|
Major opposition to this constitutional Amendment is
inescapable. It will come from all those who benefit the most from the current
situation and from those who fear change itself.
For the opposition, losing will mean possible immanent threat to
business as usual. Whereas, for voters, losing means that things go on as they are
with a steady decline in the quality of their lives and their children's lives.
The urgency to resist is therefore greater than the urgency to support. However,
waiting for a disaster to happen before making change is unacceptable.
The stark reality is that the determination and power of
the opposition is so great, and voter apathy so pervasive, that the citizens
could give away their rights by negligence. This must not be allowed to
happen. The deciding factor will be if U.S. voters are prepared
to come together, get out the vote, and take a stand by questioning whether they
want to support a candidate who has not made a declaration of intent to support this
constitutional Amendment.
In states where the legislature will not support the Amendment,
it will be necessary that those who support this
constitutional Amendment for
Direct Initiatives should ask that each of their State Representatives declare
their support preferably by signing the Candidate’s
declaration of intent so that voters may know their position with certainty.
Ultimately, it is up to each voter to decide if they are content to let
Wealthy-Special-Interest-Groups/Lobbyists/Media run their Government and many aspects of their lives, or to take back a measure of control of
their destiny by reinforcing our Government's ability to fulfill its constitutionally defined responsibility to "promote the general
Welfare".
Support Other Than Voters
The primary support will of course come from voters, and
ultimately votes trump all opposition. However, the more Congressional and State
Legislature support the faster the constitutional Amendment can be adopted and
ratified.
The vast majority of Members of Congress sought election because they are
dedicated to making a difference and improving the lives of U.S. citizens. It is
believed that many of them will see this constitutional Amendment as a creative
and useful tool rather than any significant diminution or threat to their power.
They will also be aware that House rules and organization can sometimes make it
impossible to enact legislation that the Member knows the people want. Of
course, a congressperson could simply propose an Initiative as a citizen.
However, the Boule (i.e., Citizens' Initiatives Assembly) is required to give expedited attention to a
proposed bipartisan
Initiative. This could prove a useful tool to use, or just threaten to use, in
order to remove obstacles to the passage of needed legislation.
The situation for members of the State Legislatures is similar to that of
congresspersons. A requirement for bipartisan Initiative approval by several States would
be too complex and time consuming, so expedited attention from Boule is achieved
by the concurrence of a number of States.
Since any citizen can propose an Initiative, the Amendment does create a way
that the States can ask the Electorate to vote on legislation. This may be a
significant factor in State support, and might even cause the States to use the
second mode of ratifying the Amendment if Congress were unwilling to move
forward on it.
If a State were to adopt a State
Boule to manage their initiative
process, this nationwide Solution would be easier to
promote. Though the initiative-process cost-savings
will be less for a State than for the U.S. and might
discourage States with low populations, a State
as large as California could afford and justify it.
The cost of a State initiative attempt to pass a
California constitutional amendment to achieve this
would be about
$30 to 60 million.
Public and Special Interest Groups
Many public and special interest groups have found it difficult
or impossible to get government to act in the public interest when
special
interest groups with conflicting agendas have the resources to prevent it. The
Initiative process offers them an alternative and more powerful method to
achieve their objectives. Since the number of Initiatives is limited, it will be
necessary for Initiatives to be directed to policy rather than specific
projects. Well drafted policies should be such that they can embrace a number of
related issues
that combined have great importance to the people.
One trick that will certainly be tried is to complain about
some details and use that to justify a different version of the Amendment that
contains a fundamental flaw making it unworkable. After this has been repeated
several times, each one on their own web site, there will be several
misdirecting planned constitutional Amendments for Initiatives around.
As a preventive measure, this web site and
all the information on it is copyright protected—not because it has financial
value, but to make it illegal to use it in ways that were not intended. There
can be only one web site with the name
www.cusdi.org, the diversionary web sites can use similar but not
identical names. It is for this reason that
www.cusdi.org is mentioned so
many times as the authentic site.
The declaration of intent
specifically references the
www.cusdi.org site, so that it
is clear that the Candidate is supporting the authentic version, and not some
misdirected version. This is the principle reason that the declaration of intent is
so important.
Undoubtedly, irresponsible or malicious people will attempt to attack
or hack the web site in order to prevent legitimate access, vandalize or change it. However, it is located on
one of the most secure Internet Service Provider sites available with live backup alternates that can be brought into effect at short notice. It cannot accept incoming communication requests, and the ability to modify it is closely guarded and powerfully protected.
Absolute prevention cannot be guaranteed. However, by constantly checking the
site, a hack can be quickly detected and the authentic site reinstalled in a few
minutes, then the hacker's entry point has to be patched to prevent it happening
again.
It is conceivable, though very unlikely, that overzealous
opponents may try to shut down this effort by legal attack or other method, and
to close down the web site
www.cusdi.org running on U.S. servers.
To discourage any such attempt, this web site may be duplicated on several
servers.
It is a part of human socializing to avoid giving
offence to others. So, to be fair, it is natural for Candidates to avoid having to give an unwanted
answer by evading the issue. Moreover, because Candidates are peppered with questions that try to
cast them in a negative light, they must practice evasion of issues and develop
it to a fine art. Often, it is crucial in order to be elected.
For example, a candidate may say before a group of voters
"I absolutely support your right to have Initiatives." Then the candidate
may move to a fundraiser with businesses that do not want to risk Direct Legislation
being used to effect their subsidies and say "Initiatives will never
become reality while you support me to get elected". Did the candidate lie? No,
because In the first case the candidate absolutely supported your "right"
but did not commit to voting in favor of Initiatives; in the second case
the candidate only stated an opinion, and never committed to do anything.
Yet both audiences heard exactly what they wanted to hear.
But when the stark truth is wanted, we all know that we
have to nail it down and persist until we get an unequivocal response. This
could get tedious and offensive, and the best solution is for Candidates who
really intend to vote for Initiatives to make a
declaration of intent in writing, then all their voters will know for sure
their true position. Note that the declaration of intent specifically mentions
www.cusdi.org to distinguish it
from any possible misdirection site discussed below.
Tact is needed when approaching a Candidate so the
declaration of intent may not be taken to mean distrust. Moreover, there is
the risk that declarations of intention could catch on and become a factor for other issues in other
elections. Nevertheless, it is the only way the voters can be virtually certain
that the Candidate actually meets a campaign promise.
A candidate at meetings will not find it easy to tell
constituents that they cannot have the right of Initiative.
The major problem will arise if some special issue organizations decide that even the slightest potential for change in their direct financial influence on the law-makers is sufficient grounds to try to persuade all their members
to oppose this constitutional Amendment. If successful, this would mean the thousands of
special interest groups would continue business as usual. This would be grossly unfair to U.S. citizens.
For example, a citizen who takes few gallons of gas and does not pay for it, is guilty of theft with a
first-time
punishment of up to 3 months in jail and/or $500 fine (average for all States), and even up to 18 months and/or $10,000 fine (in the most severe). On
the other hand, a group of corrupt corporate executives who steal billions of dollars from the workers, stockholders and retirees’ pensions walk away and with all the money
(or sometimes when they are caught they get relatively modest penalties
and jail time). This can only happen because big-business—and their officers and directors—have huge influence in Congress.
Congress generally cannot pass laws to stop these abuses because
big-business not only provides campaign funds, it also owns and controls the Media. It will be up to each citizen to decide if any special issue that they endorse provides reason enough for them to vote against this
constitutional Amendment and thereby inadvertently giving their vote to
special interest groups that weaken our democracy and our wealth. Ultimately, the citizen’s votes trump the
special interests' influence only if the citizen exercises his or her rights by voting in favor of this
constitutional Amendment.
It is to be expected that all those who benefit from the status-quo such as big-business, many elected Representatives, etc. will oppose any change to the status quo.
Both political party organizations will probably see the Amendment as a risk and
will consequently generally oppose it, though their rank-and-file membership
will generally support it. In fact, it is the power of the party organizations
at a state level that may be the greatest obstacle to be overcome in the use of
the second method. Unless one party decides to honor their membership's wishes,
it is the power of the party rank-and-file contributions, voice and votes that
my ultimately determine the result.
Special interests and politicians are
especially skilled in the use of spin, emotive inferences and lies of omission.
They have in place and in their employ numerous skilled
spin doctors to broadcast confusion
amongst wide audiences. This advantage in experience will be put to their
substantial advantage. On the other hand, the People are becoming increasingly
aware of the ways in which spin can manipulate their views, and can detect to
some limited degree when they are being influenced by spin.
Special interests that affect or represent a
significant number of voters may make the case that
passage of this
Amendment
may affect their personal interest. More critically, the leaders and paid
employees of Special Interests may feel threatened. The vast majority of Special
Interests are very unlikely to be affected by this Amendment, and they have the
full protection of the Constitution that cannot be affected by any Initiative.
However, emotional rhetoric can induce unwarranted fears.
Every U.S. citizen probably belongs to several Special
Interests of one sort or another often without realizing it. Undoubtedly the
special interests will try to divide the voters by encouraging voters to oppose the Amendment
in order to protect their own interests. Each citizen will have to ask
themselves if they are so unwilling to risk any possible change to their
interest that they are prepared to let all the special interests continue business as usual
to the people's far greater harm of all the people's interests.
It ultimately comes down to whether the voters believe in
democracy. If the majority of U.S.
citizens truly believe in democracy, then they will trust that their votes on Initiatives
will ultimately benefit us all. |
