PDA

View Full Version : I have a dream




Live_Free_Or_Die
08-02-2009, 11:46 AM
Save the great Republic of the United States.

I acknowledge this dream can not come to fruition without clear, concise, well defined goals with measurable results.

A logical goal is to amend or redraft the constitution so that it may fully achieve it's intended purpose of restricting government and empowering the individual.

In order to accomplish the goal a list of the proposed amendments should be published via grass roots collaboration.



Under Article V of the Constitution, there are two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution and two ways to be ratified by the states.

To Propose Amendments
*Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, OR
* Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. This version has not yet been used.

To Ratify Amendments

* Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, OR
* Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method was used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment (repealing Prohibition).

source: http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/documents/constitution/amend.html


In order to accomplish the goal proposing amendments I believe this would require 67 supporting federal senators and 290 supporting federal representatives. That is 357 supporting people that need to hold office in congress. This result can be measured each congressional cycle but since we have not published a list of constitutional changes we are unable to measure it yet or obtain support.



7,382 elected members serve in the nation's 50 state legislatures. However, the number of legislators serving in each state varies dramatically, from New Hampshire's 400 seat House of Representatives to Alaska's 20 member Senate.

source: http://www.ncsl.org/LegislaturesElections/LegislatorsLegislativeStaffData/LegislatorDataandServicesOverview/tabid/14853/Default.aspx


In order to accomplish the goal to ratify an amendment it is going to require many supporting state legislators. Doing silly simple math it is going to take at most 5,537 state legislators. That number is going to be very unrealistic because only three quarters of the states are required and some states have very few state legislators.

In order to accomplish the goal some serious analysis needs to be performed to determine how to achieve the necessary elected support with the least amount of people. For instance to get 67 congressmen we need to have supporters in ___ amount of states. To obtain 290 representatives will we need to be in more or less states. To obtain the needed state legislators which states are most favorable and do those states match up with obtaining the 290.

Once the political battleground is fully analyzed and the states we will compete in are determined some serous analysis needs to be performed on how many people it will take in each jurisdiction based on previous voting data.

Once that is determined we start relocating as needed and measuring our results in voter and elected official support to work towards the goal. Party organizations can be collectively decided at the local and regional levels to insure political efforts are maximized at the local voting booth.

We continue to multiply by 1) raising children who will hopefully become future supporters and activists 2) continuing to educate other people.

In summary.

The first question is what is our platform and amendments that would have enough common ground among us?

The second question is how many elected representatives and voters will it take to accomplish the goal?

The third question is how close are we to achieving the goal broken down by geographical location?

The fourth question is how many supporters do we have that have not relocated to a region we are politically competing in?

The fifth question is how many new supporters do we need to accomplish the goal via birthing or converting them?

Wars are won by formulating sound strategy and implementing winning tactics. To date liberty minded individuals have been mostly on the losing side of an idealogical political war in this country for several decades.

I challenge you to add a contribution to the thread or articulate a catastrophic flaw in the strategic line of thought.

Live_Free_Or_Die
08-02-2009, 11:58 AM
In the analysis I wanted to also illustrate maybe it is not even necessary to compete at the national political level since it is a lot more expensive to do so. If we are in three quarters of the state legislatures we do not really even need anyone at the national level because two thirds of the states can task congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. But again some number crunching and statistical analysis needs to be done to figure out what makes the most sense.

FindLiberty
08-02-2009, 12:20 PM
The requirement of:

67 supporting federal senators and 290 supporting federal representatives, not to mention 7382 more state reps...
is impossible to obtain! The corrupt system will never allow that to happen. Too many are happy with their piece of the public treasury, hunk of power, or the masses are unaware of the process going on and the truth behind the popular faith-in-government, and thus their votes to maintain it.

I bet there are better odds that our present unconstitutional system might fall down on its own because of its own lies, internal corruption and worldwide inflationary spending, or that we might even lose the next world war, before I would believe "the people can vote back their freedom" through the existing system!

Live_Free_Or_Die
08-02-2009, 12:52 PM
The requirement of:

is impossible to obtain! The corrupt system will never allow that to happen. Too many are happy with their piece of the public treasury, hunk of power, or the masses are unaware of the process going on and the truth behind the popular faith-in-government, and thus their votes to maintain it.

I bet there are better odds that our present unconstitutional system might fall down on its own because of its own lies, internal corruption and worldwide inflationary spending, or that we might even lose the next world war, before I would believe "the people can vote back their freedom" through the existing system!

I have articulated the desired goal and briefly outlined the means to achieve victory. If it is impossible then why was TW banned and criticized for lack of activism and participation? If it is impossible what are you working towards?

It has been clearly stated by many members of the Ron Paul revolution that all political means and solutions must be first fully exhausted. I believe I have articulated sound political strategy to win.

Impossible? You do not even know the answers to the questions regarding how few people it will take and you say it is impossible?

I think you are a fool because you are so quick to come to conclusion without having all of the data at hand to formulate a sound conclusion. I think you are a fool because you dismiss as impossible a logical goal to restore the republic and have conceded the contest completely without putting up any fight.

If you are not here to effect constitutional change such as Ron Paul advocates then... why are you here?

BlackTerrel
08-02-2009, 06:45 PM
You have very detailed dreams.

Mine usually involve Beyonce and unicorns.

FindLiberty
08-02-2009, 10:45 PM
...to effect constitutional change such as Ron Paul advocates then... why are you here?

I don’t have any idea why I’m here. I’ve seen a lot, know a lot, (like Forest Gump ) but because I’m not a fool, I can’t talk about all of what I know first hand... Yes you do have a great dream and a logical plan - I didn't plan on pissing on it, but I still can’t see how it could work.

Yes, it will take great pressure (and votes), perhaps by tens of millions to change a system that several hundred thousand people manipulate, "run", exploit now (or benefit from it leaving it just as it is). “Audit the fed” will be a case and point example of how easy it won’t be to drag it into the sunlight.

You need to figure out how to educate and get that massive public (local?) support first!. You do have a good number in mind for the required un-corruptible candidates (that can't be bribed or threatened), but how are they going to get through the traps and tricks of ballot access and the slime ball “defend the state/status quo” MSM pundits to give them air time? In the past, “power” has seduced some of the few good new people, taking them over to the dark side soon after taking public office - Ron Paul is an exception.

The money to fund any battle of ideas over the MSM organs of the state and military industrial complex would require even more cash supporters than actual voters. That's why I think it's unlikely to break through unless we see more failures of the existing system with more and more voters looking to liberty for another way... The state will fight this in every way possible even getting quite ugly with their exclusive use of force, as much as necessary to keep the people under control. When the existing system becomes so ugly that everyone can see it, then we might have a chance. Anything can change and happen, so your dream/plan is a good thing to have ready, but I think it's better yet to just enjoy the time we have left, spread the word promoting Liberty, make the plans to keep this from happening again in 200 years. I can't buy into the idea that there will be a quick fix here. I think it has to run its course first and grind it's way to the bottom - and even then it's not going away without an ugly fight to maintain it's self in power at everyone else's dire expense.

Here is an example of the voters "freedom" candidates are up against: -reason.tv hasta-la-vista-arnold - (http://www.reason.tv/video/show/hasta-la-vista-arnold)

After watching JBS members struggle to re-direct congress for 17 years (via voters contacting their reps for or against various legislation working within the constitutional system), I see that they have just (maybe) slowed down the inevitable by a tiny bit, and possibly helped the whole transition to socialism hide its self because the changes are still happening so slowly that the next generation knows of no other way than the present system of omnipotent state power. The people can't grasp that advancement as long as nothing happens suddenly, the next generation that follows will still grow up using dimes, nickels and pennies while expecting to pay $15 a cup coffee (paid by an IOU or electronic credit), seeking state approved/run medical care, submitting to routine road check points and property searches, using embedded RFID chips for shopping convenience and life long banking ID security, seeing cameras on every building and street corner, and having their educational and work assignments decided exclusively by the state based on the needs of the state, etc.

It will have to get very bad for a lot of people to gamble on any big change promised by several thousand Liberty candidates.

I'm sorry I don’t know how to get, “A bunch of Liberty minded candidates elected to power!” when the majority of the people don’t want this to happen, yet.

Live_Free_Or_Die
08-02-2009, 11:12 PM
If 38 states are needed to ratify....

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures

if the wiki data is current then 13 states republicans control both houses (allies are everything)
Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming

9 states republicans control 1 house (again utilize allies wherever possible)
Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia

that is 22 states need 16 more to ratify...

Alabama (need 9 lower / 7 upper)
Colorado (need 6 lower / 3 upper)
Delaware(need 4 lower / 6 upper)
Iowa (need 7 lower / 7 upper)
Louisiana (need 2 lower / 4 upper)
Mississippi (need 14 lower / 2 upper)
Nevada (need 8 lower / 2 upper)
New Hampshire (need 26 lower / 3 upper)
New Jersey (need 9 lower / 4 upper)
New Mexico (need 11 lower / 7 upper)
North Carolina (need 9 lower / 6 upper)
Oregon (need 7 lower / 4 upper)
Washington (need 16 lower / 7 upper)
Wisconsin (need 4 lower / 2 upper)

still need 2 more states to ratify and unfortunately voter turnout is not accounted for. it could be very possible that some of the huge democratic states would be easier to shift due to low voter precinct turnout than some of these marginal states.

on another note only 33 states would be need to call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments. that is not much of a stretch with some republican support. if a convention were to be called who knows, propose several good amendments and something is bound to get through with a little popular pressure.

Live_Free_Or_Die
08-02-2009, 11:33 PM
I don’t have any idea why I’m here. I’ve seen a lot, know a lot, (like Forest Gump ) but because I’m not a fool, I can’t talk about all of what I know first hand... Yes you do have a great dream and a logical plan - I didn't plan on pissing on it, but I still can’t see how it could work.

Yes, it will take great pressure (and votes), perhaps by tens of millions to change a system that several hundred thousand people manipulate, "run", exploit now (or benefit from it leaving it just as it is). “Audit the fed” will be a case and point example of how easy it won’t be to drag it into the sunlight.

You need to figure out how to educate and get that massive public (local?) support first!. You do have a good number in mind for the required un-corruptible candidates (that can't be bribed or threatened), but how are they going to get through the traps and tricks of ballot access and the slime ball “defend the state/status quo” MSM pundits to give them air time? In the past, “power” has seduced some of the few good new people, taking them over to the dark side soon after taking public office - Ron Paul is an exception.

The money to fund any battle of ideas over the MSM organs of the state and military industrial complex would require even more cash supporters than actual voters. That's why I think it's unlikely to break through unless we see more failures of the existing system with more and more voters looking to liberty for another way... The state will fight this in every way possible even getting quite ugly with their exclusive use of force, as much as necessary to keep the people under control. When the existing system becomes so ugly that everyone can see it, then we might have a chance. Anything can change and happen, so your dream/plan is a good thing to have ready, but I think it's better yet to just enjoy the time we have left, spread the word promoting Liberty, make the plans to keep this from happening again in 200 years. I can't buy into the idea that there will be a quick fix here. I think it has to run its course first and grind it's way to the bottom - and even then it's not going away without an ugly fight to maintain it's self in power at everyone else's dire expense.

Here is an example of the voters "freedom" candidates are up against: -reason.tv hasta-la-vista-arnold - (http://www.reason.tv/video/show/hasta-la-vista-arnold)

After watching JBS members struggle to re-direct congress for 17 years (via voters contacting their reps for or against various legislation working within the constitutional system), I see that they have just (maybe) slowed down the inevitable by a tiny bit, and possibly helped the whole transition to socialism hide its self because the changes are still happening so slowly that the next generation knows of no other way than the present system of omnipotent state power. The people can't grasp that advancement as long as nothing happens suddenly, the next generation that follows will still grow up using dimes, nickels and pennies while expecting to pay $15 a cup coffee (paid by an IOU or electronic credit), seeking state approved/run medical care, submitting to routine road check points and property searches, using embedded RFID chips for shopping convenience and life long banking ID security, seeing cameras on every building and street corner, and having their educational and work assignments decided exclusively by the state based on the needs of the state, etc.

It will have to get very bad for a lot of people to gamble on any big change promised by several thousand Liberty candidates.

I'm sorry I don’t know how to get, “A bunch of Liberty minded candidates elected to power!” when the majority of the people don’t want this to happen, yet.

My only point is that change is effected by setting good goals and measuring the result. There is a lot of effort being put forth but to what end? We support Ron Paul because he advocates constitutional change. We all know under the present republic the only way to truly do this is via constitutional amendment. JBS, CFL, etc. all have mission statements to the effect of educating people. That is nice but how is that going to effect change exactly? Even if the best case scenario happens with "an idea whose time has come" as Dr. Paul puts it and CFL has millions of supporters... what then? Something still needs to be implemented.

Again, the point here is like many of my posts... to stimulate the idea pool. The end result and goal should be identified. Results should be measured. And if someone has a better goal to effect constitutional change... by all means throw it out there along with how it can be achieved and the results can be measured.

I'd ask TW since he had an opinion on this matter and I think his solution would be for those millions of people to do nothing. Since he was continually criticized for that particular viewpoint and ultimately ejected from Liberty Forest I am going to assume that doing nothing is an unacceptable position. So that means doing something is the only acceptable position around here for folks... but to what end and for what purpose?

PaulaGem
08-03-2009, 08:57 AM
If 38 states are needed to ratify....

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures

if the wiki data is current then 13 states republicans control both houses (allies are everything)
Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming

9 states republicans control 1 house (again utilize allies wherever possible)
Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia

that is 22 states need 16 more to ratify...

Alabama (need 9 lower / 7 upper)
Colorado (need 6 lower / 3 upper)
Delaware(need 4 lower / 6 upper)
Iowa (need 7 lower / 7 upper)
Louisiana (need 2 lower / 4 upper)
Mississippi (need 14 lower / 2 upper)
Nevada (need 8 lower / 2 upper)
New Hampshire (need 26 lower / 3 upper)
New Jersey (need 9 lower / 4 upper)
New Mexico (need 11 lower / 7 upper)
North Carolina (need 9 lower / 6 upper)
Oregon (need 7 lower / 4 upper)
Washington (need 16 lower / 7 upper)
Wisconsin (need 4 lower / 2 upper)

still need 2 more states to ratify and unfortunately voter turnout is not accounted for. it could be very possible that some of the huge democratic states would be easier to shift due to low voter precinct turnout than some of these marginal states.

on another note only 33 states would be need to call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments. that is not much of a stretch with some republican support. if a convention were to be called who knows, propose several good amendments and something is bound to get through with a little popular pressure.

If you rely on a partisan effort you have already condemned yourself to failure. The only way you will get the numbers is to put principal first and ignite a cross party movement.

Live_Free_Or_Die
08-03-2009, 05:09 PM
If you rely on a partisan effort you have already condemned yourself to failure. The only way you will get the numbers is to put principal first and ignite a cross party movement.

I do not disagree with your statement. A logical course of action would be to determine the end result and goal, then solicit support to determine a political starting point. This is effort that can be measured.