Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

stremington

User Profile Image stremington
Member since : May-27-2009 (Verified)
0 Ideas, 9 Comments, 9 Votes

User Activity Stream

Comments Posted

stremington 9 months ago
nemesispaladin,

I also agree with most of the items on the list, but felt that the "looks promising" definition of a thumbs up vote allowed for general approval without indicating a 100% endorsement. Since this is the brainstorming phase, to be followed by some editing, this is an opportunity to weigh in on some of the specifics that we like and that we don't like. David has specifically requested ideas for improving the proposal. I'd also be interested in hearing what you have to say.
stremington 9 months ago
Re: state vs federal issue: A national standard would simplify the process and make it more fair.
stremington 9 months ago
There's a big difference between writing a climate bill with gazillions of unrelated items in it, like pemitting concealed weapons in National Parks, and comprehensively addressing a problem of huge breadth and magnitude, like the imperial presidency.
stremington 9 months ago
I apologize for the last post. I accidentally attached David's proposal to my post. Here's mine by itself (and long enough already).

In response to David’s request for discussion on possible improvements to his proposal, here are some thoughts:

The aspects of his proposal that I find the most compelling are on elections (financing and voting), access to information, and what the rule of law means in a free society. Without equal application of fair laws; access to timely, accurate, complete information; and an election system that ensures that everyone who is eligible to vote is allowed to do so, and that every vote is counted, we don’t have a chance at exerting influence on our representatives on any of the rest of the problems we face.

Regarding voting, we need a national standard that complies with existing law requiring that ballots be “voter verifiable.” Simply require that machines produce a ballot that can be verified as correct by the voter and submitted for counting (not as a backup in case of a challenge, but as the primary source of tabulation). Any machine that tabulates internally is inherently unverifiable by the voter. And counting 1-3% of the paper trail, as is currently done in the event of a challenge (in locations where a paper trail is even available) is not an acceptable substitution for counting all voter-verified ballots. Initial counting can be done by optical scan, rather than hand counting.

As a modification to the proposal to ban private campaign financing and create public financing through constitutional amendment, I like the idea of a national bill for publicly-financed elections. I don’t know the current status of the “Fair Elections Now” bill (sponsored by Durbin and Specter in the senate, and there’s a House version, too). The bill is based on existing successful programs in Maine and Arizona, which don’t ban private contributions outright, but create a system where publicly-financed candidates can compete and are preferred by voters because they focus on issues and aren’t beholden to corporate interests.

To restrict the ongoing legalized bribery of candidates by corporations, I’d like to see us focus on some of the major loopholes in existing bans on corporate donations. Huge amounts of money go straight to political parties during the National Conventions under the guise of promoting the host city. This should be banned outright through legislation.

The presidential debates are another way to sneak money to political parties, and this needs to be banned, too. The ‘debates’ are totally controlled by the two major parties, which is why third parties and some members of the major parties are excluded from these spectacles. David suggested non-partisan, rather than bipartisan, means of redistricting, and I think we need to return to nonpartisanship with respect to the presidential debates, as well. The League of Women Voters did an outstanding job of running them for several years in the 70s and 80s. They had tough moderators, inclusive policies, and real debates.

We haven’t had an open, honest discussion of issues in years because the collaboration of corporations and major political parties has been permitted to frame the discussion in ways that suit them, but not the majority of Americans. Access to complete and accurate information is essential to making good choices.

So, my last points here are also regarding the proposal to advance a long term vision for reducing the corrupting influence of money, media, and party on policy.

Regarding media, I absolutely agree that breaking up the megalopolies is essential (same for the banks). And since the airwaves are public, any media outlet that repeatedly acts in a manner that is not in the public interest (e.g. hiring retired generals as ‘independent’ analysts and failing to disclose their ties to the Pentagon and private military contractors who were profiting from the military aggression they advocated) should lose their broadcasting license.

We need to enforce, as well as strengthen existing media ownership rules. The L.A. Times, among many others, continually applies for waivers allowing them to own more than they are legally entitled to do. Enough of the waivers. We need anti-trust legislation that returns media outlets to local ownership.

And we need the Internet Freedom bill passed. Despite a lot of rhetoric and alleged bi-partisan support, we still don’t have a net neutrality bill.
stremington 9 months ago
End Imperial Presidency
david 5 days ago
Flag

685
Leave the White House less imperial than you found it. Appoint an independent prosecutor to prosecute Bush, Cheney, and their top officials in order to deter in the future the crimes of aggressive war, misleading congress, defrauding congress, misspending funds, war crimes, murder, warrantless spying, torture, domestic propaganda, violations of the Hatch Act and the Voting Rights Act, obstruction of justice, misprision of felony, retaliating against whistleblowers, etc. Restore to Congress the power to legislate, the power to begin and end wars, the power to raise and spend money, the power to approve or reject treaties and appointments, and the power to oversee the functioning of the federal government including through the power of impeachment and the power of inherent contempt. That means no more signing statements rewriting laws, and instead support for legislation that would criminalize such behavior. And it means similar action on each of the other offenses.

We, the people, must:

Demand that Congress ban the use of funds for any activities created in violation of the law by presidential signing statements.

Amend the Constitution to clearly ban the use of presidential pardons to pardon crimes authorized by the president.

Amend the War Powers Act and the Constition to include the requirement that Congressional authorizations of war include time limits of no more than 12 months, after which Congress must vote again to extend the war or end it, to disallow the unconstitutional initiation of wars without Congressional approval, and to make the law enforceable.

Make war profiteering by any war maker a major felony. This would apply to any employee of the federal government or anyone who had within the past decade been an employee of the federal government.

Legislate a requirement that, in any war, the military aged children and grandchildren of the president, the vice president, all cabinet officials, and all Congress members serve on the front lines in the most dangerous combat positions -- no exceptions, no exemptions.

Prohibit the use of mercenaries or any armed contractors, as well as the use of any military force on American soil except when directly engaged in defensive war against a foreign nation.

Repeal the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, the Protect America Act, the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the PATRIOT Act.

Ban secret budgets, secret laws, and secret agencies.

Change the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster.

Create a task force to research whether the Senate has ever served any useful purpose not better served by the House.

End all rendition, as distinct from extradition.

Amend the Constitution to make the ban on ex-post-facto laws include any laws that would retroactively grant immunity for crimes.

Amend the Constitution to bar the vice president from exercising executive power.

Amend the Constitution to clarify the congressional power of inherent contempt.

Amend the Constitution to include the right to vote and to have one's vote counted publicly at the polling place.

Give Washington, D.C., full voting representation in Congress.

Amend the Constitution to ban private financing of campaigns, create public financing, and provide free air time to candidates.

Sign and ratify the Rome treaty to join the International Criminal Court.

*****

OPTIONAL PART 2 OF THIS PROPOSAL - Drafted and withheld at first, posted May 29th in response to useful comments from ttahiti and many others posted below.

Release more evidence, and support organizations suing in court for the release of evidence.

Ask Congress to update and reissue the subpoenas that were refused during the 110th Congress, and to enforce them through inherent contempt.

Support media reform and independent media outlets. Break up the monopolies. Invest in public media, including an E-Span election network to provide free substantive election coverage.

Advance a long-term vision in which the corrupting influences of money, media, and party are restrained, and our rights are restored, enforced, and expanded, including the right to vote and to have our votes counted publicly and locally, equal rights for all, environmental rights, the right to education and healthcare, worker rights, the right to basic welfare, freedom of press, freedom from war lies, and the right to know your rights.

Push for approval, ratification, and enforcement of international human rights treaties. Build toward Constitutional amendments or a convention with a plan to establish the right to know the laws and to have them applied equally, a ban on signing statements, whistleblowers protected, inherent contempt established, corporations stripped of human rights, monopolies restricted, clean campaign money and free media created, the power of parties reduced, nonpartisan (not bipartisan) redistricting, limiting election seasons, no more electoral college, a bigger House with no Senate, the right to be represented, no appointing of senators, limiting terms for judges, requiring a balanced budget, limiting bills to single topics and requiring clarity, allowing legislation by public initiative, allowing recall elections, creating citizen assemblies, and developing a fourth (people's) branch of government.
Why Is This Idea Important?
Empires end and they can end happily by voluntarily reforming, or they can end miserably by refusing to.

In response to David’s request for discussion on possible improvements to his proposal, here are some thoughts:

The aspects of his proposal that I find the most compelling are on elections (financing and voting), access to information, and what the rule of law means in a free society. Without equal application of fair laws; access to timely, accurate, complete information; and an election system that ensures that everyone who is eligible to vote is allowed to do so, and that every vote is counted, we don’t have a chance at exerting influence on our representatives on any of the rest of the problems we face.

Regarding voting, we need a national standard that complies with existing law requiring that ballots be “voter verifiable.” Simply require that machines produce a ballot that can be verified as correct by the voter and submitted for counting (not as a backup in case of a challenge, but as the primary source of tabulation). Any machine that tabulates internally is inherently unverifiable by the voter. And counting 1-3% of the paper trail, as is currently done in the event of a challenge (in locations where a paper trail is even available) is not an acceptable substitution for counting all voter-verified ballots. Initial counting can be done by optical scan, rather than hand counting.

As a modification to the proposal to ban private campaign financing and create public financing through constitutional amendment, I like the idea of a national bill for publicly-financed elections. I don’t know the current status of the “Fair Elections Now” bill (sponsored by Durbin and Specter in the senate, and there’s a House version, too). The bill is based on existing successful programs in Maine and Arizona, which don’t ban private contributions outright, but create a system where publicly-financed candidates can compete and are preferred by voters because they focus on issues and aren’t beholden to corporate interests.

To restrict the ongoing legalized bribery of candidates by corporations, I’d like to see us focus on some of the major loopholes in existing bans on corporate donations. Huge amounts of money go straight to political parties during the National Conventions under the guise of promoting the host city. This should be banned outright through legislation.

The presidential debates are another way to sneak money to political parties, and this needs to be banned, too. The ‘debates’ are totally controlled by the two major parties, which is why third parties and some members of the major parties are excluded from these spectacles. David suggested non-partisan, rather than bipartisan, means of redistricting, and I think we need to return to nonpartisanship with respect to the presidential debates, as well. The League of Women Voters did an outstanding job of running them for several years in the 70s and 80s. They had tough moderators, inclusive policies, and real debates.

We haven’t had an open, honest discussion of issues in years because the collaboration of corporations and major political parties has been permitted to frame the discussion in ways that suit them, but not the majority of Americans. Access to complete and accurate information is essential to making good choices.

So, my last points here are also regarding the proposal to advance a long term vision for reducing the corrupting influence of money, media, and party on policy.

Regarding media, I absolutely agree that breaking up the megalopolies is essential (same for the banks). And since the airwaves are public, any media outlet that repeatedly acts in a manner that is not in the public interest (e.g. hiring retired generals as ‘independent’ analysts and failing to disclose their ties to the Pentagon and private military contractors who were profiting from the military aggression they advocated) should lose their broadcasting license.

We need to enforce, as well as strengthen existing media ownership rules. The L.A. Times, among many others, continually applies for waivers allowing them to own more than they are legally entitled to do. Enough of the waivers. We need anti-trust legislation that returns media outlets to local ownership.

And we need the Internet Freedom bill passed. Despite a lot of rhetoric and alleged bi-partisan support, we still don’t have a net neutrality bill.
stremington 9 months ago
One major problem with immunity, especially for the principals in the commission of serious crimes, is that there's no deterrent. How would we be better off as a society if we acknowledged in detail horrific criminal acts and then declined to hold anyone accountable? That would be a tacit acceptance of the idea that certain crimes are acceptable as long as we acknowledge them. High government officials would be free to do whatever they like in office without fear of any consequence more serious than public exposure.

I don't recall anyone suggesting publicizing the murderous acts directed by Charles Manson as a reasonable – even preferred – replacement for investigation and prosecution of his crimes. But somehow, this has become an accepted line of reasoning in discussing the crimes of Bush and Cheney, who are responsible for more death and misery than Manson could even dream about.

This double standard is widespread, and evident to anyone who's ever tried to talk his way out of a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, but is particularly outrageous when you consider that Troy Davis is on death row trying to argue that he should be allowed to present evidence of his innocence that has surfaced since his trial. He’s not even asking to be released. He’s just asking to present the new evidence in court and has been turned down at every appeal. The argument of the appeals courts has been that he had an opportunity to present this evidence at trial and missed it. Now it’s too late. They didn’t even rule on the actual evidence of innocence, which they acknowledge is compelling.

So, in the United States, it’s apparently too late to present evidence of innocence when a regular citizen is facing death, but too upsetting to even investigate, much less prosecute, high officials for horrific criminal acts that led – among many other things – to the deaths of over 4000 American troops, over a million Iraqis, as well as misery and mayhem all over the region.

The idea that upholding the law for government criminals would damage the country, but that allowing these officials to get away with murder, torture, kidnapping, and cover ups is a way for the nation to heal is astounding.

Allowing high level officials to break the law with impunity is a characteristic of tyrannies, not democracies.
stremington 9 months ago
I suggested this at a citizens' meeting recently and one of the other participants suggested a similar alternative, Acceptance Voting.

Acceptance voting is already in place for certain local candidates. These are the positions where they say, "Vote for no more than three," for example. One position is vacant, but each voter chooses up to three acceptable candidates and the one who gets the most votes wins.

You don't get to rank the candidates under this system, which was less appealing to me. But tabulating the results is simpler and doesn't require a computer (which would make it more likely for any attempt to manipulate the results to be noticed, because anyone can tabulate).

I haven't decided yet, but wanted to throw out the idea to see what other people thought.
stremington 9 months ago
Decreasing the barriers to running for office might work better than term limits.

A national publicly funded election system like the ones in Maine in Arizona would allow people who aren't millionaires to run for office and it would make the election about ideas instead of fundraising and advertising.

Creating a requirement of public approval for proposed congressional pay raises would also help increase responsiveness of representatives and weed out some of the greedy ones.
stremington 9 months ago
I'd have to have more information to weigh in on several of the constitutional amendments suggested here, but the basic premise is what I support – everyone must obey the law (including current and former executive branch officials) and those who don’t must be held accountable for their crimes, including executive branch officials.

I completely agree with the list of laws David would like to repeal, but a lot of what I consider necessary involves following existing law and initiating an honest discussion of existing and necessary limits to executive power in a democracy. Open government is of very little value if the dialogue in which we openly engage is dishonest.

For example, we need and end to the following:

1) The bizarre and dangerous claim that laws are irrelevant if the president or other officials decide they have a really good reason for breaking them (e.g. the existence of terrorists). Nothing justifies the crimes of aggressive war, including foreign invasions and occupations and remote bombing; attacking sites where civilian casualties are inevitable; assassinations, torture, rendition and indefinite detention; domestic spying, eliminating habeas corpus, refusing to release information that should be public, refusing to prosecute crimes by high level government officials ...). These are tactics of repressive, rogue regimes – immoral and counterproductive, as well as illegal.
2) The claim that the president, or anyone else who's taken the oath of office, can choose whether or not to investigate or prosecute crimes of former officials. There is no legal basis for this. The president and his officials swore to uphold and defend the constitution. No exceptions. Covering up crimes is just as illegal as committing the original crime. Calling it a pragmatic choice is dishonest.
3) Our two tiered system of justice, with harsh penalties for ordinary citizens and immunity from the law for government and corporate elites. The only ways to maintain this injustice are via continued secrecy and illegitimate claims of immunity from the law for certain classes of people.

This is all completely counter to democracy and open government.