I don't mean to disparage the concept behind this, but I have serious reservations about its potential value the way it's written. The language of the proposed Amendment, sounding very grown-up and erudite and like other, 19th- and early 20th-century amendments, is totally wrong.
For one thing, it is subject to so much possible interperetation and misinterpretation by right-wing judges, courts, representatives, and others -- including a future administration -- that it will never be able to take effect in an effective manner.
For example, in Section 4 it concludes that "Congress shall have the power to ..." BUT NO REPERCUSSIONS IF CONGRESS REFUSES TO DO SO."
Second, it has all sorts of promises but, again, no enforcement. "People shall have the right" -- well, if the Thielists buy Congress and tell them to override that, or to "pass legislation" that actually enables private, monopoly control over AI systems or applications, who's gonna do anything about it? NO-ONE.
Finally, why two years after its ratification to take effect. Hell, no. It takes effect UPON RATIFICATION by 3/4 of the states. Period. On that very day.
The point is, using 19th-century language and style as a way to pull us out of corporate, fascist control of such systems is absurd. Plain English. Every term defined and identified. No future lege deciding to reinterpret it.
This really sounds like a traditional, old-school Democratic approach to a problem, rather than what we need, which is strong, no-nonsense, no-bullshit language and policies.
At age 72, I've had 54 years of Democrats playing by old rulebooks and compromising before a policy is even on the table (witness Obama's ACA, which didn't even begin with universal coverage, because he knew he'd have to bargain it away -- so he bargained it away in advance, and started on the 3-yard line instead of the 70th). Even good, visionary, progressive Democrats who UNDERSTOOD the legislative process -- I'm thinking LBJ, but also Clinton to some degree -- have watched as Republicans have run rings around us for 40 years because they understand A) how to make the rules work for them; B) how to change the rules whenever they need to; and C) how to ignore the rules (and the law!) altogether without qualms to get what they want.
Lovely thought. However: a Constitutional Amendment requires a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress, followed by ratification in 3/4 of the states. That will not happen: we won't get the vote in either the House or the Senate and red states outnumber blue states.
Great stuff ! We've got to vote these Suckers OUT ASAP !!! And thank all the judges, Democratic AG's, Civil Rights organizations and Constitutional lawyers for their tireless work. I'm sure they're getting burnt out because it's never ending BS when you deal with Trump and his ahole cronies. Stay tough and don't relent !!!
Andy Reed has some good points. In addition, I would say that the first objective has to be reforming SCOTUS to sanity. Article 3 reform must be the next Amendment. After that, fixing Article 2 to clean up the mess created when SCOTUS shit the bed. Article 1 has to be fixed so that Congress cannot give their powers to the other branches of government. Congress must be functional. It's an absolute imperative! Actually, we probably need at least 30 more Amendments to catch up with the rest of the free world.
Anyone who thinks any Amendment will pass with political system we have today is wasting their breath. A new DEM President and Congress could pass some heavy regulations but as soon as the GOP came back, they would rescind it. Or the Fascist pro-business SCOTUS would kill it.
One option is the 19th century Luddite response. Protest, strikes and sometimes destruction of the modern weaving machinery that was putting the hand weavers out of business. They were also protesting that no provision had been made to help transition them to new types of work. Sound familiar?
Of course the British government was wholly owned and run by the big money business interests attacked them, hung more than 20, imprisoned many and shipped even more to Australia. Sound familiar? Just saying... GH
To pass a Constitutional Amendment in the U.S., a two-step process is required, namely proposal and ratification. First, the amendment must be proposed, either by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or by a national convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Then, the proposed amendment must be ratified, which requires a three-fourths vote of either the state legislatures or state ratifying conventions. But of course, the Constitutional Amendment is a pipe dream.
Maybe we need to convene a Chamber of Democracy meeting, in which we pass around a memo drafted by our best minds, urging our donors, economists, public policy thinkers, attorneys, bankers, ecologists, climate experts, activists and humble citizens to join us in the work, to rebuild from the wreckage of our nation a strong, sustainable, just, anti-autocratic Democracy.
I don't mean to disparage the concept behind this, but I have serious reservations about its potential value the way it's written. The language of the proposed Amendment, sounding very grown-up and erudite and like other, 19th- and early 20th-century amendments, is totally wrong.
For one thing, it is subject to so much possible interperetation and misinterpretation by right-wing judges, courts, representatives, and others -- including a future administration -- that it will never be able to take effect in an effective manner.
For example, in Section 4 it concludes that "Congress shall have the power to ..." BUT NO REPERCUSSIONS IF CONGRESS REFUSES TO DO SO."
Second, it has all sorts of promises but, again, no enforcement. "People shall have the right" -- well, if the Thielists buy Congress and tell them to override that, or to "pass legislation" that actually enables private, monopoly control over AI systems or applications, who's gonna do anything about it? NO-ONE.
Finally, why two years after its ratification to take effect. Hell, no. It takes effect UPON RATIFICATION by 3/4 of the states. Period. On that very day.
The point is, using 19th-century language and style as a way to pull us out of corporate, fascist control of such systems is absurd. Plain English. Every term defined and identified. No future lege deciding to reinterpret it.
This really sounds like a traditional, old-school Democratic approach to a problem, rather than what we need, which is strong, no-nonsense, no-bullshit language and policies.
At age 72, I've had 54 years of Democrats playing by old rulebooks and compromising before a policy is even on the table (witness Obama's ACA, which didn't even begin with universal coverage, because he knew he'd have to bargain it away -- so he bargained it away in advance, and started on the 3-yard line instead of the 70th). Even good, visionary, progressive Democrats who UNDERSTOOD the legislative process -- I'm thinking LBJ, but also Clinton to some degree -- have watched as Republicans have run rings around us for 40 years because they understand A) how to make the rules work for them; B) how to change the rules whenever they need to; and C) how to ignore the rules (and the law!) altogether without qualms to get what they want.
And we write amendments for John Quincy Adams.
Lovely thought. However: a Constitutional Amendment requires a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress, followed by ratification in 3/4 of the states. That will not happen: we won't get the vote in either the House or the Senate and red states outnumber blue states.
Great stuff ! We've got to vote these Suckers OUT ASAP !!! And thank all the judges, Democratic AG's, Civil Rights organizations and Constitutional lawyers for their tireless work. I'm sure they're getting burnt out because it's never ending BS when you deal with Trump and his ahole cronies. Stay tough and don't relent !!!
Andy Reed has some good points. In addition, I would say that the first objective has to be reforming SCOTUS to sanity. Article 3 reform must be the next Amendment. After that, fixing Article 2 to clean up the mess created when SCOTUS shit the bed. Article 1 has to be fixed so that Congress cannot give their powers to the other branches of government. Congress must be functional. It's an absolute imperative! Actually, we probably need at least 30 more Amendments to catch up with the rest of the free world.
Anyone who thinks any Amendment will pass with political system we have today is wasting their breath. A new DEM President and Congress could pass some heavy regulations but as soon as the GOP came back, they would rescind it. Or the Fascist pro-business SCOTUS would kill it.
One option is the 19th century Luddite response. Protest, strikes and sometimes destruction of the modern weaving machinery that was putting the hand weavers out of business. They were also protesting that no provision had been made to help transition them to new types of work. Sound familiar?
Of course the British government was wholly owned and run by the big money business interests attacked them, hung more than 20, imprisoned many and shipped even more to Australia. Sound familiar? Just saying... GH
It can be refined to eliminate any loopholes. It’s unlikely but not impossible in the future. As soon as possible preferably.
To pass a Constitutional Amendment in the U.S., a two-step process is required, namely proposal and ratification. First, the amendment must be proposed, either by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or by a national convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Then, the proposed amendment must be ratified, which requires a three-fourths vote of either the state legislatures or state ratifying conventions. But of course, the Constitutional Amendment is a pipe dream.
Maybe we need to convene a Chamber of Democracy meeting, in which we pass around a memo drafted by our best minds, urging our donors, economists, public policy thinkers, attorneys, bankers, ecologists, climate experts, activists and humble citizens to join us in the work, to rebuild from the wreckage of our nation a strong, sustainable, just, anti-autocratic Democracy.