Something that "progressive forces would want to promote in the US" might be Sen. Gravel's proposed Constitutional amendment related to direct representation. Given direct representation, the general public would have the power to pass legislation, for example, regulating corporate lobbying, corporate personhood, etc., laws that would be extremely unlikely to pass under the current power relationships. See: http://www.nationalinitiative.us/ .
living (as I do) in California, this sets off an alarm bell in my head (though perhaps it's a false alarm). We have a very well-developed popular initiative system, designed to get around the current power relationships. But its results seem to reflect the current power relationships. E.g., prop. 13. It didn't reflect the corporate will of the time (the Bank of America and other corporate fat-cats opposed it) but served those with property the most, while making it more difficult for the California state government to do anything worthwhile. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
- Iran and Russia, Yoshie Furuhashi Tue 10 Apr 2007, 03:25 GMT
- Goldman Sachs on Iran, Yoshie Furuhashi Tue 10 Apr 2007, 03:01 GMT
- question on constitutional changes, Martin Hart-Landsberg Tue 10 Apr 2007, 01:04 GMT
- Re: question on constitutional changes, Peter Hollings Tue 10 Apr 2007, 15:11 GMT
- Re: question on constitutional changes, Jim Devine Tue 10 Apr 2007, 15:38 GMT
- Re: question on constitutional changes, Michael Perelman Tue 10 Apr 2007, 15:46 GMT
- Re: question on constitutional changes, Leigh Meyers Tue 10 Apr 2007, 16:23 GMT
- Re: question on constitutional changes, Peter Hollings Tue 10 Apr 2007, 16:36 GMT
- Re: question on constitutional changes, Jim Devine Tue 10 Apr 2007, 21:16 GMT