The Occupy movement has, as one of its core principles, the idea that all decision processes should be transparent. Accordingly, the work of the movement is visible to all who wish to see or participate in it. Time to put that principle to the test.
Two months ago, an individual in the Occupy movement had the idea to ask the Oath Keepers, a national sheriffs’ organization, for assistance with a project. The project is getting Congress to call an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution based on the active, clear applications of the states that have been published in the Congressional Record and deposited with the National Archives. The idea is to arrest every member of Congress for violating their oaths of office by not calling an Article V convention.
At the same time, I proposed an idea of filing a petition for a writ of mandamus in the District Court of the District of Columbia. If granted, this writ would compel the Archivist of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to acknowledge that sufficient number of applications have been submitted by the states to require Congress to call an Article V convention. My idea was to have a voter, a state legislator and a member of Congress all from the same location request the writ to establish standing. While obtaining the writ might not compel Congress to act, the public attention to the issue would.
Matters are coming to a head. A few days ago, I was one of five people notified via Facebook about the plan to arrest office holders moving forward. I removed myself from the conversation because I think it is improper to consider that course of action when other avenues remain available.
The other day, Anonymous posted a video on YouTube [http://youtu.be/zUO4skBtN30]
stating that they had joined forces with the Occupy movement for the purpose of arresting federal office holders. I inquired of Dan Marks, president of ArticleV.org and one of the five mentioned above.
Dan, to what extent are you supporting the idea of arresting all federal public office holders with the assistance of Anonymous and the OathKeepers due to their violations of their oath of office with regard to calling an Article V convention? I believe such an extreme course is unnecessary. I am trying to organize as many people as possible around the idea of going to the American people to ask them directly, all at once as much as possible, whether they want the change the Occupy movement has identified. Some of that change requires an Article V convention, as you know from the Agenda for the Consenting Governed, 2012. I will be conducting a roundtable discussion about the Agenda at the Occupy National Gathering in Philadelphia at 3 p.m. on July 2 to seek input and support from as many people as possible from diverse political viewpoints. I have invited people from Occupy, the 99% Declaration Continental Congress 2.0 delegates, the Tea Party and anyone else I can reach to. It is necessary that we work from the center to pull together everyone that wants change in our political system. http://www.99solutions.org/#!agenda
i think arresting people for protesting on a sidewalk in broad daylight is extreme. if those sheriffs choose to arrest a congressman, call it karma. it is up to the court to convict. i say put them under the scrutiny of the court of public opinion. let the people hear the facts.
My questions are: Doesn’t this sound like tit for tat rather than a constructive approach to correcting the problems facing our country? Doesn’t it sound as though it is arising from anger, frustration and resentment? Where is the horizontal decision making and direct democracy, asking the American people first if they want their elected representatives arrested before going forward with an action decided by a handful of people in the Occupy movement? Why do these people refuse to consult the consenting governed regarding the path they want to take to reform our government and are instead taking matters into their own hands?
I have been accused of hubris, negativity, etc. by people in the Occupy movement. Yet all along I have only sought to obtain input, direction, consent and support for a plan of action I feel will be successful. I have listened and altered that plan as groups, organizations and individuals have given me their feedback. The plan is no longer a plan I created. It is a plan that has been reviewed, amended, consented to, and adopted by a variety of groups, organizations and individuals in the Occupy movement, on the fringes and everywhere in between. It is the plan Occupy asked for regarding our national action. It is Occupy’s plan and the plan of the 99 percent.