All posts by admin

Library

Just more “confused fused clamor?”

Leave a comment

August 1, 1996 edition of San Diego Review newspaper

Just more “confused  fused clamor?”

By Dwayne Hunn                                                                 L

Initiative.  An honored American quality.  We used it to explore and tame a frontier, build infrastructure, agriculture, science, business and general prosperity that is the envy of the world.   We slip, fall, make mistakes, but over our 200+ years someone or some group initiates the rebound and pulls us back up.

The Big Bear lifted her leg and ‘sputnicked’ on us.  We initiated changes, let American ingenuity take over and  hibernated the stodgy Bear.  As American businesses lulled themselves into complacency ,   the Japanese used an American teamwork concept to build better quality products,.  Then the drugged American giant initiated  changes that some say has catapulted us back into the competitive lead.

Dissatisfaction.  Another honored American trait.  We use it to change  things we don’t like — monotonous labor, poor quality,  bullying neighbors, etc.   Historically,  it  has  compelled enough  AmeriCan-dos  to shut up and  fix  whatever it is we are bitching about.

What American bitches still needs fixing? If you tabulated the last several decades of polls,  the results would show that a healthy percentage of  Americans would like to  see their political institutions infused with some fresh  AmeriCan-do  initiative.

Of course, dissatisfaction with political institutions, like America’s can-do spirit, seems to be something ingrained in  our genes, or at least our jeans, as Alex DeTocqueville’s noticed in 1831-32.

No sooner do you set foot upon America ground, than you are stunned by a kind of tumult; a confused fused clamor is heard on every side; and a thousand simultaneous voices demand the satisfaction of their social wan.  Everything is in motion around you….. Meetings  are called for the sole purpose of declaring their disapprobation  of the conduct of the government; whilst in other assemblies, citizens salute the authorities of the day as the fathers of their country.

Today perhaps that level of political participation may not exist among the same proportion of the populace as it did  then, but at times you are reminded that the instinct still exists.   It was probably  in the jeans you saw in the anti-war and anti-government rallies and meetings of the 1960’s & 1970’s.  You  may be viewing that graying instinct as third, fourth and fifth parties organize today.

From the couch potato, who registers his time with a poll, to the activist, who  climbs his hook and ladder up the poll, the desire to improve government is  widespread.  However, all the techniques that improved our private sector’s inventiveness, quality control, or bottom line will not automatically  be useful in improving  our  government.  Of all the tools used to improve performance in both public or private sectors, good training and education seem the most reliable.  In the private sector, when workers are given responsibility and authority along with good training and education their productivity generally increases.

  1. What might that tell us we should do to improve America’s political institutions?

Perhaps, we should better train, educate and responsibly involve Americans in governance.

  1. How do we best train and educate Americans on how our political institutions should work?

Well, most grown-ups find their best education and training  comes from first-hand experiences.  So maybe we should more directly involve Americans in governing.

  1. Are we willing to take the chance on improving Americans first hand experiences in the workings of our political system if that means giving them more authority and responsibility, as we now do to improve some business performances?

If we are  willing to give a nation of Americans that responsibility, then the answer to these three questions lies in the word that  started this essay.  The “Initiative.”

In 1996 twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have the Initiative process.  In those states people have the opportunity to get off of their couches,   set up their hook and ladder and fight any political fire they  want. They  can craft legislation, create political strategy, confront and debate corporate executives or political officials.   They can experience first hand what it takes to win or lose, and their initiative creation has the potential to gain the voters’ authority, so that the citizenry  are directly responsible for the results.

Even though about half of the states have the  Initiative, Referendum and Recall process. the citizens of the United States as an entity do not.  People’s Lobby started the national initiative process movement in the mid-70’s. popularizing the concept across the  country from the doors of  an old, clunky yellow school bus.  Their efforts culminated with Senate hearings in 1977.  Since then three friendly groups, former United States Senator Mike Gravel’s United States Initiative, Former Vietnam Vet and initiative organizer Rick Arnold ‘s Initiative America and Barbara Vincent’s National Referendum Movement, are all working toward  offering all Americans  a national initiative process.

Many say it is a long overdue process.   Others argue it is too messy of a process.  Regardless, the philosophy behind giving the people a choice is solidly grounded in the thoughts of our founding fathers.   As James Madison said in:

 

 The      

      Federalists

            Papers

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence upon the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

The Founding Fathers and  Madison  sought  a balance between what he called a “mixed government” and “free government,”  based on their experiences with monarchy and democracy.

Are we in an age where the “primary control on the government” is still the people and the national initiative might be another good “auxiliary precaution(s)?”

Although the radical fringes, whose  stupid violence  eats  away the liberties of those in the vast middle, may disagree, we don’t labor under an authoritarian state today.  Many, however, rightfully complain that our various levels of government often fails to respond effectively to felt needs.  Consider how ineffectively  governments respond to property tax and campaign reform, nuclear plant safety, environmental safeguard  — then remember the roles statewide initiatives had to play to implement or force changes in those fields.

Wouldn’t, adding a national initiative process give us another tool to keep authoritarianism even further from out door step, albeit at the expense of making citizens even more unwieldy to deal with for slow or unresponsive elected officials?  Isn’t that “confused fused clamor (is) heard on every side; and a thousand simultaneous voices demand(ing) the satisfaction of their social wan” the lifeblood of democracy?

To many experts the Constitution, starting with the words, “We the People of the United States….” implies that  the Founding Fathers desired that instruments such as the Initiative process be available to the people.   Our founding fathers didn’t consider the comforts of the governments of  even elected representatives   as much as they considered the rights of the individuals.  As Harold Chase, editor of  The Constitution and What It Means Today,  states in analyzing the Constitution:

These stated objectives make clear the framers’ commitment to the proposition that government should serve to enhance the value and dignity of the individual, as opposed to the proposition to which authoritarian governments have traditionally adhered, that the individual’s highest duty is to serve the state.

Of course the tenth amendment buttresses that argument by  reminding all of  us  that:

“the powers not delegated to the United States . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,”

The government wasn’t comfortable with the tumultuous protests and public reactions of the 60’s and 70’s  that in large stemmed from our Vietnam and civil rights policies.  Sometimes those protests turned violent.   Had we had the national initiative process as a tool in our Constitutional tool box, would the nation have been better or worse served?  Would beneficial results been obtained  more or less efficiently?  Would the nation have been better educated with or without the national initiative process?  Would the  availability of the process decreased the likelihood of violence?

Would  teachers, activists, anti-war actors, hippies and drop-outs have put more energy into qualifying a national initiative asking Americans to choose whether to drops bombs, build damns or let  the dominoes fall then in throwing barbs, blood and obscenities?    Would  Vietnam  have paralyzed and claimed so many American lives and split so many families had we had a national initiative process?  Would that initiative debate process have made us a smarter, healthier country than the process Americans had to go through to end that war?

If the existence of the national initiative process would have cut only one year and its costs from Vietnam, or similar stupid ventures in the future, would it have been, or will it be worth having in our future?

People’s Lobby  dozen word logo is  worth considering:

Final responsibility rests with the people

Therefore never is final authority delegated.

 

Library

Alaskan Lightening Bolts Twice at Supreme Court?

Leave a comment

San Diego Review July 1, 1996

 Alaskan Lightening Bolts Twice at Supreme Court?
By Dwayne Hunn

 Certiorari  is  a Latin term which in English practice became a  writ commanding inferior courts to return records for review by a higher court.   In 1925 Congress enacted the Judiciary Act to help lessen the Supreme Court’s work load, so the Supreme Court now  receives 4,000 – 5,000 annual requests for “certiorari” hearings.

The Court grants certiorari  only “where there are special and important reasons therefor.”   This amount to 10 to 15 percent of the certiorari petitions received in a given year. Ninety percent of the cases decided  annually by the Supreme Court started as a  writ of certiorari.

The Court’s work calendar usually runs from October to the end of June.  Rarely does the Court work into July, as it did in 1971 and 1974 when the Court dealt with the Pentagon Papers case and Nixon tapes, respectively.

Rarely does an individual bring more than one certiorari  issue to the Court.  However, in late June of 1996,  25 years after he  first appealed to the Court to allow the Pentagon Papers, which Daniel Ellsberg had leaked to him,  to be published by Beacon Press,  former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel  (1969-81) is again tying  to appear before the  Supreme Court as a litigant.

Why? Because in 1995 the Washington State Supreme Court supported  its Attorney General in saying that its citizens didn’t have the power  to vote on Philadelphia II, Gravel’s effort to establish a National Initiative process.  Gravel sees this as, “Effecting peoples ability to act within a federal format.  It denies their sovereignty as federal citizens.”

Thanks to Supreme Court Justice Sandra O’Connor, Mike Gravel has been given until June 29th to prepare his appeal for certiorari.  If he is successful in persuading the Court that this is as an important an issue as  his last Pentagon Paper appeal, then he will probably have 45 days to prepare a brief for the Court.  During those days a number of Yale scholars will  help him prepare and argue the case in the fall….  Even the Yale scholars, however,  think his chances of getting certiorari or  “certified” are thin.

Back in 1971 Gravel’s chances of beating the Nixon Justice Department were thinner than erased tape.  Nonetheless,  thanks to Gravel, Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers many are a lot smarter on war, peace and the innards of government than we ever will be on  magically erased  words on about 13 minutes of thin tape.

Don Quixote knew that  unless you mounted   your  sturdy stead and charged the windmill with lance in hand, you would never know whether you might stick one  of the monster’s spinning blades.  Once stuck, a good knight can go for one helluva ride.

Gravel may be tilting with a supreme windmill, but if he hits  a blade he’ll  pull  the country along for an enlightening  political ride.

Update:  The US Supreme Court denied certiorari on Philadelphia II vs. Gregoire.

Library

Vietnam Vet and Senate Dove

Leave a comment

San Diego Review June 1, 1996

A Vietnam Vet and  Senate Dove

by Dwayne Hunn

If all goes according to plan, the Alternative Media  Conference(August 12-14th 1996) will find two guys talking about major Political Reform at People’s Lobby news hour.  One won a  Silver and three Bronze Stars in Vietnam.  The other filibustered  the Senate to end the draft and make additional Vietnams more difficult.

The first created the American Initiative Committee which has  run over 300 initiative campaigns.  The second was Alaska’s United  States Senator from 1969-81.  Both have now dedicated their careers to making the national initiative process an American way of life. Following are excerpts taken from People’s Lobby education video series with both men — Rick Arnold and Mike Gravel

Why did you become interested in the initiative process?

Rick:  Our company believes in the process, believes we need more direct democracy and sees this as one of the ways to have more access to and oversight of our government… Our representative form of government is going down a road that is  not in the best interests of the people.  We must work on some combination of representative government and direct democracy,  where people are going to give some direction to politicians as to how we live under the Constitution…

How  would you implement the National Initiative process

Rick:  I believe we need a constitutional amendment.  Some people  feel  this is a sovereign right that we never lost and that we only need a way to implement it..  My feeling is that even though that is the correct legal interpretation, since we have lived under the Constitution for over 200 years we should clarify the right by putting it inside the Constitution.  Others, like Mike Gravel and Barbara  Vincent, feel  that we could conducted a national election on this issue that would force the Congress to create the National Initiative process …

Why  should people support your Philly II proposal, establishing a national initiative process without going the Constitutional amendment route?

Mike:  Philly II will put in place the procedures, you don’t need to change the Constitution,  that will permit citizens to make national policy.   Philly II will establish the agency to permit this to happen in every governmental jurisdiction.  At the same time, it will outlaw the corrupting influences that we see in representative government — money, media biases, etc…

Let’s say  a number of people wanted to replace the federal income tax with a flat tax, how would the process work under Philly II?

Mike:  First, take a national poll like Roper or Gallop and ask the people if they would like to see the Federal Tax amended to a flat tax…  If  1/3rd of the people want to see this as law,  then the proposal  is qualified for election — merely qualified.  Now we have to have a public hearing.  If it is a national issue, we have hearings throughout the United States where ordinary citizens and experts testify.  At the hearing (s), you have a hearing officer from the national election trust, members of  Congress and sponsors of the flat tax. At the end of the hearing, changes, agreed to  by the sponsor, may be made.

After the hearing it would go to Congress.  Congress would have to vote on it, but their vote would work like Congressional committee system votes.  This  advisory vote would give people information based on how respected Congressmen voted.  After the advisory vote, it is now ready for election. The Electoral Trust then produces a phamphlet listing the proponents and opponents’ stance, and that is sent to every registered voter in the country.

After the phamphlet,  the Electoral Trust causes to be produced a radio and TV program which is played at prime time once in every jurisdiction… Then 50% + 1 voter decides the issue.

 

Common Sense Opeds, Land Development, SunTrain

All aboard! The future…

Leave a comment
Published Marin IJ Wednesday May 15, 1996

Traffic in Marin:  Where do we go now?

Opinion  Marin independent Journal

 All aboard!  The future won’t wait

Dwayne Hunn

In the late 1970s, Peter Calthorpe was an associate of State Architect to-be Sim Van der Ryn, working to establish a Solar Village at Hamilton Air Force Base.   By the 1980s, Peter was on his own, preaching development Pedestrian Pocket communities where people could walk to and from parks, schools, work places and transit options other than the car nestled in suburbia’s omnipresent garage.

Pedestrian Pockets offered the opportunity to develop the community that ethnic neighborhoods of the 40’s and 50’s and Peter Calthorpe’s Sausalito houseboat neighbors had.  Unfortunately, Marin’s presumed environmentalists — and the power structure they supported, wouldn’t listen to concepts that allowed clustered communities of affordable housing to be built on at least 13+ large parcels that then laid adjacent to Marin and Sonoma’s Northwest Pacific Right of Way.

For years, few seemed to pay attention to Calthorpe’s rejuvenated concept or to pay for his services.  Luckily, his Berkeley students helped keep him going until the rest of the country realized the good sense of Pedestrian Pockets and paid him to do them.

In a shrinking world where our lifestyle consumes more than its proportional share, and our lack of community produces an abundance of dysfunctional acts, Pedestrian Pockets design part of the needed solutions.

In 1991 Peter was the keynote speaker for the region’s first Land Use and Transportation Conference sponsored by North Bay Transportation & Management Association, the first such association in Northern California.  Twenty regional leaders participated in the all day conference, where 400 listened and participated with the panels.

On Saturday, a similar conference will be held with Phil Erickson of Calthorpe & Associates serving as a keynote speaker.  Phil will report on a study that Peter has tried to fund for 20 years — a Sonoma/Marin transportation and land-use study.    Twenty years ago those 13+ large parcels were less fettered, with planned or existing expensive suburban sprawl homes entwined amid a morass of costly curbs, gutters and dead end streets.

But it is better late than never for Marin and Sonoma counties to use their remaining land to support uses that enhance the environment through more sustainable developments that allow for beneficial reuse of the rail line with passenger and freight traffic.

Thanks to narrow-minded planning, Marin rates at the bottom of the Bay Region’s nine county list when its labor market independence is ranked.  In Marin, 70 percent of county workers live here versus Sonoma’s comparable 94 percent.  In Marin, 59 percent of employed county residents work here versus Sonoma’s comparable 82 percent.   In Marin’s construction transportation, communications and public utilities industries, inbound-commutes hover near 50 percent versus Sonoma’s 10 percent.

Let’s hope Marin will waste no more time in providing land uses that will help make the rail line more economically viable. Even before Pedestrian Pockets are built, the existing rail line can help reduce environmental impacts.  Consider:

  • As development moves forward on Bel Marin Keys, Hamilton Field and St. Vincent/Silveira, wouldn’t it be more environmentally beneficial to import needed fill and building materials by train rather than by road hammering, pollution belching trucks?

And when you consider how much more fuel efficient trains are than cars, and how they, too, add to community building:

  • Wouldn’t Marin’s true environmentalists want to start setting the environmental and community standards for other parts of the country that have the same opportunity we have?

Dwayne Hunn, who lives in Mill valley, was Executive Director of the North Bay TMA and now works on land use, transportation and political issues as well as with Excel Telecommunications.

 

Library

Carrying and Planting the Seeds

Leave a comment

San Diego Review April 1, 1996

Carrying and Planting the Seeds

By Dwayne Hunn

Maturing  baby boomers…   Wouldn’t be too unusual if you knew a few who dedicated  their growing  years to intense  political involvement.  It would be fairly unusual, however, to find a core of   boomers  who look back on  years of  intense work with a  political leader  and still carry him in the highest regard.  Time, history and  subsequent knowledge  tarnishes traditional political giants.

Ed Koupal, People’s Lobby founder,  was not  traditional, and time hasn’t tarnished the memories of those who worked with or learned about him.

Koupal believed in the initiative so  deeply  that 20 years ago  he convinced two boomers  to take the seeds he sowed  in their heads onto an old  yellow school  bus and   plant them  along the  back roads of America  until they sprouted  in a Senate Judiciary hearing room.

Author David Schmidt, whose Citizen Lawmakers, The Ballot Initiative Revolution, this year went into its second printing, studied and learned about the Koupals’ People’s Lobby by living with  initiative gardeners John Forester and Roger Telschow.  “Roger  and John were constantly telling stories about Ed.  Referring to him as a genius who knew how to put  politicians on the run…  Ed was the center piece of the book.  It started with the  conclusion that Ed and Joyce Koupal and the Lobby revived the initiative process and supported that conclusion with lots of evidence.”

A book can tell you some of a  man’s deeds, but working next to him increases the odds  that his green thumb or magic madness might rub off.   John Forester is a broker now where he “must stay  up on current affairs,” reading  at least three newspapers a day.  It’s a habit he watched Ed and Joyce practice daily, one that rubbed off.  “My People’s Lobby training and thinking is still the same.  I’m still a Koupal guerrilaist, “ Forester says in broker’s gear..

John isn’t  as political as he and Roger were yellow bussing through  the states and setting in motion the 1977 Senate Judiciary hearing on  implementing a National Initiative.  But he still enjoys dispensing  “Koupalisms”  learned during People’s Lobby crusades.   Weeks ago a Coloradan  called,  frantically explaining how  some of his state legislators  were, “Trying to take the initiative away.  Trying to make it so the only way an initiative can pass is with a super majority vote, like 75%.”

John rattled off how they might organize political opposition,  including reaping high praise upon the  Anti-Initiative Legislators.  “Maybe  announce that since  they are such  great legislators, your people will be proposing that they  need a  75% majority for re-election.  Legislators  as outstanding as they are  should have no objection to  seeking election under that process. ”

“You know,”  John continued, “I was just using  Ed’s philosophy that people have total  power.  These guys are nothing.  I just did what Ed would do.  I just figured how to cut them down to size, which is what Ed taught us, isn’t it?”

As a District of Columbia resident,  John may soon  plug into an initiative campaign with  more than just phone advice.   In the 70’s Roger and John spent 18 months amending the Washington DC home rule charter and passing the bill that established their Initiative, Referendum and Recall process.  Now as poverty and crime  pregnant DC flounders along  without  the right to choose a federal representative, and  the Federal Control Board administers the bankrupt city,  Republicans  and Democrats offer proposals ranging from spending less to making DC a tax free zone.

John and some boomers think DC’s best choice  is aborting the District and returning it to Maryland.   Will Congress propose that?  If not,  these boomers may soon birth an initiative delivering DC citizens choice — thanks to the initiative of a one-time used car salesman and jazz band leader  who had two boomers carry initiative seeds east to someday give the nation direct  choice.

 

Library

Political Heartbeat of America

Leave a comment

San Diego Review March 1, 1996

The Political Heartbeat of America

By Dwayne Hunn

Like many organizations, People’s Lobby learned how to succeed by failing.  It twice failed to recall Ronald Reagan in 1967-68; failed to qualify a Clean Environment Initiative (CEI) in 1969, then gathered 328,235 in 1971 to qualify  the CEI for the November 1972 ballot.  Its largest  contributor was Paul Newman, and it spent about $9,000 in its qualifying campaign….

Today’s initiative campaigns can run well above several hundred thousand dollars.  One of today’s campaign axioms is “get” groups and individuals to “commit” and then have your leadership push them to “contribute.”  Back then People’s Lobby got each of its mostly young, volunteer  and  poor steering board to “commit” to contribute  “thousands of signatures.” Succeeding with that approach, People’s Lobby launched the National Initiative & Referendum movement in the 70’s.  Today, most campaigns hire paid  signature gatherers.

Can old fashioned dedication and incorruptible leadership qualify and win an initiative campaign in today’s job concerned  economy? Of the 519 initiatives that sought  a ballot spot in 1994, you won’t find one that earned it the old fashioned, Peole’s Lobby way.

So how would one fund and run a  campaign to enact a national initiative?

There are three major groups working to allow Americans to choose whether they want a national initiative and referendum process — former Senator Mike Gravel’s Philily II, Barbara Vincent’s National Referendum Movement, and Rick Arnold’s American Initiative Committee (AIC), which is an adjunct of his existing, successful  signature gathering business.

AIC expects to go through the traditional, long and arduous Constitutional amendment process.  The plan to fund that campaign that could change America’s political heartbeat mixes some creative capitalism through the Heartland Corporation.

“Heartland wants to fund AIC.  Heartland wants to make sure the National  I&R works.  We know it takes time and effort.  Rick and his people are doing what they need to do.  And we  are working on producing, marketing, and distributing radio shows, looking for companies to buy to increase cash flow and preparing to go public with the Heartland Corporation,”  says Heartland CEO, Gerald Garcia, a veteran of  30 years of media work ranging from Capitol Cities/ABC, to Gannet to the launch team of USA Today.

What cash flow ventures is Heartland packaging to attract investors?  They presently have three on-air radio shows:  1) America the Beautiful, hosted by Mike Foudy;  2) another political talk show hosted by Hugh Rodham, Hillary’s brother, who recently married California Senator Boxer’s daughter; and 3)  Synergy, which talks about new age lifestyles.

Seven shows in development deal with finances, travel, car repair, hot subjects, education, women’s issues and psychology.    Heartland plans to develop, market and distribute these shows, and if that requires buying, investing in  or leasing satellite space, they’ll pony up to do that too.

In addition, Heartland’s initial investors are looking for high quality service oriented  businesses that have exceeded the planned successes of the original founders, who now would like to cash out.

Not ignoring increased interest in educational and personal development, Heartland is in the early stages of  defining  its American Institute Program, whose goals include developing skills of self-help and self-esteem, so that its students become “problem solvers rather than problem creators.”

Heartland has not forgotten the traditional print media, where it believes it will have products that are “distinct and niched and will be available for the fall of 1997.”

What do you think?  Does America’s heartland house enough investors interested in seeing some of their dividends from media, education and small businesses reinvested in the tools of direct national democracy? Would elected politicians invest?   Well-heeled special interest groups?  Politically frustrated citizens?  You?

 

Library

Mork & Mindy talk politics

Leave a comment
 mork&mindy

San Diego Review February 1, 1996

 Mork & Mindy talk politics      

 Mork  and Mindy no longer live in Denver, but hideout in Bolinas, California, where Bolinites keep cutting down the roadsign designating their life. Mork’s still beaming  data back to Ork, where they recently requested Earthy political insights.

Mork:  So Americans rebelled under King George and wrote the Articles of Confederation, their first constitution, in 1777, but it wasn’t approved by the 13 states until 1781, correct?

Mindy:  Yes.

Mork:  But the 13 states were so used to being independent, sovereign as they liked to be called, that even with the Articles, they argued a lot about foreign and interstate trade and who owned what land, etcetera.  Therefore 12 states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to give better order to their confederation, right?

Mindy:  Yes.

Mork:  In Philadelphia in 1787 a group of mostly lawyers, merchants and well-to- do farmers wrote and rewrote state constitutions and a second  federal constitution to allow trade to work better.  Was this then where everyone got to be treated sovereignty and got the right to vote?

Mindy:  No.  Universal ‘personhood’ suffrage took many more years.  Not until the 15th Amendment of 1870 and the 19th Amendment of 1920 were people of color and the fairer sex allowed to vote.

Mork:  You mean neither Bill Cosby or  you  would have been allowed to vote?  Wow! Bambozalozalousa!…   But I thought the whole thrust of your revolution was that all men, of course I’ve learned when I say ‘men’  I mean ‘people’, are created equal?

Mindy:  Well, yes but….

Mork:  Is it that you earthies  must say things many, many times before its meaning sinks in?

Mindy:  That could be…

Mork:  Like I was surfing the net and I found these articles about Philadelphia II which seemed to be arguing that “We the people” want to establish procedures to enact laws directly through the tools of Direct Democracy.  Don’t you already have that?  Haven’t you proclaimed the peoples sovereignty since at least 1787?

Mindy:  Well, sort of.  You  see we elect agents who implement the laws we want.

Phily II is proposing to let the people directly vote and implement laws.

Mork:  Well, who is “sovereign” then, your agents or the people?

Mindy:  Well, the people are.

Mork:  Then why is this Phily II proposal seeking to establish procedures?  Can’t you just do it?

Mindy:  Well, I guess because you need a process through which to work the direct writing of laws by the people.

Mork:  But did your Founding Fathers have an established process through which they established the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution?

Mindy:  No,…. I guess they didn’t.

Mork:  In other words, they just did it because they assumed they were sovereign and then put some wording in their Constitution that said this would now be the Supreme Law?

Mindy:  I guess Article VI of the Constitution pretty much did that.

Mork, pointing skyward:  Ah, yes,  we often did that on Ork.  We called it “self actualizing.”  Sounds like you ‘self actualized’ your independence and Constitution.

But I am still a little confused.   Excuse my sometimes misunderstood-by- Earthlings colloquialism here, but why didn’t you go all the way and establish Direct Democracy?

Mindy:  Perhaps people weren’t ready for it?

Mork:  But you have been talking about being ready for it since 1787.  In 1970 People’s Lobby had hearings before your US Senate Judiciary Committee and lots of people like your popular Ralph Nader said America should have it.  Now in the 1990’s your former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel says Americans should have it.  Isn’t a kazillion billion dagillion nano-seconds of talking about these direct democracy things enough earthling time?

Mindy:  Well, I think our representatives in Washington will have to discuss this some more…

Mork:  Oh, those agents of yours, nanu-nanu.  Those who your Constitution says are your servants, but who many of you seem to treat as you sovereigns.  Sometimes you earthlings confuse me…..

Excuse me Mindy, I’d better down upstairs go into my dark and phone home.  Ork wants some insights and this ought to blink their stellar lights.

 

Library

Clinton vs. Tocqueville

Leave a comment
San Diego Review January 1, 1996
In Clinton vs. Tocqueville…

Michael Barone  likens today with Tocqueville’s 1830 preindustrial America.  “Today’s  America, like Tocqueville’s, is decentralized, individualistic, religious, property loving…  it is egalitarian in that people show little deference to established authorities in business, medicine, religion, the media or politics… (its) natural inclination … is to dismantle big government, to decentralize power, to hold individuals rather than society responsible for their actions.”

Barone’s analysis leads to Article I of the Constitution which he stresses is about Congress — not the President  — and indicates that  this apparent restoration of constitutional order  may benefit a perceived ‘indecisive’ Clinton.  The disappearance of  economic emergencies and hot or cold wars has reduced the need for the ‘commanding’ Presidency.  Barone concludes, however:  “If Gingrich and his allies stand firm, the character of American society today and the order of the Constitution will give the president little choice but to accept most of their decisions.”

Whooa, wait a sec.. Might there be a deeper, different  brand of individualism bubbling across America’s plains than indicated by these national brands?

Consider economics:  Through our industrial era, the rich grew richer  off their investments while the blue collars worked enough to raise their own Buick boats. Today owners’ equity grows even bigger as blue collar wages shrink — so:

thousands of  mutual funds and discount brokers opened to give the fading blues a chance to own too

ESOPs (employee stock ownership plans) soared to own United birds flying our friendly skies

franchising roared through the 70’s and 80’s, as fading blues and whites bet their savings on their ability to run a business

network marketing booms in the 90’s, as stay-pressed collars continue investing time and money in pushing today’s more easily delivered products

home offices and garage workshops spread through neighborhoods, as do lap tops and tools of independent trade, and sometimes Uncles Sam can’t even count the exchange

.http and .www become code names for a contemporary band of  freedom fighters who use knowledge as a tool of  economic and political self defense  and we seem more ready to discontinue lending to the poor.

Consider politics:  Political parties had a field day through the 60’s spending or bombing money and making  60 second pol art.  Too slowly, these art merchants noticed rising public disenchantment.  Today MIPS reports that  the percentage of thinking people disliking  parties, campaigns and the governing process is the highest in history.  MIPS (My Intuitive Polling Survey) draws its data from recent surges, such as:

Continuing growth of party times:  Move over Libertarians here come the Reform dancers choreographed by Ross the Boss; the Green Party with the Consumers Top Cop, Ralph Nader, holding Presidential dance tickets; Bradley, Wickert, Tsongas, Penny, Love and gang hanging out around Concord deciding whether to warn Americans that a revolution is coming; and Jesse’s Rainbow again squinting into the sunshine of November 96, days after torrents of tears over Colin’s demur finally cleared.

Resurgence of campaign reform initiative legislation and continued public support for term limits.

Growing support and understanding of  how to establish a national initiative process.

Many of  those working to establish a national initiative have learned from 20+ years of initiative work /study. They now need to raise sufficient funds to be ready to offset the negative campaign that any challenge to the status quo faces.  They need not match the opponents campaign war chest.   They must, however, run a smart campaign with some money.

If not, they might still be noted by Tocqueville’s 1990s standard bearer — the Tofflers?– as a signpost  on America’s plains of individuality, diversity and richness.  They  will not, however, have added enough skill and power to weld an American Constitutional tool for blue and white collar use.

 

Library

Too many tired, hanging curves?

Leave a comment

San Diego Review   December 1, 1995

 Too many tired, hanging curves?

By Dwayne Hunn

Sometimes, like my hometown Cleveland Indians,  you get too far ahead of the curve…  When it happens in politics, you also don’t score much.

Getting ahead of too many curves in either game:  1) destroys confidence and passes bench  splinters 2) causes public policy grumbling during commercials of  Married with Children  3) teaches one to persist, adjust and wait till  they slip you a good, crushable pitch.

People’s Lobby  was ahead of  a lot of curves —  reviving the initiative for grassroots organizations, sponsoring initiatives to clean the environment and reform politics, training groups to do the same and  sending men to Washington to implement the national initiative and referendum.  Unfortunately, People’s Lobby’s truly big hitters went  up to the heavenly Big  League, and  for years the National I&R,  was left stranded on political bases.

Today new hitters step up to drive home that biggest political run. Rick Arnold’s highly successful National Voter Outreach,  which did 20 of the 66 initiatives in 1992 and 19 of the 76 that  qualified in 1994, has branched out to form the  American Initiative  Committee, whose goal is  to amend the  National I&R into the Constitution. Former Senator Mike Gravel wants to adopt a National I&R through a 1996 popular vote, re-enacting Philadelphia’s Constitution writing  of 1787.

Barbara Vincent, Director of  the National Referendum Movement (NRM), has another approach.   NRM also has a National I&R goal,  but intends to promote that by bringing the initiative process to the 26 states that still lack I&R rights 24 states possess.  NRM’s approach, dubbed the Tennessee Plan, attacks on three fronts:

1) Legislatures are lobbied to pass I&R legislation, while seeking the governor’s support;

2) Electorates  tests their constitutional right by placing  an issue on the ballot via petition;

3) Courts suits are filed under state and federal  bills of rights when the petition is denied.

In short, if  the politicians won’t pass laws to give  citizens the initiative and referendum, citizens put an issue on  the ballot without an initiative law.  When  the Secretary of State denies their legal ability to do so, they “sue the buzzards.”

Didn’t the King of England learn that  petitioning for redressing grievances is better than going to war?  Wasn’t a foundation of the Constitution the right of redress?   Wasn’t  the Bill of Rights,  ratified in 1791 three years after the Constitution alone was submitted to the states, added to guard against the abuse of people’s rights?  Wasn’t the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” one of the key phrases in the First Amendment?

Doesn’t the 1983 Civil Rights Law stating, “No one can use even custom as an excuse to violate citizens’ civil rights…” receive its  legal forces from those founding tenets? Our rights emanated from our 1776 Declaration of  Independence, so shouldn’t  logical historians wonder why it took over 200 years for all the states to have the initiative and referendum?

If the three pronged attack doesn’t obtain timely results,  the NRM  has a “big squeeze” contingency that relies on Congressional supporters to pass a Uniform Act establishing the IR process for all the states.  The states would be required to provide initiative and referendum rights to citizens, as states retain discretion to set signature, filling requirements, etc.

Even before the tired but true 42 year old Satchel Page joined the Indians in 1948,  tired  politicians were heaving curve balls to keep the initiative out of  the peoples’ hands. Today, however, more hitters are digging in to crush hanging curves  into the I&R bleachers.

Library

Old School Bus + 20 years: National Referendum

Leave a comment

San Diego Review November 1, 1995

Old School Bus + 20 years: National Referendum Realized?

by Dwayne Hunn

In 1976  Roger Telschow and  John Forster  packed up their People’s Lobby literature, training, and maverick politics  in an old yellow bus, crisscrossed 30 states and poured their energy into making the wooden figures in the marbled halls of Washington implement the National Initiative & Referendum.  The results?

In  1977 Senators Abourezk, Hatfield and Gravel (D-AK, 1969-81)  co-sponsored Senate Judiciary  Committee hearings on implementing a national initiative process.  They all expressed support for the idea of  initiative law making, but  Hatfield and  Abourezk didn’t support the initiative amending the Constitution. “Ridiculous!”  Gravel  today responds,  “That means  the employees of people can amend the Constitution,   but people can’t. Ridiculous!..”

In 1977 Rick Arnold’s initiative helped replace  the lessons of  Vietnam and three Bronze and one Silver Stars by learning how to gather signatures and run initiative campaigns.  Today, more than 300 initiative campaigns later, he sees  the  National Initiative  as the  safety  valve  America needs to check systemic cynicism. Today, Gravel and Arnold’s paths increasingly cross, as they pursue the goal of a national initiative, albeit by  slightly different processes.

A three day San Diego October 1995 Campaigns and Elections Conference allowed political experts to hone the skills of  the sponsoring American Initiative Committee (AIC) and Philadelphia II participants, as both organizations approach 1996 intending to make Direct  Democracy available to America.  What’s the difference between AIC and Phily II?

Both want Americans “empowered” with the National Initiative and Referendum (NI&R) and believe a grassroots ground swell will be needed to do that.   Arnold believes that every Congressional district needs an organization gathering signatures and pressuring representatives so that 3/4ths of the states plus 1 (38) will empower Americans by ratifying a simply worded Amendment such as: “The people reserve the right to the initiative and referendum.”

For the 1996 Presidential ballot, Gravel wants a National Initiative and Referendum ballot in every registered voter’s hand.  When one over 50% votes for empowering Americans with those Direct Democracy tools,  Philadelphia I, where Americans in 1787 drafted their   new Constitution without asking permission of  the states under the inept Articles of Confederation, will  have an equally revolutionary and powerful   brother — Philadelphia II..

Gravel’s Phily II  does not, however, leave defining the process for doing national initiatives in the hands of  elected representatives.  Instead, like the Constitution with its articles and sections,  Phily II specifies the what, when and how of the NI&R.  “Governments make it harder to do initiatives, so why leave it in their hands to establish the process. Anyway, I’ve been there (the Senate)  and don’t want to entrust that to them.”

Simple process, complex wording.  Which do you prefer?