百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[US Constitution revolution for real democracy]
郭国汀律师专栏
***(一)郭国汀律师为清水君抗辩
·郭国汀我为什么为清水君辩护?
·律师郭国汀对黄金秋(清水君)颠覆国家政权案辩护大纲
·清水君网上组党案刑事上诉状
·江苏高院强行书面审判清水君上诉案
·黄金秋(清水君)颠覆国家政权上诉案辩护词纲要
·清水君案上诉辩护词附件
·清水君案江苏高院驳回上诉维持原判
·中共伪法官评黄金秋颠覆国家政权案
·郭国汀律师清水君颠覆国家政权案研究
·郭国汀归纳清水君思想论点主旨言论集
·郭国汀就黄金秋颠覆国家政权上诉案致江苏省高级法院院长函
·郭国汀致狱中清水君函
·郭国汀律师第五次会见清水君
·狱中会见清水君手记
·郭国汀就清水君案上诉审江苏高级法院刑一庭王振林法官函
·作家黄金秋被无罪判重刑十二年辩护律师郭国汀谴责中共司法不公
·我为留学生英雄清水君抗辩
·清水君近况
·清水君其人其事辩护律师答记者问
·清水君:开庭日
·清水君:我的最后陈述
·清水君狱中诗草
·告诉你一个真实的清水君─黄金秋自述
·狱中诗草-短诗赠郭兄雅正
·赠黑眼睛等诸友
·南郭/清水君自我辩护感人至深
·南郭/中国人决不能忘记清水君!
·南郭/清水君是当代中国英雄
·南郭/清水君在狱中受到中共监狱毫无人性的虐待!
***(二)郭国汀律师为法轮功抗辩
***(1)中共极权暴政的最新反人类罪:活体盗卖法轮功学员人体器官专栏
·郭国汀 中共活摘器官是真的!
·中共为何纵容活体盗卖法轮功信徒的人体器官Why the CCP Harvests the Living Falun Gong
·BLOODY HARVEST Organ of Falun Gong
·活体盗人体器官关健证人调查纪录
·惊天罪孽 铁证如山
·郭国汀:苏家屯事件敲响了中共的丧钟
·郭国汀:苏家屯事件是真实的
·郭国汀:西方媒体报导苏家屯是个时间问题
·西方媒体首次报导苏家屯事件!
·中共活割法轮功学员人体器官主调查人DADID Matas 获Tarnopolsky 2007年人权奖(英文)
***(2)郭国汀律师为法轮功强力抗辩
·Resolution for Falun Gong in Congress of USA
·法轮圣徒瞿延来为何令南郭敬重?答MICRONET有关瞿延来的质疑
·中共为何血腥镇压法轮功?
·诉江泽民案美国依据国际法的义务:是对公共安全的危胁还是种族灭绝?
·值得中国律师学习的起诉书: 诉江泽民\李岚清\罗干\刘京\王茂林损害赔偿两千万加元
·郭国汀论辩法轮功
·我为法轮功说句公道话
·陈光辉监外执行、保外就医申请书
·为争取信仰自由权已绝食抗争七百八十天的瞿延来.
·百无一用是中国律师
·答三项基本原则
·中共必须立即停止镇压法轮功
·我为什么为法轮功辩护? 郭国汀
·我为法轮功抗辩的真实心声
·法轮功真相之我见
·中共才是真正的邪教----中共血腥残暴迫害法轮功的根源
·中共镇压法轮功的国际法分析
·中共滥用教制度镇压法轮功的法理解析
·当代中国的盖世太宝[610办公室]研究(英文)
·有感于对法轮功学员的强制教育
·中共当局必须立即无条件释放刘如平律师!郭国汀
·声援支持杨在新律师!
·郭国汀章天亮曾宁谈425和平上访到千万退党的精神延续
·中共专制暴政一直在杀人----悼念讲真相英雄陈光辉
·FALUN GONG PERSECUTION FACTS HEET
·RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FALUN GONG IN CHINA
·2
·Falun Gong Wins Motion in Historic Torture Lawsuit against Former Head of China
·为法轮功抗辩与自由中国论坛部份网民的论战
·Dr Wang Wenyi will be remembered by history as a great courage hero
·法轮功是比中共有过之无不及的一人专制吗?-答谭嗣同先生
·法轮功讲真相无罪
·郭国汀:对法轮功学员的劳教、判刑是非法行为
·郭国汀介绍为法轮功学员打官司的曲折经历
·质疑张千帆教授对法轮功的评价 郭国汀
·宣誓证词Affidavit
·中共一贯谎言连篇是个地道的骗子党!
·中共下达密文奥运成迫害最大借口
·中国著名人权律师从为法轮功辩护看中共践踏法律(图)
·郭国汀律师批评中共奧運前加劇迫害法輪功
·郭国汀律师呼吁台湾政府予吴亚林政治庇护
·郭国汀律师称中共持续非法迫害法轮功及其辩护律师
·答Gavin0919郭国汀是法轮功走狗之指控
***(3)郭国汀为法轮功辩护的专访
·专访郭国汀律师(上) :为法轮功辩护
·专访郭国汀律师(下) :回首不言悔
·RFA:郭国汀介绍为法轮功学员打官司的曲折经历
·自由亞洲電台专访郭國汀谈為法輪功學員打官司
·希望之声郭国汀专访:对法轮功学员的劳教、判刑是非法行为
***(三)郭国汀律师为郑恩宠抗辩
·我为郑恩宠律师抗辩的前前后后
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
US Constitution revolution for real democracy

US Constitution revolution for real democracy
   By Tom Crumpacker Noted by Thomasgguo
   Pending a radical change to the US Constitution progressives can forget genuine democracy, says Tom Crumpacker. Meanwhile commercial oligarchy(government by a small group of people, often for their own interests ) will continue to promote raw power rather than rule of law in a parliamentary system outwith the control of ordinary people

   Too many US progressives seem to accept the myth of United States democracy. We hear and read of all kinds of change strategies and tactics, which have one thing in common: a belief that winning elections by progressive candidates will solve our problems. But until we have a real democracy this won't happen, and we should have learned this sometime in the last 50 years. Without real democracy, we cannot peacefully or successfully address the calamitous(a sudden terrible event causing great loss and suffering ) problems which face us, such as economic crisis, war, unilateralism, authoritarianism, corporatism, environmental destruction, loss of privacy and liberty, discrimination, poverty, wage, health care, education, etc. In society these crucial issues are addressed by laws, which derive from political power. With no real democracy, electoral strategies and complaints about issues are just so much hot air. What US progressives have in common, whatever their specific issue or interest, is a desperate(ready for any wild act and not caring about danger because of loss of hope :suffering extreme need, anxiety or loss of hope; full of risk or danger; done as a last attempt and with little hope of success; extremely difficult and dangerous grave) need for democracy.
   Thomas Jefferson [1743-1826] once predicted(to see or describe a future happening in advance as a result of knowledge.) that every generation would need its revolution. Politically speaking, we seem to be on the verge of entering a new dark age, where relations between people, classes, groups, governments and nations depend on raw power rather than the rule of law. Our national political system was structured 217 years ago by white, male property owners in what was then thought to become an essentially agricultural and mercantile society based in small communities and states. Limited powers were granted to a federal government of three separate branches.
   Since then, enormous technological, economic, scientific, geographic, demographic (statistical study of human population) and other factors have completely altered the power relationships then contemplated. Nevertheless, we are still attempting to operate with what is essentially the original structure. The only basic changes we've made have been extending the vote to the propertyless, racial minorities and women, and centralizing the public funding and decision-making power at the federal level.
   Although our rulers frequently say that we have a democracy and seek to impose our institutions on others, the only accurate words to describe our system as it now functions are commercial oligarchy(government by a small group of people for their own interests ) or plutocracy(a ruling class of wealthy people). The core of the historic idea of democracy is the possibility of collective decision-making about collective action for a common good. The reason humans have been trying to achieve this vision at least since the days of ancient Athens has to do with freedom. To the extent people can participate in the important decisions which affect their lives, personally or by true representation, the decisions become theirs, they implement them, and society's need for coercion diminishes.
   The United States was not originally intended to be a democracy (except for one branch of the legislature). Populism(a person who claims to believe in the wisdom and judgment of ordinary people) was feared by those who set up our government. It was first called a republic, and, like Rome and all the rest, has now morphed into empire. Our important decision-making is done by a power elite(a group that is of higher level or rank) consisting of big business-corporate, military and political, as described by C. Wright Mills in his 1960 essay "The Power Élite." By funding the politicians and mass media, our élites acquire the power to use them to obtain public acquiescence in the societal decisions they make privately.
   The problem is that most of our national politicians are not representing the public interest (common good); rather they are representing the powerful private interests which fund them, on the theory that some of the benefits will “trickle down” to the people. They are pursuing self-interest, seeking to retain their offices which bring them wealth and power – as encouraged by our dominant “laissez faire” ideology. In a democracy people can protect themselves by forcing the politicians to set the societal rules which govern their relations.
   Our rulers seek to justify our “interest based” system by calling it pluralist. In this type of system, where advertising in the media is crucial, economic power produces political power, political power produces economic power, and the role of the people disappears. The purpose of a political system is to allow for an appropriate degree of social change within an appropriate degree of stability. Today, progressive change in and within our system has become impossible. Our mass consumer society, which binds us together not by our values but by enmeshing(to catch in a net) us in a net of commercial relations, has become an overwhelming(very large; too great to oppose) depoliticizing force.
   The seats in our House of Representatives (our “people's house”) have become virtual lifetime appointments, encouraging allegiance(loyalty, faith , and dutiful support to a leader, county, idea) to private rather than public interests. David Brower has called it the House of Lords. Our Congress has delegated its legislative authority to an imperial presidency. About half of eligible Americans no longer participate in national elections. Bush, who was elected by 27% of the eligibles, says he represents those who agree with him. With a winner-take-all electoral system, only two parties are possible at the national and state levels. They have morphed into one two-pronged party purporting to help special interests and status groups. The growth of alternative, people based parties founded on values has been made impossible by entrenched laws, impossibility of funding and exclusion from the mass media and public debate.
   There are plenty(a large quantity or number) of good ideas out there which need to be explored publicly and considered in a revision of our Constitution. Such as (1) a parliamentary system with proportional representation, where people could find participation and representation by voting their values; (2) public control of, or at least significant input in, the broadcast media (the airwaves are public); (3) selective decentralization of political and economic units so that real democracy could function, such as return to the original federation idea and further; (4) elimination of campaign expenditures, replacement with public funding or at least anonymous(done or made by someone whose name is not know or stated), limited contributions; (4) limitation of size, function and activities of corporations, return to public control (originally they were public institutions); (5) elimination of our Senate; (6) elimination of gerrymandering, re-draw House districts based on population and geographical affinity only; (7) term limits; (8) elimination of Electoral College; (9) elimination of lobbying - where expertise is necessary, replace with public commissions; (10) provision for accountability and recall of representatives; (11) articulation of implied right of privacy in Bill of Rights; (12) clarification of Congress's responsibility to declare war, military for national defense only.
   Many more political reforms are needed and they all have their benefits and drawbacks(difficulty or disadvantage). The point I am trying to make is not which are appropriate; rather, I think it is now too late to work through the system. The system cannot be fixed by working through it because it is not functioning. It is no longer in the people's control. If we keep trying, we are wasting our precious time, and the other problems like war, ecological(the scientific study of the pattern of relations of plants, animals, and people to each other and to their surroundings) disaster, economic crisis, might do us in first.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场