratic mechanisms to create money. This dramatically reduced inflation, privileging the banking class.
Beyond that, one of the first bills passed after ratification of the Constitution was the Assumption Act, which Federalized state debt and made millionaires out of many of Alexander Hamilton's friends at the expense of farmers who did not know the bonds they held had suddenly became US Treasury bonds valued at par. Because of the ground swell of anger at elites, many states refused to ratify this document. They required a bill of rights guaranteeing free speech, assembly, religious freedom, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, from torture, from property seizures and quartering of soldiers, and the right to bear arms. The anger during this period, anger from soldiers of the Revolutionary War who had not been paid, was codified in amendments that still protect our freedoms today.
Constitutional change has always happened this way, with the public demanding its rights from an elite that at first resists, then splits, and then relents. There have been four significant periods of Constitutional change in American history. The first was, of course, the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The second set of Amendments were the post-Civil War "Reconstruction Amendments" banning slavery, granting citizenship to all male citizens and barring discrimination against the right to vote based on race. The passion of the abolitionists, organizing for decades, forced the expansion of rights to more Americans. The banning of slavery happened gradually; first the slave trade was banned, then abolition coursed through the Northern states and territories, and finally there was a Civil war. But even with their moral case as secure as it was, it was railroad barons that were critical allies of the abolitionists, as well as those who sought a high tariff to industrialize the North. And it required the creation of an entirely new political party, the Republicans, to end slavery and create the most significant Constitutional change since the Revolutionary War. Abraham Lincoln, remember, was a corporate lawyer representing railroad interests, and he was the more moderate of the Presidential candidates running at the time. Horace Greeley had run for President, as had John Fremont in 1856. It was not through purity, but through struggle and alliances, that these amendments freeing the slaves were forged.
The next great wave of Constitutional change occurred in the Progressive era. These have a far more checkered history. The Jim Crow laws stripping black voting rights happened in part, ironically, because of the next great wave of Constitutional amendment organizing. The Anti-Saloon League, the very first and excruciatingly focused single-issue group, began building an indomitable political machine in the mid-1890s. Its focus and willingness to build relationships with anyone who agreed, from the KKK to progressives to nativists to conservative business elites, led to increasing restrictions on alcohol at the local, state, and eventually, Federal level. If you were a politician that didn't want to ban alcohol, the ASL would beat you, much as Grover Norquist does today with his uncompromising stance no taxes. Even after prohibition was shown to be a dismal and catastrophic failure, and "wet" politicians were elected in the early 1930s, state legislatures didn't want to ratify the amendment repealing prohibition for fear of the Anti-Saloon League. The 21st amendment remains the only amendment ratified by state conventions.
The ASL also contributed to the women's suffrage movement and the campaign to legalize the income tax, other amendments passed in this era. Prohibitionists believed that women would be a favorable voting bloc for their interests, since it was women who suffered when their husbands drank to excess. They also wanted to replace the Federal government's main source of revenue -- taxes on alcohol -- with another source. Hence, the income tax.
Simply put, coalition politics matters deeply when undertaking constitutional change.
The final era of Constitutional change is, according to Constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman, that of the New Deal. While there were no amendments passed in the 1930s, the New Deal was a de facto Constitutional revolution. Labor laws, struck down by earlier Supreme Court decisions, were ratified by massive strikes and a strong popular movement. Child labor was outlawed. There was even a "Bonus Army" encampment in Washington, a march of World War I veterans who were demanding to be paid their deferred salaries from World War I. Francis Townsend set up clubs to promote his concept of Social Security, and Huey Long set up "Share the Wealth" clubs to change the distribution of wealth in America. A large Federal regulatory apparatus was set up in the 1930s, as was Social Security, what would become the safety net. The laws undergirding the New Deal had been passed in states and localities for years, struck down by courts or undermined by inadequate funding. It was only a depression, and then sustained aggressive popular advocacy by labor unions, advocacy groups, veterans groups, and voters, that shifted the Constitutional framework.
Today, we are in a similar Constitutional moment. A financial crisis and crash has shown our elites to be feckless and corrupt, and the social contract undergirding our economic arrangements has fallen apart. It is time for mass organizing, and big ideas, something tea party activists realized, and Obama spoke to in 2008. It is also time for focus, discipline, and the creation of cross-sectional alliances. The Occupy Wall Street movement as well as the Tea Party Movement should agree: our Federal government is bought and sold and rarely represents the people. In our quest to get money out of politics, we are not beginning at square one. There has been an anti-corruption movement against the modern financing system since the 1970s, and we have many allies in this struggle. It is Citizens United and the bailouts, twin representatives that make corruption so explicit, that have shown us we must act. And it is the foreclosure crisis that suggests that if we do not act, we will be acted upon. Such is how Constitutional moments happen. Now it is up to us, the people, to make this our moment, as our forebears have in their moments of crisis.
Connect with Dylan
Follow Dylan Ratigan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DylanRatigan
James Zogby: Deja Vu: 2012/1996
Jonathan Askin: Occupy Wall Street -- The "What If" Generation's Public Beta Test
Lisa Sharon Harper: #OccupyWallStreet: What They Want (VIDEO)
Nan Aron: OWS and the 99 Percent After 20 Years of Clarence Thomas
Here is a short 4 min video much can be learned here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9BKKr_CAAI
Well nigh impossible.
Now that your emails have been uncovered concerning your personal involvement with OWS you do not have a single shred of credibility, nor should you. Giving them ideas on how they should publicly offer themselves, what they should and shouldn't say to win over the media! How does a proffesional media personality in the business of reporting the news, feel good about the purposeful manipulation of his own viewers as well as the useful and naive OWSers? It is sickening.
To call yourself anything other than a partisan hack, a massively biased member of the media and pusher of a communist agenda would be a lie.
You sit there in your MSNBC studio knowing that you are a part of the story, that you are helping direct the narrative of the story, and offering a complicit and biased platform for the OWSers to perform, using your ideas. Wow. How do you sleep?
Your actions are dispicable.
AND Dylan is looking in the right place.
The Court was split, with the four reactionary judges (misleadingly called "conservative") joined by Justice Kennedy in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice Roberts selected a case that could easily have been settled on narrow grounds, and maneuvered the Court into using it for a far-reaching decision that overturned precedents going back a century that restrict corporate contributions to federal campaigns.
In effect, the decision permits corporate managers to buy elections directly
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100124.htm
excerpt: In Bush v. Gore (5-4 decision), the Court picked the more corporate president of the United States in 2000, leaving constitutional scholars thunderstruck at this breathtaking seizure of the electoral process, stopping the Florida Supreme Court's ongoing state-wide recount. The five Republican Justices behaved as political hacks conducting a judicial coup d'etat.
But then what do you expect from justices like Thomas and Scalia who participate in a Koch brothers' political retreat or engage in extrajudicial activities that shake the public confidence in the highest court of the land SO IS THIS TREASON OR WHAT?
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/18-12
So how do you account for Obama taking more money from Wall Street than McCain? So are you saying that Obama should be tried for treason?
I thought not.
The rapidly evolving information technology is already opening up opportunities to facilitate the democratic process (ie organizing and sharing opinion, action etc through social networks etc.) and has potential to revolutionize the way we form opinions on who to vote for.
For the Swiss congress elections, there exists a website on which a voter can fill out 75 questions covering the current relevant policies and at the end the answers he/ she picks are compared to every candidate running for office, so the voter can pick the best match.
This is quite a smart way to vote based on policy and a way to turn the current negative and disinformative tv advertisment in the US obsolete.
A system like that could also be improved to track an elected politician's actual voting pattern etc and thus comprise a comprehensive tool for people to 'manage' their democracy.
"How does one pass a Constitutional amendment in the American system to ban money from politics?"
I had to reread it to make sure that he was being serious.
Obama:money::Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:ugly
One Note Charlie
Dylan has written of the most serious of subjects: The ruination of our society with economic colllapse. unless we UNITE in a formation to correct an imminent disaster.
We need some of the smartest minds that can be found, who are not beholden to selfish
partisan, unresponsive unAmerican devotees to "Winner Take All"
I can't imagine anyone not participating, in wanting to resolve this danger.
In not wanting to realize "We have a problem Houston, and throughout the land"
Any constitutional amendment that restricts the rights of individuals will always be wrong and will most likely backfire.
Having the People decide many political issues may not be a good idea. The mob mentality has not shown to be the best decision making process.
Here are a few questions that I wonder if you would want put to a "mob" vote -
What should we do about illegal aliens?
What about the death penalty?
What about gay marriage?
What about abortion?
I could go on but I hope you see the point.
I’d support a movement advocating constitutional and legislative action: (1) Establishing that money isn’t the equivalent of speech (2) Banning corporate election donations, (3) Creating federally funded election season, and forbid preseason binding primaries, (4) Term limiting all Federal offices, (5) Providing statehood for Washington, DC (6) Establishing a federal right to vote in elections free of voter fraud, intimidation, and suppression (7) Establishing Federal recall and referendum, (8) Establishing a federal "Crime against Democracy" (a pattern of intentional criminal activity significantly interfering with Democratic Process), (8) Eliminating the electoral college or assigning electors to congressional districts, (plus 2 at large/state), (9) Outlawing lame duck pardon, pardoning prior to conviction, and pardoning one’s own staff and campaign, (10) Replacing presidential impeachment with removal of a sitting president by a supermajority vote of both houses, (11) Eliminating filibuster, requiring votes upon request of 40% of members, and requiring votes on any measure passed by the other house, (12) Clarifying that legal entities are not "persons," (13) Creating a constitutional standard and mechanism to reduce gerrymandering, (14) Granting Supreme Court power to remove sitting judges, and (15) Providing a constitutional mechanism for the continuation of democratic government during national emergencies.
However, the New deal resulted in legislation that normally would have been 1,000 years of work, but for the crisis of the great depression and the leadership of FDR.
A serious discussion of these would be helpful!
For example, while Corporations should not be "persons" under the first amendment, there is good reason to provide some due process and other constitutional protection of legal entities to protect the owners and employees, to prevent authoritarian government, and to allow corporations to provide socitey with goods, services and jobs. Due process, and freedom of press requires some extension of the rights granted to persons to legal entites.
Consider an amendment that (a) clarifies that "persons" means people and not legal entities or collections of people, (b) states that the constitutional rights granted to people shall not be denied them merely because they have formed such legal entities or collectives (c) provides legal entities due process (d) provides that nonetheless the direct constitutional rights of people are paramount over the derived rights of legal entites and (e) authorizes Congress to enact reasonable legislation, within this spirit, governing the extension to legal entities of certain constitutional rights of persons.
Add a provision that "money" is not equivalent to speech, and Congress could regukate the speech of legal entities to prevent it from drowning out the speech of persons.
Still oversimplified, but a step closer to a practical amendment.
In this country, even after the massive positive changes of the New Deal, the rich and powerful are stronger than ever. Today, trillions of dollars are being siphoned off to the rich and powerful via 30 years of tax cuts, the military industrial complex, and completely under the table by Americas' enormous intelligence complex, for which there is absolutely no accountability and no possible way of investigating its funding channels. And because of these systems of the super rich to exploit the nations wealth, of course in the end there will not be enough money to fund social security and medicare, all the things that benefit average American tax payers. But heres to those who persist in pushing for social justice. The dream lives on!