Ralph Nadar and Bruce Fein Criticize Constitutional Crimes in U.S.

Harvard Law School Forum presented a lecture by both Ralph Nadar and Bruce Fein. They spoke about many issues pertaining to our government violating the Constitution of this great nation they were given the responsibility of leading.

Within Bruce Fein's part of the talk, he spoke about how each citizen is responsible for our government's actions. Fein said it is, "not an option to be a spectator in politics." As John F. Kennedy warned fifty years ago, there needs to be open debate and dissent in order to maintain liberty and an honest government.

One of the issues Fein brought to light is the fact that, according the the Constitution, only Congress has the right to authorize war. This was meant to be a check on the President's power. Within this limit, only Congress can authorize the money for war. Obama has found a way around this check. He has found a way to get money from the Pentagon instead. Since it is not audited, they are able to do this. According to Fein this is enough grounds for impeachment. He spoke about our fundamental rights, that have been laid out by our forefathers in the Constitution, being eroded as a result of non enforcement.

Ralph Nadar highlighted issues that have come to the forefront since 9/11. He pointed out that the United States government waited until after it was clear that there was no chance for a second strike to then declare a war on terror. Since this time "national security" has been a major issue for this nation.

Nadar points out a few items, much more immanent than the dangers being focused on, that should be considered under "national security". Some of these are the 45,000 people who die each year because they do not have health insurance, 58, 000 deaths per year due to work related issues, 100,000 deaths each year from hospital malpractice and more. Hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths to citizens of the United States that are not even considered a part of "national security."Instead huge amounts of money, that this country does not have to spend, is used to kill alleged terrorists who live on the other side of the world. In addition to killing these men, innocent women and children are killed in the process.

Ralph Nadar said, "when it goes on year after year it becomes institutionalized." These practices that are not doing any good for our country, and taking funds and liberty away from the people, become normal over time. In the past decade alone liberty has been taken from the hands of the people, and unwarranted power has been placed in the hands of the government. All of this in the name of "national security."

Below is a link that Nadar and Fein referred to during their lecture. The article highlights how freedom has been lost in post 9/11 America.

Ten Reasons the U.S. is No Longer the Land of the Free

John Adams would agree with Bruce Fein and Ralph Nadar. He warned two hundred years ago, "the jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking and writing."

As a nation we need to wake up to this fact. We need to voice our dissent to our Constitution being violated, and fiercely defend liberty.

One way to do this, as Nadar and Fein both advocated, is harassing the government until the National Defense Authorization Act (which allows the government to arrest any citizen they suspect is a terrorist, and hold them indefinitely without a trial) is repealed. Go to the link below, look up your Senators, and email them insisting that this Act is repealed. Then share the link with your friends.

United States Senators

This is one small step on the road to freedom.

Below is a link to their full lecture if you would like to watch it.

America's Lawless Empire

(can you locate me at the beginning of the video?)

Constitutional Crisis - Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig

Harvard's Institute of Politics launched their winter events; Larry Lessig, professor at Harvard Law School, was the key note speaker. He gave a very compelling talk about our Constitution being in crisis, and proposed a solution to fix this.

He began by saying that Congress is corrupt. Only, it is not the politicians themselves that are corrupt, it is the system in which they work. People in Congress spend 30-70% of their time raising money for Congress itself or their campaigns. As a result of this they are dependent on funders, not the people (only .01% of the population give $10,000 or more for campaigners). So when they pass laws they have funders in mind, not the people. This system leads to three things:

1. Money buys results in Congress

2. People lose confidence in the institution (only 9% of the population has confidence in government)

3. Low trust leads to low participation

What is the solution? Citizen funded campaigns.

"Grant and Franklin Project"

In this system everyone gets $50 of tax money back as a democracy voucher. This voucher can than go towards their candidate of choice. The candidate can only get this money if they agree to use only these funds for their campaign. The absolute most money that can be put towards a candidate is $100. That way there will only be small money funding. Using this system, if something is going wrong in Congress, it is at least known it is not a result of money corruption.

This is a good start, but there is another issue that needs to be resolved.

There is a super pac dynamic. Shortly before election day an incumbent (someone who is already in Congress and is going for re-election) is almost ensured to win. Than a super pac of $1million is dropped on the opposing side's campaign. To protect themselves Congressmen/women have "super pac insurance." The premium they have to pay is acting a certain way; passing certain laws and voting down others. This ensure that money will be there when and if they need it.

Many people in Congress are concerned with setting up their lives after Congress, in which they will be able to benefit from this system and make a lot of money. As a result of this a new Bill would not easily be passed to change this system.

What is the solution? An Article 5 Constitutional Convention.

An Article 5 Constitutional Convention is different than a total Constitutional Convention where the Constitution can be thrown out and re-written. An Article 5 Constitutional Convention needs to be called by 34 states, and can only add amendments. Then 38 states need to ratify (support) any amendment that is made.

Proposed 28th Amendment:

"Congress shall have power to limit, but not ban, independent political expenditures within 90 days of an election"

This way politicians will not always be paying their "premium" and voting for big business interests. They will actually be able to vote in the interest of the people.

These proposed plans are very thought provoking, and they sound like sound solutions. The only question is, is it possible to actually get both Public Funding for Elections and a new Amendment? Is there enough support to set these plans in motion?

Massachusetts Senate Race: Scott Brown vs. Elizabeth Warren

This September of 2012, residents of Massachusetts will be voting for one of the people who represents us in the United States Senate. Scott Brown (Republican) was voted in to complete the late Ted Kennedy's term in the Senate, and now he is up for re-election. He has serious competition vying for his seat in Elizabeth Warren (Democrat).

Brown campaigned as an underdog himself who has been working against the odds his whole life. Coming from a humble background, where he had to work hard for everything he got, he brought hope and a sense of the American Dream to his campaign. He drove a pickup truck, and related himself to the working class man. Creating jobs was at the top of his priority list. Being an independent, and voting to represent his state even against pressure in D.C., was very important to him.

Since then, there have been citizens of Massachusetts who feel that he has not done what he has promised. Jobs are not being created, and he himself voted against the Job Acts Bill. This Bill would have put in place building bridges, schools, roads, etc, and would have employed many people.

To read more on his position in important matters, visit his website:

Scott Brown

Elizabeth Warren has stepped forward from a prestigious background teaching at Harvard Law School, and working for Obama's administration. She has used these arena's to bring to light issues with the middle class; mainly that it is disappearing. She has been studying this matter for years and it is a deep concern for her. She believes that Washington works well for big Corporations who can hire lobbyists to push their agenda's. These corporations include pharmaceutical companies and bank among others. This is system is of no help to the middle class. She wants to do her part to change this.

To read more on her position in important matters, visit her website:

Elizabeth Warren

Whichever candidate appeals to each of us, it is important to take a little time and familiarize ourselves with these individuals. We are deciding who will be in a position to make important decisions on our behalf in government for the next six years.

It is time to talk with our families, neighbors, co-workers, etc, about our opinions of these candidates. Without open debate and sharing of ideas a democracy can not thrive. Even if we do not know much about either Brown or Warren, it is a good place to start by talking with the people around us.

As John F. Kennedy said, "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."

The Effect of Courts Overstepping with Civil and Gay Rights

Its the beginning of a New Year. It has been a while since I have written on here, and I have really missed it. For the New Year I am making a re-dedication to this blog.

So, what has kept me away these past couple of months? In a word, school. My mind has been consumed by fascinating class subjects and extra curricular activities. Right now I am working on an undergraduate degree in government with a minor and Spanish. After obtaining that I will continue on to law school. This path is motivated by my interest in politics.

This past fall semester I took three law classes, that were all equally fascinating and informative. I learned about many aspects of the legal world. One topic in particular really changed my view on a very important court case, Brown vs Board of Education.

Brown vs Board of Education was passed in 1954, and it made "separate but equal" unconstitutional. In other words, separate facilities for black and white people was now against the law.

In theory this sounds like the most righteous Supreme Court ruling. In reality, I have been learning, it could have actually been detrimental to Civil Rights. A totally controversial idea, but one that has been well researched by the legal historian, constitutional law scholar, legal professor at Harvard Law School, Michael Klarman.

To begin, one can look around the United States and still see today a large social divide between white and black people. This observation alone demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the court ruling.

In the 1950's social change was gradually occurring. Black people were getting jobs as police men, as professional athletes, and in other positions. The KKK had all but disappeared, and these changes were being gradually implemented without violent backlash.

Then the court ruling came, overstepped the gradual process that was happening, and people violently clung to their bigoted ideas (that they HAD been letting go of). The KKK was reborn, peaceful protesters were viciously assaulted, it was an overall outburst of violence. Down to their core, white southerners fought to keep the social bias. This could explain why even today, over fifty years later, this bias still permeates our country.

Where if change had been allowed to happen gradually, it would have taken longer for the Civil Rights Acts to be passed (it was passed in 1964) and schools would not have been de-segregated for a long time after that, but the change could have been effective. We could live in a different society today, one of equality.

Micheal Klarman details the regression caused by the Brown vs Board of Educations ruling in his book From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: the Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality.

So, how is this relevant to legal issues today? People have drawn a parallel between Civil Rights and Gay Rights. Michael Klarman, among other people, have learned from Court overstepping with Brown vs Board of Education, and feel that they should wait until there is enough popular support to pass any legislation pertaining to gay rights.

They do not want history to repeat itself. Below is an article which addresses this issue in detail:

Are the Courts Ahead of the Public on Gay Rights?

I had thought that my mind had been made up about Brown vs Board being a great and necessary court case. I also thought that the Supreme Court needed to act in support of gay rights. Now my mind has been opened to a totally different way of looking at it. This topic has effected me the most out of anything I have learned this past semester.

Occupy Harvard

The other evening, Wednesday November 9th, I accidentally witnessed the inception of Occupy Harvard. It started with the gates being on lock down, and a Harvard ID being required to enter the yard at all. Then when I walked into the yard there was a crowd of people in front of the John Harvard Statue. From what they were saying I understood that they were Occupy Harvard, that they would parade around Harvard Yard, and then meet other protesters who were not allowed in the yard (because they did not have ID's) in front of a building outside of the gated in part of campus. I captured this on film then headed off to my Harvard Extension class. Turns out there were hundreds of people gathered that night.

Before deciding whether I was in support or not of this movement I wanted to find out more. So, the next evening, Thursday, I went in the cold rain to see what their intentions are. In the yard in front of the John Harvard statue this time there were tents pitched in addition to a group of people gathering. It turns out I showed up at the exact right time again, right as their General Assembly was beginning, and they were going to talk and come up with exact intentions for their Occupy Harvard movement.

Before having a large group discussion, we broke into smaller groups and discussed specific reasons for the movement. Some people said it was to support the Occupy movement that has spread throughout the country and globe. Another intention was for the Harvard Corporation to have more transparency. Another intention was to bring awareness of the Occupy movement to the Harvard campus. That these are the best and brightest, and are the people to make the changes needed. At this point I had to leave and get to class. I missed them getting back into a large group discussion and deciding collectively what the set intentions would be.

Everyone in my group did agree on this being a peaceful and relatively non-disruptive movement (any protest can not be totally non-disruptive). Mainly, violence and disruption would turn people off to the movement before even hearing what it is all about.

Talking with other people from school, classmates and policemen who are guarding the gates, I have heard mixed opinions about Occupy Harvard. What I have heard is "they don't have any purpose, any goal," or that "they are hypocrites, that they are the 1%". I have also also heard other opinions that this is great, people gathering to make a change on the Harvard campus.

Personally, I would like more clarity when it comes to their specific intentions, and will find out more about this in the days ahead. Though, with that said, it is refreshing to see a group of people gathering together in order to make a change. They see something is wrong in the system in this country, and want to DO something about it. There seems to be way too much apathy going around in this nation. Its about time for people to start marching in the streets (and pitching tents on campus). Maybe people get upset when they see this, and want them to go away, because they want to continue in their apathetic daze. They don't want to take a look at and question the way our country is run.

Its a lot easier to just believe what the media is saying about this Occupy Wall street movement. It is being painted in a very ugly light. They are saying that these are a bunch of dirty, trouble making hippies, who have no set intentions. They they are fragmented, disheveled and won't last long. They are showing only the unsightly images and reporting on unsightly moments.

Its a lot easier to just write them off and pretend their not there and have no purpose, than to open our eyes and realize that their must be something going on here. This movement has spread from Wall Street in New York City, across the country, and across the world. It has literally landed on my path to school. Maybe its time to pay attention and listen up.

Its a lot easier to keep things the way they've always been, rather than take responsibility and do our part in bringing about change. People hate change, even when it's for the better.

To read the official Occupy Harvard Press release click the link below:

Occupy Harvard Press Release

To learn more about the Occupy Wall Street movement click on the link to my blog post below:

"Occupy Wall Street"-First Amendment in Action

Don't Eat the Corn

Genetically Modified Foods (GMO's) have become a growing, mostly undetected, problem in the the American food supply. In almost any processed food that a person pulls off of the shelf there is pretty much a guarantee that some ingredient is genetically modified. What types of ingredients can be found in most foods? Soy and Corn (ie: high fructose corn syrup). What are two of the most common genetically modified foods? Soy and Corn.

Most people consume them blindly because they have no idea what they are eating. There is no law or regulation that makes companies label genetically modified food. The reason for this is because if the food was labeled, people would not eat them.

There are no genetically modified foods in Europe. There is only one reason for this, people took to the street and fiercely protested for GMO foods to be labeled. As a result of the food having to be labeled, nobody ate the and GMO foods are not there.

The problem with GMO foods is that we are playing the role of guinea pigs. Instead of a product being tested on animals, it is being tested on us. In fact, when independent scientists tested the effects of GMO foods on rats, every single rat developed cancer. That scientist was silenced.

To read more about GMO foods read my blog post:

GMO's- what are we eating?

So now, Monsanto, the big GMO company, is taking things a step further. So far people have not been supplied with GMO foods directly. They have consumed them either in processed foods or from eating animals that have eaten GMO corn.

This season GMO sweet corn is being sold right in your local food store. Monsanto came out with the corn and food stores, even Whole Foods, is buying it right up. So, unless it is certified organic, don't eat the corn.

"Occupy Wall Street"- First Amendment in Action

The movement called "Occupy Wall Street" is spreading from New York City to different cities around the country. People are gathering together and exercising their right that was set down by our forefathers.

The First Amendment in the US Constitution reads:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"


Peaceably assembling they are. This Amendment was not made so people could indulge in idle gossip, it was set down so that when the people of this country see an imbalance of power they have the protected right to peacefully assemble and petition for a change.

The foundation of this movement is the imbalance of wealth in this country. They refer to the "ninety nine percent" and how most of us are on this team. Meaning, that the wealth in this county is held by one percent of the population; and they hold it through a system of greed and corruption. They want changes to be made so that there is a greater possibility of equality.

It seems that right now the movement is in a phase of spreading information. What they need is a plan to put into place a system that will encourage equality.

There needs to be a solid, clear, logical plan to get behind.

This is a perfect case to debate these people's rights under the First Amendment. Protesters ( a group of women who were not acting violently) have been filmed being maced by police officers. Protesters have been arrested. They have been barred off from certain areas. It brings up many questions of what they are able to do. Should they be allowed to march down Wall Street? Should they be arrested for the things they are saying?

Should this movement be stifled and quieted or should it be allowed to grow? (I hope the Constitutional answer to this question is clear)

So far the movement has provoked people to at least question the financial imbalance in this country, and question if there is any possibility to bring about a change. Ideas are being spread and minds are being opened. This is why the First Amendment was created.

Below is a link to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement where you can see how it is progressing and/or would like to contribute to the cause:

https://occupywallst.org/