Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel has been working for a national initiative process for the United States for many years. See www.nationalinitiative.us for more about this project. Gravel’s recent campaign for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination helped publicize his goal, at least among Libertarians and others who followed the party’s presidential contest this year.
Gravel’s Democracy Foundation is newly energized by the recent important Irish vote on whether Ireland should approve the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty would bring the European Union somewhat closer to being a national entity. It establishes the first constitution for the European Union. It makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding on the member states (with exceptions for Britain and Poland), and establishs the post of President of the European Council, with a term of 2.5 years. The President would be chosen by the Council.
The Treaty was set to go into effect on January 1, 2009, if all 27 member nations approved it. Of the 27 nations in the European Union, only Ireland put the treaty to a popular vote. That vote, held on June 12, resulted in a “yes” vote of 752,451, and a “no” vote of 852,415. The turnout was 53%. Some of the Irish opposition came from a feeling that the proposed Constitution is not democratic enough. The consequences of the Irish referendum are momentous. Although European Union leaders are now thinking of going ahead without Ireland, the Treaty has only been ratified so far by 18 nations, and its progress has certainly been cramped by the vote. Some Europeans are arguing that the Treaty should be put to a popular vote in all EU nations, and furthermore that the voters should be able to accept or reject separate sections.
When the United States considered a Constitution in the 1780’s, each state elected delegates to a ratifying convention in that particular state. Thus the preamble to the Constitution, which starts “We the People”, is a meaningful statement, not empty rhetoric.
For more about the Lisbon Treaty, see http://eureferendum.blogspot.com.
The 1787 Constitution happened due to the nonstop machinations of the gerrymander State legislatures in 1776-1786.
The U.S.A. *barely won* the American Revolutionary War due to the routine NON-compliance of many States even with the life or death emergency requests by the Continental Congress in 1775-1781.
I.E. — it was basically French help (gold and silver money, arms, troops, warships) that allowed the U.S.A. to defeat the King George III regime.
The U.S.A. returned the help to France in WW I and WW II.
The 1787-1788 State ratifying conventions used the same gerrymander districts to chose delegates as used for electing the then gerrymander State legislatures.
EVIL rotted minority rule regimes hang on and on and on. Nothing new in history.
Current result – the 3 U.S.A. gerrymander systems – House of Reps, Senate, Electoral College.
Gerrymander systems in all 50 State legislatures.
Result – ever worse monarchy / oligarchy ROT in the U.S.A. — setting the stage for a TOTAL political – social – economic breakdown — regardless of brainless wonks who think such gerrymander systems can continue forever.
Democracy NOW
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. legislative and A.V. nonpartisan executive / judicial.
Otherwise – get ready for more Caesar tyrant-killers.
The European Union “leaders” have not been elected as such by voters anywhere at any time. The majority LOST elections in their home countries. All know that put to a vote, the idea of a political union would be rejected in any nation in Europe. As one rejection would mean the end of this imposed fascist (a political elite wielding power in spite of not being elected by voters seems to fit the definition) regime….and knowing that a vote would be NO in Poland, the UK, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Holland, France…I believe the Danes, the Belgians, the French, and the Dutch have already voted NO to the European Union in previous referenda (not just Ireland, fact forgotten by the media)…the solution of the politicians is to not allow a public vote…the “ratification” will take place in the “parliaments” and “congresses” by edict of the political “elite”, avoiding the inconvenience of the will of the voters. I wonder if Pres. George W. Bush is aware of the facts when he shakes hands with leaders who do not respect the most basic of democratic principles.
Hey, it was the same at the beginning of the US! The Constitution was originally going to be ratified by referenda, but then they tried it in Rhode Island and over 90% voted no because it kept slavery legal. So they just had the elite politicians vote to ratify it.
Good observation, Ross. Which of course was better than re-writing the thing until at least a majority in each colony could agree, right? Or even finding out the thing wasn’t even the best option and work on improving representation in Parliament? In any case the elite solution ended up in a bloody civil war which killed about two million decent Americans, and curtailed certain basic rights of the citizen for all time to come. Blood will flow as a result of this new order too, (it already has in Yugoslavia and the Middle East and possibly in NYC) because this “elite” hasn’t the least idea of what it is doing.
#3 I think the Rhode Island story is a fiction.
Rhode Island did not participate in the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution itself specifies ratification by convention (Article VII). The convention considered spelling this out in more detail, but eventually did so in the cover letter when they presented the Constitution to the Continental Congress, in which they requested that the Congress pass the Constitution on to the State legislatures who would in turn call a convention in each State. Rhode Island also did not have a delegate in Congress as the time, so the motion to pass the Constitution on to the States for consideration in convention was passed 12-0.
The Continental Congress and the state legislatures did not have the authority to change the Articles of Confederation, except by unanimous vote, so the Constitutional Convention had devised a method to bypass both Congress and the legislatures, but to provide a role for them as facilitator. So the Continental Congress was requested to pass the Constitution on to the legislatures, and to also to begin the implementation of the Constitution if it were ratified by 9 States. In 1788, the Continental Congress set the dates for appointment of presidential electors; the day they would vote for President; and the day that the Senators and Representatives would meet; and designated New York City as the meeting place for the Congress.
At the time, the Rhode Island legislature had fallen under control of a faction that favored printing of unbacked paper money, and they were not in favor of giving the central government control over the currency. While it is true that they called a referendum on the Constitution it was boycotted by those who favored ratification.
Then I guess I was ill-informed.
However, is it not suspicious that there was such a passionate will to stop the ratification of the Constitution when the people were in charge, yet the elites passed it with no problem? And now it is regarded as holy writ, even though it was written so that it could be changed over time!