PDA

View Full Version : Mike Gravel & NI4D




xtr3me
06-02-2009, 09:30 PM
I havn't thought about this too much, but its been on my mind a lot recently. I've always liked Mike ever since he flipped shit about nukes and how they are used in modern politics. But that's also where i lost him, because after that i saw Ron Paul.

Anyone have any insight on why we should all vote on it?

I see Pros = Marijuana could be legalized federally and stuff like that there, Cons = More Government intervention

Some more cons after thought, make me think that what the amendment constitutes into creation is a second congress, much like a parliament, along side of the US congress.

It doesn't sound good. But I am still undecided on voting.



______________________________________________


The Democracy Amendment
September 17, 2002

SECTION 1.
The sovereign authority and the legislative power of citizens of the United States to enact, repeal and amend public policy, laws, charters, and constitutions by local, state and national initiatives shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state.

SECTION 2.
The citizens of the United States hereby sanction the national election conducted by the nonprofit corporation Philadelphia II, permitting the enactment of this Article and the Democracy Act.

SECTION 3.
The United States Electoral Trust (hereinafter "Electoral Trust") is hereby created to administer the procedures established by this Article and the Democracy Act. A Board of Trustees and a Director shall govern the Electoral Trust. The Board of Trustees shall be composed of one member elected by the citizens of each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Territories of the United States. An election shall be conducted every two years to elect members of the Board of Trustees. Immediately after the first election, the elected members shall be divided as equally as possible into two classes. The seats of the members of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year; the seats of the members of the second class shall be vacated at the expiration of the fourth year. All members of the Board of Trustees shall serve for four years except the members of the first class. In order to facilitate the initial election of members to the Board of Trustees, an Interim Board is appointed by the Democracy Act. A Director responsible for day-to-day operations shall be appointed by the majority of the members of the Board of Trustees, except that the first Director shall be appointed by the Board of Directors of Philadelphia II.

SECTION 4.
An initiative created under the authority of this Article that modifies a constitution or charter assumes the force of law when it is approved by more than half the registered voters of the relevant jurisdiction in each of two successive elections conducted by the Electoral Trust. If such initiative is approved in the first election, the second election shall occur no earlier than six months and no later than a year after the first election. An initiative created under the authority of this Article that enacts, modifies or repeals any statute assumes the force of law when approved by more than half the registered voters of the relevant jurisdiction participating in an election conducted by the Electoral Trust.

SECTION 5.
Only natural persons who are citizens of the United States may sponsor an initiative under the authority of this Article.

SECTION 6.
Only natural persons who are citizens of the United States may contribute funds, services or property in support of or in opposition to a legislative initiative created under the authority of this Article. Contributions from corporations including, but not limited to, such incorporated entities as industry groups, labor unions, political parties, political action committees, organized religions and associations, are specifically prohibited. Such entities are also prohibited from coercing or inducing employees, clients, customers, members, or any other associated persons to support or oppose an initiative created under the authority of this Article.

SECTION 7.
The people shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this Article by appropriate legislation. No court in the United States may enjoin an initiative election except on grounds of fraud.

__________________________________________________

TastyWheat
06-02-2009, 11:16 PM
If we had a national initiative we'd also have a single-payer health care system right now.

xtr3me
06-03-2009, 01:38 AM
If we had a national initiative we'd also have a single-payer health care system right now.

With strong representatives might it not be the same? Perhaps conclusion could be met between debates of both Philly2 and Congress?

cool name, i always liked mouse

an afterthought, are the state initiatives attributing to bankruptcy in California and what not??

Aratus
06-03-2009, 09:10 AM
ex-senator mike gravel had quite a few
brilliant ideas... his wisdom is legendary.

xtr3me
06-03-2009, 01:39 PM
ex-senator mike gravel had quite a few
brilliant ideas... his wisdom is legendary.

I sense sarcasm, please explain! I'd like to hear some skepticism on mike

acptulsa
06-03-2009, 02:11 PM
Section one: Smells like good old democratic mob rule to me.
Section two: I never even heard of that poll, and I sure didn't vote in it. Didn't have the chance, as far as I know, and no one who did or declined to do so knew that it would have the force of law when they did it. I think not.
Section three: Just what we need: More politicians!
Section four: The first election might get an honest opinion out of the populace. Participation in the second, redundant one will be limited to those with a vested interest in it.
Section six: I like it. Now, how do we get this provision enacted concerning Congress, where it's needed? Then we might be back to a republic, and can stop worrying about a democracy.

brandon
06-03-2009, 02:30 PM
No thanks. Democracy is just about the worst form of government. I'd take a monarchy over democracy. (very serious)

Mesogen
06-03-2009, 02:31 PM
Section three: Just what we need: More politicians!


Actually, we do:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=9768

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-11-16_069_the_case_for_bigger_government.mp3

Mesogen
06-03-2009, 02:33 PM
No thanks. Democracy is just about the worst form of government. I'd take a monarchy over democracy. (very serious)

Prefer to live in Saudi Arabia?

North Korea is practically a monarchy.

xtr3me
06-03-2009, 11:08 PM
No thanks. Democracy is just about the worst form of government. I'd take a monarchy over democracy. (very serious)

Well, i believe we still would be considered a Constitutional Republic if hypothetically this were amended

Aratus
06-04-2009, 07:37 AM
Mike Gravel ran as a Libertarian, recently...

Aratus
06-04-2009, 07:39 AM
I sense sarcasm, please explain!
I'd like to hear some skepticism on mike

i thought it sorta cool when he
read the pentagon papers into
the congressional record. i was
being honest & direct about him!

xtr3me
06-04-2009, 03:15 PM
Actually, we do:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=9768

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-11-16_069_the_case_for_bigger_government.mp3

Citizen Legislatures, more reps! Makes me feel like i could have a chance becoming one!

xtr3me
06-04-2009, 03:16 PM
i thought it sorta cool when he
read the pentagon papers into
the congressional record. i was
being honest and direct about him!

haha, ya i liked that too. I think it was called a "filibuster"

xtr3me
06-04-2009, 04:12 PM
SECTION 4.
An initiative created under the authority of this Article that modifies a constitution or charter assumes the force of law when it is approved by more than half the registered voters of the relevant jurisdiction in each of two successive elections conducted by the Electoral Trust. If such initiative is approved in the first election, the second election shall occur no earlier than six months and no later than a year after the first election. An initiative created under the authority of this Article that enacts, modifies or repeals any statute assumes the force of law when approved by more than half the registered voters of the relevant jurisdiction participating in an election conducted by the Electoral Trust.



Section four: The first election might get an honest opinion out of the populace. Participation in the second, redundant one will be limited to those with a vested interest in it.

From what i can understand the Electoral Trust will be split into 2 parties. Once the Electoral Trust votes, the first party gets its chance. After the First party votes 6months to a year, the 2nd party votes.

If the first party votes, and majority rules, it becomes statute law, in those states that voted only?

If the second party votes, and majority rules, it becomes amended as Constitutional/national law??

On Thirty-Thousand.org it states:

At the state level, the winner-takes-all model currently used by 48 states should be replaced with the proportional method for allocating electoral votes that is used by Maine and Nebraska.
http://thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_IX.htm

I wonder if the Electoral Trust will be proportional, does splitting it into 2 parties make it proportional, it doesn't seem like it is

Is this Electoral Trust going to be anything like the Electoral College?
http://thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_IX.htm#D

Aratus
06-05-2009, 07:28 AM
actually he was backing up Ellsberg as he places on the public record some
mcNamara era turgid prose our gov't has payed for in more ways than one...

ceakins
06-05-2009, 07:49 AM
OK people think for a minute. California allows for initiatives to amend the constitution. California thus has the worlds 3rd largest constitution. All these democratic process allow is mob rule. It's very easy to suppress the civil rights of a minority group with this kind of government.

He Who Pawns
06-05-2009, 07:52 AM
If we had a national initiative we'd also have a single-payer health care system right now.

Maybe, maybe not. But once the system became a failure, it would be voted out of existence. Either way, it would have been the will of the people. Right now, we have a bunch of frauds and phonies in DC "representing" us -- or should I say, representing those who fund their campaigns.

In California, we recently just had a massive victory in our ballot election, killing a planned 2-year tax increase and shoving it back in the faces of the Dems.

TastyWheat
06-05-2009, 12:11 PM
Maybe, maybe not. But once the system became a failure, it would be voted out of existence. Either way, it would have been the will of the people.
Assuming the United States is the linchpin of every socialized system (i.e. they ride our wave of innovation) then it would fail horribly and we'd go back to a freer system. However, I don't see other countries clamoring to shake off the shackles of their health care system. If we could maintain something slightly worse but seemingly "free" then I doubt we'd switch back any time soon.

Medicare and Social Security could also be seen as abject failures, but the people are either too stupid to understand these programs can't be fixed or too timid to handle retirement and health insurance on their own. If a nationwide initiative came up to abolish either of these programs, albeit gradually, I bet they would fail. Politicians don't want to cut programs and the people don't want to cut off their own benefits either.

The problems of a corrupt minority cannot be solved by an ill-informed majority.

And kudos on the Thirty-Thousand.org mention.

xtr3me
06-10-2009, 10:55 AM
Actually, we do:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=9768

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-11-16_069_the_case_for_bigger_government.mp3


Im going to go ahead and say Thirty-Thousand.org > NI4D

I remember seeing this a while back, Thanks for bringing it up Mesogen!!!

http://www.Thirty-Thousand.org
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/graphics/RGWB.png