Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Occupy in the Streets, but Change happens in the courts.

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 26, 2013, 1:06 a.m. EST by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Gotta start shape shifting into the court thingys.

This guy did and made a difference.




Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 5 years ago

People focus too much on the protest. It gets attention but not always a lot of change. Thurgood Marshall probably did as much if not more real work for civil Rights then King did. Use the system to change the system.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 5 years ago

I agree, and relying on politicians for what, to do what I want, what you want? 100 people have 100 different agendas, the idea that a politician is going to make them all happy is somewhat ridiculous.

However, if the courts work, use them, in the long run it may actually be cheaper. And, if some huge corporation tries to thwart a logical court action, the secondary line of attack becomes online petitions.

Gatorade is taking out a carcinogenic out of their products because of a Change dot org petition. http://www.change.org/petitions/gatorade-don-t-put-flame-retardant-chemicals-in-sports-drinks

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

We are experiencing a breakdown in representation at the most basic level of governance -- our elected representatives no longer represent the voters whom elect them to office. However, whoever they do represent is not as important as the simple fact that they do not represent the vast majority of Americans who cannot afford large campaign donations and lobbyists. This issue is basic to Constitutional self-governance which, according to the Declaration of Independence, is based solely on the principle that government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed".

However, the democratic aspect of our little constitutional republic is limited to popularly electing Representatives and Senators to Congress and electors in the Presidential election, as well as serving on juries (and grand juries) in criminal and civil matters. Notwithstanding the First Amendment's articulation of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", there is no other Constitutional means to assert democratic (that is to say direct citizen) control over our government.

The Constitution does not confer rights upon citizens, rather it merely articulates some of our inherent rights as contrasted with the limited duties, powers and responsibilities we delegate to the government it describes. Or, in other words, the Constitution is a formal agreement between Americans, individually and collectively, about how we govern ourselves. As such, elections serve to elect citizens to Constitutionally described offices whom then constitute the actual and functional "government" which presides over our (we the people's) business. Thus, each election not only constitutes a "new" government, but also conveys our consent, individually and collectively, to be governed under the Constitution by that government. Individually, voting for a candidate in an election conveys your consent to be governed by any candidate elected to office and, collectively, our consent legitimates the new government regardless of whom is elected.

If consent to be governed under the Constitution is implied, both individually and collectively, by voting for a candidate in an election for office, it follows that any American withholding their consent must do so explicitly in an election, insofar as voting is the only Constitutional means of determining the people's intent and political will both individually and collectively. Moreover, it also follows that an American withholding their consent casts a vote against all candidates for office.

Individually this is political protest in the only poll that counts -- our ballot box. Collectively it becomes American democracy -- an expression of our free intent and political will under the Constitution.

By withdrawing our consent, a plurality of voters can present the lame-duck Congress with a public and undeniable Constitutional crisis, if the House of Representatives proves unable to seat a quorum come January. Although there is no precedent, a Constitutionally logical course of action is that Congress immediately call an Article V Convention. Thus, perhaps this ought be the direct Constitutional object of our withdrawal of consent in a general election -- calling an Article V Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

As far as linking a withdrawal of consent at the polls with calling an Article V convention, what else can we do Constitutionally speaking? This is not a rhetorical question.

In Walker v. Congress, the USSC held that Congress' continuing refusal to call an Article V convention was a political question and refused to rule, even though plaintiffs proved sufficient state applications had been tendered and that Article V's plain language, "shall call", left no doubt that Congress was and is failing to carry out its Constitutional duty.

From a Constitutional perspective, the only democratic way to compel politicians is in the voting booth, and the USSC ruled this a political question...

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 5 years ago

I think the courts make more sense for initiating change because in many instances unfair oppressive situations usually have a present victim, and a future beneficiary, and they may cancel each other out at the ballot box.

Voting numbers were allegedly down this past presidential cycle. I would suggest that part of that was due to the massive amounts of foreclosures and people short selling their properties and then not being properly registered in their new district to vote this time around, maybe didn't even know where to go.

Stock Market nowadays equals...Buy low, sell high. 20 years ago, the market was supposed to be a long term investment that eventually did well if one just held onto their stock.

Nowadays, it's buy low, sell high, let the next person worry about it. Unfair home foreclosures, victim converts to investment predators looking for the next home to flip, irrespective of how the home came to them.

I think the courts are where the nonsense can be stopped before unfair economic practices are yinged and yanged into acceptance.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

Yes, and the needed voting on state levels can work to compel states to enforce to constitution through ART5.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

All voting is at the state level. Indeed, the county. Occupy stresses local organization and personal participation. All Representatives are elected locally, in Congressional districts. Senators are elected statewide.

The entire House of Representatives stands for election every two years and one third of the Senate.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

Yes, but without a recommended legal process that officials have a duty to respond to.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

No, that's incorrect. Elected officials must take notice of elections. That is a Constitutional requirement.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

Hmm, maybe I'm talking about something else like a movement. On order for issues to make the ballot state legislators have to approve and support it. Unless a state has ballot initiatives.

At that point it is the matter of $ again unless a movement is coherent enough to be intellectually unified enough to be democratically informed and get issues on ballots then pass them,

Ate you saying there is a proposal using legal process for an election?

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

I am saying that you can walk into a voting booth and write-in "No Consent". This requires no permission and your vote must be counted and tabulated. And, if others vote to remove their consent, well... how many is what counts.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

At 51% "no consent", is the election invalid?

[-] 2 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

Yes as far as electing tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee to Congress. If the House cannot seat a quorum, it cannot conduct business. If it cannot conduct business, the US government will shut down.

Either another election must be held to fill the vacant seats (and since voters rejected the Ds and Rs this would open the field to serious third party efforts), or our withdrawal of consent must have a Constitutional object, such as calling an Article V convention which neither the Congress, Court or President can control.

Either way, with 51% of the vote our "no consent" will shatter the twin parties credibility.

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

When you say, "Constitutional object" do you mean a contingency like a write in? In your example ART5.

[-] 2 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

No. The object (what the people want to happen) of the vote must be a Constitutional act. Calling an Article V convention is such an act.

Point is, shutting down the government in the short-term is all well and good, but does little to actually solve our problems in the long run. For that, we need a Constitutional process we control -- Article V -- by electing delegates and ratification.

The arguments against an Article V convention all boil down to its independence from government control and power to propose any amendment to the Constitution. But, from a democratic perspective, that is exactly what is required to get the job done -- independence and power.

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

OMG, what about 3 constitutional objects attached to ART5? The preparatory amendments. 1)End the abridging of free speech. 2)Campaign finance reform 3)Secure the vote.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

The only thing we can invoke is the Article V process. The convention itself introduces, debates and proposes amendments for ratification...

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

Logically in this situation, because ART5 must have constitutional intent, or amendments must, an action that assures the convention is well controlled by the citizens understanding of the constitutions intent as they view it anew.

They are all constitutional objects that assure a functional convention.

Currently, politicians could almost run off with the notion of intent and ART5 might runaway.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

So when are you filing a law suit?

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Impressive. I've mentioned Australia's class actions against the "big 4" banks over-charging for late fees. We won.

Fight the bastards in their own courts, and win. It's the way to go, and they like the fact that most Americans think it's impossible to beat them in court because they are so wealthy and influential with politicians and the SCOTUS.

If enough Americans unite as one, the cost of taking the bastards to court is minimal. Get onto it.

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 5 years ago

Excellent points. The problem is if one does not have enough money for a retainer, the attorney will barely listen to what the person is trying to accomplish.

Maybe Occupy, assuming they have some savings, could sponsor a contest and people submit their legal arguments against facets of the system that they want "changed".

The ten best arguments are funded so they can go forward as legal challenges. I have some arguments in the area of consumer debt that could literally jump start the economy by reallocating money that was stolen from consumers over the past 15 to 20 years, at least a trillion dollars worth.


[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22871) 5 years ago

It is young people, like Aaron Tobey, who will turn this thing around. It may take a while, but they are going to do it. Bravo, young man. The future is yours.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 5 years ago

I'd still suggest absolutely specific arguments. Instead of debt jubilee, how about debt suspension for anybody who has lost a job, been a victim of a crime and cannot work, is an unpaid CareGiver for another family member, has a medical emergency, and so on.

The idea that the banks get to label these people deadbeats if they miss a payment because of a tragic situation is pretty outrageous, no?

In turn, the deadbeat label results in higher subsequent charges on any existing loans or new loans.

Americans do not have the right to claim a debt suspension no matter what the reason, how about that as a specific to fight in a court of law?

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Not a debt jubilee action - a Law jubilee action. Check out the post.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 5 years ago

You're still going to piss off tens of millions of people who never went into debt, did without, or took a second job to pay off their debts.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Not necessarily - they are open to receiving benefits - for any wrong that was done on their activities. A wrong is a wrong - whether the individual failed or not because of it.

That being said - those that got slammed the hardest should receive 1st consideration/compensation.