|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2012-01-30
© 2012 Peter Belmont
| |
The first American Revolution occurred because Britain denied to Americans the protections of their constitution, protections afforded to Englishmen, as Americans saw themselves.
Today, we have lost our democracy almost entirely to a form of governance foisted upon us by the enormous disparities of wealth brought about by unfettered capitalism—and capped by “Citizens United”. We need to shake off the resulting governance by the rich, oligarchy, as I argue in: Constitutional Amendment to combat “regulatory capture”, “electoral capture”, and Citizens United
But ridding ourselves of oligarchy won’t happen soon, and in the meantime we might contemplate some of the similarities between the first revolutionary period and the present day.
|
|
Consider “trial by jury”, a bedrock “right” of all Englishmen under the British constitution. That constitution may have been hardier than our own, for all its being unwritten, for, being unwritten, it was engraved on men’s souls. My information comes from “Constitutional History of the American Revolution”, John Phillip Reid, 1986.
Trial by jury meant many things to Englishmen and Americans. It meant, first, that a jury (and the “venue” or place of trial) were local. It meant that there WAS a jury rather than just a judge. It meant that the jurors were determiners of the law (or of the constitutionality of the law) rather than merely determiners of the facts of the case.
Moreover, since the jurors were neighbors of the accused (or civil parties) and of the witnesses, and since parties were often not allowed to testify in their own behalf—being regarded as likely to lie because of their interest in the outcome—the jurors were likely to weigh the truthfulness of witnesses according to their owen knowledge of the character of the witnesses and the accused or civil parties. They were also likely to weigh the likely impact of their verdict on their own lives and businesses.
In short, juries were really, really important.
Today, when our legislatures have become the puppets of the oligarchs, and the appointment of federal and other judges has thus passed into the hands of persons elected based on oligarchic control of electoral monies—rather than democratically—and where the laws can almost be said to be unconstitutionally enacted (because not democratically enacted), juries might well feel the same desire to nullify the laws and to decide cases according to their own “take” on the constitutionality of the law involved rather than accepting the judge’s ruling.
In the pre-revolutionary period of the 1770s, American juries did just that, arguing that since the colonies were not represented in Parliament, the laws enacted by such a Parliament could not constitutionally be imposed on the colonies.
Britain retaliated by passing new laws which created offenses to be tried without juries (to prevent jury nullification) and, in some cases, by passing new laws which created offenses to be tried back in Merry Olde England, to which quainte and happye place the prisoner would in chains be transported and then held in dungeons, and finally tried far from home, far from witnesses, far from his neighbors who should have been his jury, etc. In short, just the way the Bush-Obama government treats people (merely) accused of being “enemy combatants”, including Americans. I refer to transportation to far away places (like Guantanamo, or torture in Syria and elsewhere), but of course President Obama has told us that assassination of enemies is also a choice—also without any sort of “due process”.
Americans call the USA “democratic” but, in so many ways, they’re merely whistling in the dark. If the British colonists in America had reason for revolution in the 1770s, we have it today.
Today, “jury nullification” usually means the act by a jury of finding an accused innocent merely because they think the law a bad law, not because they fancy themselves constitutional lawyers (or judges). I suppose that in a civil case, a jury could find for the “wrong” litigant out of an innate sense of justice unrelated to the law, as expounded by the judge.
I am lawyer, sworn to uphold the law, and I do not suggest or recommend that Americans practice “jury nullification”. I merely point to the similarity in our present circumstances and the circumstances which led the American Colonists to rebel in the 1770s.
I suggest that rather than break the law (or disobey judicial instruction as to law) by “jury nullification”, that Americans form constitutional conventions—as American colonists did in the 1770s—to come to grips with oligarchy and do away with it.
My own take is that the problem arises from two similar present-day constitutional infirmities, both arising from the excessive influence bought by wealth. I recommend a constitutional amendment that would:
•allow only human persons to perform political acts or pay to have others do them; and
•allow human persons to spend no more than a limited amount of money annually to pay others to do political acts.
By political acts I mean lobbying—attempts to influence what governments (and the people that make up governments) do; and campaigning—attempts to influence how elections turn out.
I would allow people to band together or pay others (in PAOs—political action organizations)—to do political work, but subject to the annual cap on cumulative political spending by each person. I would not put a cap on political work by a person. If a person can work without pay 40 hours a week on politics, more power to him. But he may not spend above the limit, even for his own election.
Some people argue that corporations, churches, labor unions, and other kinds of organizations ought to be able to do political work because they are made up of people and represent people.
I say, first, that there is no guarantee that the people who own corporations are citizens of the USA and no guarantee that the CEOs of corporations know what the shareholders want, politically. If the CEO of Bank of America lobbies for low taxes on the very wealthy, he is feathering his own nest, not necessarily the nests of most of his shareholders. What would be worse, is (and I don’t say this has ever happened) if such a CEO lobbied with corporate funds for a project wholly unrelated to the corporation’s business—such as lobbying with corporate funds for or against abortion, for or against prayer in schools, for or against gun control (except for the CEO of a gun-maker!), etc.
I say, second, that there is no guarantee that the money the CEO decides to spend on politics would fall within the annual limit I have proposed for the political spending of individual Americans.
And anyway, nothing prevents any corporation, church, labor union, etc., from forming its own PAO and letting its shareholders—or anyone else—contribute money and effort to its political works if they are appealing.
Time for a Convention or Two
Some people enjoy getting together to do political work. TODAY IS THE TIME, FOLKS. Instead of going to that movie, that concert, that football game; instead of watching TV, instead of playing poker or video-games—go to a political convention.
The 99% must win their freedom: the 1% will not give in without a big fight. And the politicians “belong” to the 1%. (Just keep in mind Newt Gingrich’s recent receipt of $10 million from one billionaire and his wife.) It’ll be an uphill battle, friends, but Americans fought one revolution and we can fight another.
Onwards and Upwards!
|
