Showing posts with label rewriting constitutions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rewriting constitutions. Show all posts
Sunday, July 12, 2009
None of these are particularly radical moves, but it was nevertheless disturbing to the country's wealthy economic and military elites. More frightening was that Zelaya had sought to organize an assembly to replace the 1982 constitution written during the waning days of the U.S.-backed military dictator Policarpo Paz. A non-binding referendum on whether such a constitutional assembly should take place was scheduled the day of the coup, but was cancelled when the military seized power and named Congressional Speaker Roberto Micheletti as president.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
lecture 5, "telling a free story"
david blight
-------------
slaves, of course, are the greatest witnesses to this context and this war, in many ways--if it is somehow all about them, "what did they think?"
douglass' 1845 narrative is perhaps the greatest of the literary narratives. he was an almost mystically great writer, for someone who escaped so young (he learned literacy from his white mistress).
the book is full of metaphor--of one kind of tale after another.
for a fugitive slave to write his story and publish it in the western world was to say "i am free, i am somebody--i am claiming my idenity."
douglass spoke in london, at one point, before 10,000 people in london, in 1846.
the most beautiful metaphor in anti-slavery literature--Douglass seeing white sailboats on the Chesapeake Bay. acts of language that made Douglass free; a form of liberation.
----------
abolitionism--its roots, its characters, barriers they faced. and its chronology--stages of its development.
the first of the four eras of reform the prof identified earlier (very suspect--what about strike era, pre-taft/hartley?)
this was an age, the 1830s, for a small group (never exceeded 15% of the population of the Northern states--concentrated in upstate NY, MA, CT, etc.). BUT: like most highly organized reform groups, their significance is much greater than their numbers.
what were they up against?
the American abolitionists has to deal, by the 1820s, with the new generations being born who did not experience the revolution. that revolution had at least a two-fold legacy: (1) it was an event that ushered in/stood for those great Enlightenment principles; (2) fostered an intensification of slavery in the South (whereas it had abolished slavery in the North by the 1820s), and, as corollary, had to develop a defense to deal with this Great American Contradiction (prof of course not mentioning the other Great American Contradictions).
any abolitionist would have to deal with the Constitution, which is rooted deeply in Federalism. States' rights doctrine. Then you take the 3/5 clause, the Fugitive Slaves Cause, and the postponing of the question of banning the slave trade for 20 years--and you see that the Constitution is complicit in this great American sin. put another way: abolitionism would have to become extra-legal.
and then of course, they were up against the deep defense of slavery rehearsed in the South. they would have to call for social, economic, and legal revolution in a society that did not want it (and a society to which they did not belong!). to be an abolitionist in the 1830s was to take on an issue that no one saw resolving itself for generations.
anti-slavery in America, though, takes stages:
first, the idea of colonizing black people, elsewhere, as a resolution to slavery at home. colonization as an idea is not new, by 1816, when the American Colonization Society was formed (had Congressional funding--founded by James Monroe, Henry Clay (slave-holder from Kentucky), John Marshall (chief justice of the Supreme Court). but in the wake of the War of 1812, the idea was that in the boundless West, the problem of slavery might have to be faced. and the idea was that it may be solved by ridding America of black people--and they would begin with free people, who would be "asked not coeerced." the ACS founded the nation of Liberia in 1820/1822--it would ship approximately 1500 free African-Americans to Liberia, between 1821 and 1831. and they would found a capital at Monrovia (named after James Monroe, president of USA!).
but colonization, of course, had all kinds of flaws at its root. essentially rooted in the assumptions that racial equality in America was never going to happen. a fear of the rising free black population, that had really boomed in the aftermath of the American Revolution (manumissions in the Upper South, and emancipations in the North). a fear of slave insurrections, of course.
there was this idea, too, that colonization would be a safety-valve--it might only remove 5 or 10%, but even that would ameliorate tensions in the South.
a strange attractiveness, but mainly to white folk. roundly opposed by free blacks in the North.
"gradualism" fueled the proposal--and it was "gradualism" that was white America's first response to slavery, prof is arguing. example of CT, passing a law in 1790s, saying that every slave born in that state after this date would be free on their 21st birthday. (this is Abraham Lincoln's proposal, in fact, on the eve of the Civil War! and he would even compensate the slave-holders!)
BUT: several things begin to happen in the 1820s and 1830s, that radicalize anti-slavery thinkers. the roots of a more radical abolitionism--of "immediatism." four roots, prof is arguing:
(1) evangelical christianity--some of their radicalism they took from their faith, at the time of the Second Great Awakening (1790s-1840s) it was their duty to save souls. it was only one step further, to save society as well. (if it can happen in a person, why can't it happen in society?).
(2) perceptions of Southern intransigence/truculence--in the 1820s, a lot of these young anti-slavery advocates were gradualists until they began to realize how deeply committed the South actually was--morally, economically, socially, philosophically-- to slavery. and that leaving it to the South was never going to solve anything. by 1829, William Lloyd Garrison used metaphors of icebergs to characterize what he perceived as Southern intransigence.
(3) British influence--abolitionists were deeply influenced by the two or three decades-old anti-slavery crusade in England. which had first been a crusade against the slave trade, which succeeded in an act of Parliament in 1807, and then ultimately the movement against slavery itself (and the British empire will free its slaves, by 1833).
(4) "immediatism" also, prof is arguing, stems from events--in the 1810s, 1820s and 1830s there were events that informed this posture. (a) famous insurrections in the South (insurrection in SC in 1822, and the 28/30 ppl executed in its wake; (b) Negro Seamen's act passed in SC in 1822, which said that any ship sailing into the harbor, if it had black sailors, those sailors would be jailed in Charlestown while the ship was in harbor; (c) the Ohio Resolutions in 1824, State legislature suggested that a gradual plan for emancipation be put in to place over generations, and they sent it to all the Southern legislatures (they were rebuffed--letters from Southern governers saying "mind your own business");(d) massive growth of the domestic slave trade; (e) Nat Turner's insurrection in 1831, which had a radicalizing effect, no question.
------------
now who was William Lloyd Garrison? by no means the whole abolitionist movement (he did found, edit and publish the longest-running anti-slavery newspaper, from 1831 to 1865, nine months after the end of the Civil War, the week of the ratification of the 13th amendment).
he was the real thing--a professional, radical reformer. born into utter poverty! raised by his mother; he was apprenticed out at the age of 12, because his mother couldn't raise him, to a printer.
if you want to understand Garrison, you have to understand him through his ideas. here, you see the contours of "immediatism," which will begin to garner support, for sure, particularly among free blacks in the North. but it will also, of course, begin to garner widespread enemies.
but, here, his seven ideas (what "immediatism" became, in his hands):
(1) moral perfectionism: a stern, demanding call for abolitionists to remove themselves personally from any complicity in the slave system. deeply religious, of course.
(2) pacificsm, or non-resistance: he rejected all forms of violence, in any form (well, until the war broke out)
(3) anti-clericalism: opposition to what he saw as the hypocrisy of the American churches, and the Protestant clergy. (remember: Garrison was Douglass' mentor, father-figure, etc.)
(4) disunionism: no union with the slave-holders. he advocated a personal secession from the Union. that northern states not participate in the same constitution.
(5) not voting: to vote in an American election, he believed, was to be morally complicit in slavery. he advocated political non-participation.
(6) women's equality (another form of radicalism that made him a lot of enemies)
(7) civil rights advocate: a tremendous early demander of civil rights, at a time when there really weren't any advocates.
------------
what happens with this anti-slavery activism?
in a sense, two kinds of abolitionism emerged: one "white" and one "black"
the former: thousands and thousands across the North writing petitions, starting slave societies, etc. even fledgling political parties, though Garrison wouldn't touch this.
the latter: free blacks in the North, who couldn't risk the theoretical abstractions that the white abolitionists would waste time on (what are we doing for my children, who don't have a school, etc.?)
by the 1840s, a division will evolve between these two groups.
------------
amidst all this, fugitive slaves kept coming from the South (though there is a myth/legend problem, here--next lecture).
david blight
-------------
slaves, of course, are the greatest witnesses to this context and this war, in many ways--if it is somehow all about them, "what did they think?"
douglass' 1845 narrative is perhaps the greatest of the literary narratives. he was an almost mystically great writer, for someone who escaped so young (he learned literacy from his white mistress).
the book is full of metaphor--of one kind of tale after another.
for a fugitive slave to write his story and publish it in the western world was to say "i am free, i am somebody--i am claiming my idenity."
douglass spoke in london, at one point, before 10,000 people in london, in 1846.
the most beautiful metaphor in anti-slavery literature--Douglass seeing white sailboats on the Chesapeake Bay. acts of language that made Douglass free; a form of liberation.
----------
abolitionism--its roots, its characters, barriers they faced. and its chronology--stages of its development.
the first of the four eras of reform the prof identified earlier (very suspect--what about strike era, pre-taft/hartley?)
this was an age, the 1830s, for a small group (never exceeded 15% of the population of the Northern states--concentrated in upstate NY, MA, CT, etc.). BUT: like most highly organized reform groups, their significance is much greater than their numbers.
what were they up against?
the American abolitionists has to deal, by the 1820s, with the new generations being born who did not experience the revolution. that revolution had at least a two-fold legacy: (1) it was an event that ushered in/stood for those great Enlightenment principles; (2) fostered an intensification of slavery in the South (whereas it had abolished slavery in the North by the 1820s), and, as corollary, had to develop a defense to deal with this Great American Contradiction (prof of course not mentioning the other Great American Contradictions).
any abolitionist would have to deal with the Constitution, which is rooted deeply in Federalism. States' rights doctrine. Then you take the 3/5 clause, the Fugitive Slaves Cause, and the postponing of the question of banning the slave trade for 20 years--and you see that the Constitution is complicit in this great American sin. put another way: abolitionism would have to become extra-legal.
and then of course, they were up against the deep defense of slavery rehearsed in the South. they would have to call for social, economic, and legal revolution in a society that did not want it (and a society to which they did not belong!). to be an abolitionist in the 1830s was to take on an issue that no one saw resolving itself for generations.
anti-slavery in America, though, takes stages:
first, the idea of colonizing black people, elsewhere, as a resolution to slavery at home. colonization as an idea is not new, by 1816, when the American Colonization Society was formed (had Congressional funding--founded by James Monroe, Henry Clay (slave-holder from Kentucky), John Marshall (chief justice of the Supreme Court). but in the wake of the War of 1812, the idea was that in the boundless West, the problem of slavery might have to be faced. and the idea was that it may be solved by ridding America of black people--and they would begin with free people, who would be "asked not coeerced." the ACS founded the nation of Liberia in 1820/1822--it would ship approximately 1500 free African-Americans to Liberia, between 1821 and 1831. and they would found a capital at Monrovia (named after James Monroe, president of USA!).
but colonization, of course, had all kinds of flaws at its root. essentially rooted in the assumptions that racial equality in America was never going to happen. a fear of the rising free black population, that had really boomed in the aftermath of the American Revolution (manumissions in the Upper South, and emancipations in the North). a fear of slave insurrections, of course.
there was this idea, too, that colonization would be a safety-valve--it might only remove 5 or 10%, but even that would ameliorate tensions in the South.
a strange attractiveness, but mainly to white folk. roundly opposed by free blacks in the North.
"gradualism" fueled the proposal--and it was "gradualism" that was white America's first response to slavery, prof is arguing. example of CT, passing a law in 1790s, saying that every slave born in that state after this date would be free on their 21st birthday. (this is Abraham Lincoln's proposal, in fact, on the eve of the Civil War! and he would even compensate the slave-holders!)
BUT: several things begin to happen in the 1820s and 1830s, that radicalize anti-slavery thinkers. the roots of a more radical abolitionism--of "immediatism." four roots, prof is arguing:
(1) evangelical christianity--some of their radicalism they took from their faith, at the time of the Second Great Awakening (1790s-1840s) it was their duty to save souls. it was only one step further, to save society as well. (if it can happen in a person, why can't it happen in society?).
(2) perceptions of Southern intransigence/truculence--in the 1820s, a lot of these young anti-slavery advocates were gradualists until they began to realize how deeply committed the South actually was--morally, economically, socially, philosophically-- to slavery. and that leaving it to the South was never going to solve anything. by 1829, William Lloyd Garrison used metaphors of icebergs to characterize what he perceived as Southern intransigence.
(3) British influence--abolitionists were deeply influenced by the two or three decades-old anti-slavery crusade in England. which had first been a crusade against the slave trade, which succeeded in an act of Parliament in 1807, and then ultimately the movement against slavery itself (and the British empire will free its slaves, by 1833).
(4) "immediatism" also, prof is arguing, stems from events--in the 1810s, 1820s and 1830s there were events that informed this posture. (a) famous insurrections in the South (insurrection in SC in 1822, and the 28/30 ppl executed in its wake; (b) Negro Seamen's act passed in SC in 1822, which said that any ship sailing into the harbor, if it had black sailors, those sailors would be jailed in Charlestown while the ship was in harbor; (c) the Ohio Resolutions in 1824, State legislature suggested that a gradual plan for emancipation be put in to place over generations, and they sent it to all the Southern legislatures (they were rebuffed--letters from Southern governers saying "mind your own business");(d) massive growth of the domestic slave trade; (e) Nat Turner's insurrection in 1831, which had a radicalizing effect, no question.
------------
now who was William Lloyd Garrison? by no means the whole abolitionist movement (he did found, edit and publish the longest-running anti-slavery newspaper, from 1831 to 1865, nine months after the end of the Civil War, the week of the ratification of the 13th amendment).
he was the real thing--a professional, radical reformer. born into utter poverty! raised by his mother; he was apprenticed out at the age of 12, because his mother couldn't raise him, to a printer.
if you want to understand Garrison, you have to understand him through his ideas. here, you see the contours of "immediatism," which will begin to garner support, for sure, particularly among free blacks in the North. but it will also, of course, begin to garner widespread enemies.
but, here, his seven ideas (what "immediatism" became, in his hands):
(1) moral perfectionism: a stern, demanding call for abolitionists to remove themselves personally from any complicity in the slave system. deeply religious, of course.
(2) pacificsm, or non-resistance: he rejected all forms of violence, in any form (well, until the war broke out)
(3) anti-clericalism: opposition to what he saw as the hypocrisy of the American churches, and the Protestant clergy. (remember: Garrison was Douglass' mentor, father-figure, etc.)
(4) disunionism: no union with the slave-holders. he advocated a personal secession from the Union. that northern states not participate in the same constitution.
(5) not voting: to vote in an American election, he believed, was to be morally complicit in slavery. he advocated political non-participation.
(6) women's equality (another form of radicalism that made him a lot of enemies)
(7) civil rights advocate: a tremendous early demander of civil rights, at a time when there really weren't any advocates.
------------
what happens with this anti-slavery activism?
in a sense, two kinds of abolitionism emerged: one "white" and one "black"
the former: thousands and thousands across the North writing petitions, starting slave societies, etc. even fledgling political parties, though Garrison wouldn't touch this.
the latter: free blacks in the North, who couldn't risk the theoretical abstractions that the white abolitionists would waste time on (what are we doing for my children, who don't have a school, etc.?)
by the 1840s, a division will evolve between these two groups.
------------
amidst all this, fugitive slaves kept coming from the South (though there is a myth/legend problem, here--next lecture).
Thursday, August 23, 2007
america and venezuela: constitutional worlds apart:
----------America-----------
Although imperfect, no country anywhere is closer to a model democracy than Venezuela under President Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias. In contrast, none is a more shameless failure than America, but it was true long before the age of George W. Bush. The difference under his regime is that the mask is off revealing a repressive state masquerading as a democratic republic. This article compares the constitutional laws of each country and how they're implemented. The result shows world's apart differences between these two nominally democratic states - one that's real, impressive and improving and the other that's mostly pretense and under George Bush lawless, corrupted, in tatters, and morally depraved.
(...) The Constitution falls far short of a "masterpiece of political architecture," but it's even worse than that. It was the product of very ordinary scheming politicians (not the Mt. Rushmore types they're portrayed as in history books) and their friends crafting the law of the land to serve themselves while leaving out the greater public that was nowhere in sight in 1787 Philadelphia. Unlike the Venezuelan Constitution, discussed below, "The People" were never consulted or even considered, and nothing in the end was put to a vote beyond the state legislative bodies that had to ratify it. In contrast to popular myth, the framers crafted a Constitution that didn't constrain or fetter the federal government nor did they create a government of limited powers.
(...) The Constitution can easily be read in 30 minutes or less and just as easily be misunderstood. The opening Preamble contains its sole myth referring to "We the people of the United States of America." The only people who mattered were white male property owners. All others nowhere entered the picture, then or mostly since, proving democracy operatively is little more than a fantasy. But try explaining that to people today thinking otherwise because that's all they were taught from the beginning to believe.
(...) Popular myth aside, the 55 delegates who met in Philadelphia from May to September, 1787 were very ordinary self-serving, privileged, property-owning white men. They weren't extraordinarily learned, profound in their thinking or in any way special. Only 25 attended college (that was pretty rudimentary at the time), and Washington never got beyond the fifth grade.
(...) The delegates came to Philadelphia in May, 1887, assembled, did their work, sent it to the states, and left in a despondent mood. They disliked the final product, some could barely tolerate it, yet 39 of the 55 attendees knowingly signed a document they believed flawed while we today extoll it like it came down from Mt. Sinai. The whole process we call a first-class historical event was, in fact, an entirely routine uninspiring political caucus producing no "prodigies of statecraft, no wonders of political (judgment), no vaulting philosophies, no Promethean vistas." Contradicting everything we've been "indoctrinated from ears to toes" to believe, the notion that the Constitution is "a document of salvation....a magic talisman," or a gift to the common man is pure fantasy.
(...) The constitutional convention ended September 17, 1787 "in an atmosphere verging on glumness." Of the 55 attending delegates, 39 signed as a pro forma exercise before sending it to the states with power to accept or reject it. Again, "The People" were nowhere in sight in Philadelphia or at the state level where the real tussle began before the founders could declare victory.
(...) Key to understanding the American system is that "government is completely autonomous, detached, (and) in a realm of its own" with its "main interest (being) economic (for the privileged) at all times."
(...) With or without this power, Lundberg makes a powerful case overall that the constitutional story comes down to a question of money and money arrangement - who gets it, how, why, when, where, what for, and under what conditions. Also addressed is who the law leaves out. The story has nothing whatever to do with guaranteeing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Jefferson's Orwellian language meaning property); establishing justice; upholding the rule of law equitably for everyone; promoting the general welfare; or securing the blessings of freedom for "The People" unconsidered, unimportant and ignored by the three branches of government serving monied and property interests only, of which they are a part.
(...) Lundberg's theme is clear and unequivocal. Under US constitutional law, the President is the most powerful political official on earth, bar none under any other system of government. "The office he holds is inherently imperial," regardless of the occupant or how he governs, and the Constitution confers this on him. Unlike the British model, with the executive as a collectivity, the US system "is absolutely unique, and dangerously vulnerable" with one man in charge fully able to exploit his position. "The American President (stands) midway between a collective executive and an absolute dictator (and in times of war like now) becomes, in fact, quite constitutionally, a full-fledged dictator." Disturbingly, the public hasn't a clue about what's going on.
(...) Further, it's pure myth that the government is constrained by limited powers. Quite the opposite is true "which at the point of execution (resides in) one man," the President. In addition, "Until the American electorate creates effective political parties (which it never has done), Congress....will always be pretty much under (Presidents') thumb(s)." Under the "American constitutional system (the President) is very much a de facto king," and under George Bush a corrupted, devious, criminal and dangerous one.
(...) In sum from the above, the US system of constitutional law is full of flaws and faults. "The People" were deliberately and willfully left out of the process proving the Constitution doesn't recognize democracy in America in spite of the commonly held view it does. In addition, the President, at his own discretion, can usurp dictatorial powers and end republican government by a stroke of his pen. That should awaken everyone to the clear and present danger that any time, for any reason, the President of the United States can declare a state of emergency, suspend the law of the land and rule by decree.
---------Venezuela------------
(...) [Chavez] established a model humanistic participatory social democracy, unimaginable in the US, providing real (not imagined) checks and balances in the nation's five branches of government. They comprise the executive, legislative and judicial ones plus two others. One is the independent national electoral council that regulates and handles state and civil society organization electoral procedures to assure they conform to the law requiring free, fair and open elections. The other is a citizen or public power branch functioning as a unique institution. It lets ordinary people serve as ombudsmen to assure the other government branches comply with constitutionally-mandated requirements. This branch includes the attorney general, the defender of the people, and the comptroller general.
(...) Articles 71 - 74 establish four types of popular national referenda never imagined or held in America outside the local or state level where they're often non-binding. The US is one of only five major democracies never to have permitted this type citizen participation. In Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, the practice is mandated by law and institutionalized to give people at the grass roots a say in running their government.
(...) Chavez also wants other changes to strengthen the nation's participatory democracy at the grassroots. He stresses "one of the central ideas is my proposal to open, at the constitutional level, the roads to accelerate the transfer of power to the people" in an "Explosion of Communal (or popular) Power." It's already there in more than 26,000 democratically functioning grassroots communal councils. They're government-sanctioned, funded, operating throughout the country, and may double in number and be strengthened further under proposed constitutional changes. Chavez wants "Popular (people) Power" to be a "State Power" along with the Legislature, Executive, Judicial, Citizen and Electoral ones and considers this constitutional change the most important one of all. If it happens, various sovereign powers and duties now handled at the federal, state and municipal levels will be transfered to local communal, worker, campesino, student and other councils. This will strengthen Venezuela's bedrock participatory democracy making it even more unique and impressive than it already is.
----------America-----------
Although imperfect, no country anywhere is closer to a model democracy than Venezuela under President Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias. In contrast, none is a more shameless failure than America, but it was true long before the age of George W. Bush. The difference under his regime is that the mask is off revealing a repressive state masquerading as a democratic republic. This article compares the constitutional laws of each country and how they're implemented. The result shows world's apart differences between these two nominally democratic states - one that's real, impressive and improving and the other that's mostly pretense and under George Bush lawless, corrupted, in tatters, and morally depraved.
(...) The Constitution falls far short of a "masterpiece of political architecture," but it's even worse than that. It was the product of very ordinary scheming politicians (not the Mt. Rushmore types they're portrayed as in history books) and their friends crafting the law of the land to serve themselves while leaving out the greater public that was nowhere in sight in 1787 Philadelphia. Unlike the Venezuelan Constitution, discussed below, "The People" were never consulted or even considered, and nothing in the end was put to a vote beyond the state legislative bodies that had to ratify it. In contrast to popular myth, the framers crafted a Constitution that didn't constrain or fetter the federal government nor did they create a government of limited powers.
(...) The Constitution can easily be read in 30 minutes or less and just as easily be misunderstood. The opening Preamble contains its sole myth referring to "We the people of the United States of America." The only people who mattered were white male property owners. All others nowhere entered the picture, then or mostly since, proving democracy operatively is little more than a fantasy. But try explaining that to people today thinking otherwise because that's all they were taught from the beginning to believe.
(...) Popular myth aside, the 55 delegates who met in Philadelphia from May to September, 1787 were very ordinary self-serving, privileged, property-owning white men. They weren't extraordinarily learned, profound in their thinking or in any way special. Only 25 attended college (that was pretty rudimentary at the time), and Washington never got beyond the fifth grade.
(...) The delegates came to Philadelphia in May, 1887, assembled, did their work, sent it to the states, and left in a despondent mood. They disliked the final product, some could barely tolerate it, yet 39 of the 55 attendees knowingly signed a document they believed flawed while we today extoll it like it came down from Mt. Sinai. The whole process we call a first-class historical event was, in fact, an entirely routine uninspiring political caucus producing no "prodigies of statecraft, no wonders of political (judgment), no vaulting philosophies, no Promethean vistas." Contradicting everything we've been "indoctrinated from ears to toes" to believe, the notion that the Constitution is "a document of salvation....a magic talisman," or a gift to the common man is pure fantasy.
(...) The constitutional convention ended September 17, 1787 "in an atmosphere verging on glumness." Of the 55 attending delegates, 39 signed as a pro forma exercise before sending it to the states with power to accept or reject it. Again, "The People" were nowhere in sight in Philadelphia or at the state level where the real tussle began before the founders could declare victory.
(...) Key to understanding the American system is that "government is completely autonomous, detached, (and) in a realm of its own" with its "main interest (being) economic (for the privileged) at all times."
(...) With or without this power, Lundberg makes a powerful case overall that the constitutional story comes down to a question of money and money arrangement - who gets it, how, why, when, where, what for, and under what conditions. Also addressed is who the law leaves out. The story has nothing whatever to do with guaranteeing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Jefferson's Orwellian language meaning property); establishing justice; upholding the rule of law equitably for everyone; promoting the general welfare; or securing the blessings of freedom for "The People" unconsidered, unimportant and ignored by the three branches of government serving monied and property interests only, of which they are a part.
(...) Lundberg's theme is clear and unequivocal. Under US constitutional law, the President is the most powerful political official on earth, bar none under any other system of government. "The office he holds is inherently imperial," regardless of the occupant or how he governs, and the Constitution confers this on him. Unlike the British model, with the executive as a collectivity, the US system "is absolutely unique, and dangerously vulnerable" with one man in charge fully able to exploit his position. "The American President (stands) midway between a collective executive and an absolute dictator (and in times of war like now) becomes, in fact, quite constitutionally, a full-fledged dictator." Disturbingly, the public hasn't a clue about what's going on.
(...) Further, it's pure myth that the government is constrained by limited powers. Quite the opposite is true "which at the point of execution (resides in) one man," the President. In addition, "Until the American electorate creates effective political parties (which it never has done), Congress....will always be pretty much under (Presidents') thumb(s)." Under the "American constitutional system (the President) is very much a de facto king," and under George Bush a corrupted, devious, criminal and dangerous one.
(...) In sum from the above, the US system of constitutional law is full of flaws and faults. "The People" were deliberately and willfully left out of the process proving the Constitution doesn't recognize democracy in America in spite of the commonly held view it does. In addition, the President, at his own discretion, can usurp dictatorial powers and end republican government by a stroke of his pen. That should awaken everyone to the clear and present danger that any time, for any reason, the President of the United States can declare a state of emergency, suspend the law of the land and rule by decree.
---------Venezuela------------
(...) [Chavez] established a model humanistic participatory social democracy, unimaginable in the US, providing real (not imagined) checks and balances in the nation's five branches of government. They comprise the executive, legislative and judicial ones plus two others. One is the independent national electoral council that regulates and handles state and civil society organization electoral procedures to assure they conform to the law requiring free, fair and open elections. The other is a citizen or public power branch functioning as a unique institution. It lets ordinary people serve as ombudsmen to assure the other government branches comply with constitutionally-mandated requirements. This branch includes the attorney general, the defender of the people, and the comptroller general.
(...) Articles 71 - 74 establish four types of popular national referenda never imagined or held in America outside the local or state level where they're often non-binding. The US is one of only five major democracies never to have permitted this type citizen participation. In Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, the practice is mandated by law and institutionalized to give people at the grass roots a say in running their government.
(...) Chavez also wants other changes to strengthen the nation's participatory democracy at the grassroots. He stresses "one of the central ideas is my proposal to open, at the constitutional level, the roads to accelerate the transfer of power to the people" in an "Explosion of Communal (or popular) Power." It's already there in more than 26,000 democratically functioning grassroots communal councils. They're government-sanctioned, funded, operating throughout the country, and may double in number and be strengthened further under proposed constitutional changes. Chavez wants "Popular (people) Power" to be a "State Power" along with the Legislature, Executive, Judicial, Citizen and Electoral ones and considers this constitutional change the most important one of all. If it happens, various sovereign powers and duties now handled at the federal, state and municipal levels will be transfered to local communal, worker, campesino, student and other councils. This will strengthen Venezuela's bedrock participatory democracy making it even more unique and impressive than it already is.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
making bolivia´s new constitution:
Bolivia’s Constitutional Assembly has been charged with a huge task, not just to rewrite the nation’s constitution but also to ‘refound’ Bolivia. This includes restructuring the government, reforming education, dealing with natural resources and deciding what the constitution will say on controversial issues such as coca and autonomy.
(...) Party politics stalled the initial work of the Assembly for seven months over a debate on voting procedures. The assembly eventually ratified a compromise which requires 2/3 approval for each article, while unapproved articles will be presented to the Bolivian public in the national referendum.
Bolivia’s Constitutional Assembly has been charged with a huge task, not just to rewrite the nation’s constitution but also to ‘refound’ Bolivia. This includes restructuring the government, reforming education, dealing with natural resources and deciding what the constitution will say on controversial issues such as coca and autonomy.
(...) Party politics stalled the initial work of the Assembly for seven months over a debate on voting procedures. The assembly eventually ratified a compromise which requires 2/3 approval for each article, while unapproved articles will be presented to the Bolivian public in the national referendum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)