 | Convention USA |
|
I would like to open a discussion about Convention USA, the interactive virtual Article V convention now being organized on the Internet at www.ConventionUSA.org. Some of our delegates would like to begin using a message board to communicate ideas about the convention. Iwillinvite them to become members of FOAVC, if they are not already, and use this Discussion Forum. |
| Re: Convention USA |
|
Sabato proposes 23 Amendment considerations in A More Perfect Constitution. I am certain that you have ideas on this matter as well. Is it premature to ask what they might be? |
 | Re: Convention USA |
|
We need amendments to address these 10 major abuses. Campaign Finance Reform is crucial. Otherwise, we have the best corruption and most FOR-SALE government that massive debt and money created out of thin-air can buy. 90% of elections are won by the candidate the spends the most money (usually the incumbent, who has numerous unfair advantages). 99.7% of all 200 Million American voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make a whopping 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more! However, Congress is extremely unlikely to reform itself, or police its own ranks. So, it is now up to the voters, and 90% re-election rates for Congress is not the solution. So, we need something else too. The voters are culpable too. The voters will get their education one way or another. At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect,...,and re-elect, at least, until repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful. |
| Re: Convention USA |
|
Insightful, comprehensive, well researched and documented! An Amendatory Convention, whether virtual such as ours (once started), or actual such as we seek, will not solve nor resolve all of the problems and issues facing the U.S. Perhaps it would be useful, as a first objective of our Convention, to develop a "Statement of Purpose" as a starting point for our work. |
| Re: Convention USA |
|
I have an assumption that one or more proposed amendments will seek to "get the special interest" money out of federal campaign needs. For those of us that may be thinking this way, please think also about Presidential Campaign Debates, probably Congressional Campaign Debates as well. Below is an excerpt of an earlier article of mine that articulates the need. The biggest protection racket in this country is not run by organized crime, not by Wall Street, not by Congress. The biggest protection racket in this country is run by the Presidential Debate Commission (PDC), a private corporation formed in 1987 by the Democrat and Republican Parties. The biggest current racketeers are Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Howard Dean and Republican National Committee (RNC) Chair Michael Steele along with the Commission's Co-Chairs Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkipt, former Chairmen of the DNC and RNC respectively. Both Kirk and Fahrenkipt are special interest Washington lobbyists. Their intent is to assure voter information is limited, that free voter choice is curtailed. The PDC was established with an implicit goal to limit debates to the two principal national parties to the exclusion of third party candidates and to assure that such debates by assuredly soft; so much so that Walter Cronkite labeled the process an "unconscionable fraud"- in which the debate "defies meaningful discourse"-. As to the relevance of third parties, it is noted that Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate for the presidency. The Whigs and the Democrats were the two major parties existing at that time. Prior to 1988, presidential debates were managed by the League of Women Voters. Their press release of October 3, 1988 states: LEAGUE REFUSES TO "HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD" WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE WASHINGTON, DC--The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter," "It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public." |
 | Re: Convention USA |
|
I heard a rumor of a FOAVC wiki. Where is it, as I would like to add more about regionalization. |
| Re: Convention USA |
|
I think the first order of business, once a quorum is achieved, is the election of a permanent convention chair. While it is perfectly appropriate for you to act as interim-Chair for the purposes of convening the body, for the Convention to have long term legitimacy, it must be owned by the group, must approve its own rules, set its own agenda and appoint its own chair. It is likely that you will still be selected - but you should not take it as a given. If you are not willing to do that, it is your project, not a group project and to state otherwise is to perpetrate a fraud - especially since you are asking for dues. In that case, I suggest abandoning the effort and refunding all of our money. |