Chavez says crisis-hit U.S. needs new constitution

[El Pinko]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080927/tbs-portugal-venezuela-usa-7318940.html


Chavez says crisis-hit U.S. needs new constitution
Reuters - Sunday, September 28

LISBON, Sept 27 - Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday it was the capitalist system that had caused the financial crisis in the United States and the country should come up with a new constitution.
(Advertisement)

Speaking to reporters in Lisbon on the last leg of a tour that included visits to China and Russia, he said: "I think the United States should start a constituent process to create a constituent assembly, a new truly democratic model."

A constituent assembly is a body elected to draft and sometimes adopt a new constitution. "It was capitalism that caused the ruin" in the United States, said Chavez, who is one of Washington's fiercest critics, calling the financial crunch "the worst financial crisis in history".

"Let the U.S. empire end and let a great nation and great republic rise from the ruin ... It's time to shout 'Liberty!' again in the United States," Chavez said, calling for a new government to be free of the "dictatorship of the elite" such as big banks and corporations.


Although I wouldn't relish having Chavez's model of socialism imposed on us, Chavez does have a point. It's not capitalism, but unrestrained corporate despotism that has ruined this country. We need a new constitution that strips corporations of personhood and puts the rights of individuals first, one in which free expression is for everyone, not just those with the money to buy up all the time on the TV networks.

[knowledgeispwr]

1. I don't think a new constitution is necessary

Just following the one we have and having better regulation will do.

I agree that it isn't capitalism per se, but lack of regulation and oversight that is the problem.

[pokerfan]

19. Precisely

Returning control of monetary policy back to the Congress as per the Constitution would be a good first start. Many decades ago, Congress delegated its authority to a private central bank and if the last two weeks have shown us anything it's that Fed serves its interests, not the people's.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. He is wrong, corporate personhood is NOT in the Constitution

but I am sure Chavez didn't know that, nor a good number of Americans, sadly

[undergroundpanther]

4. Corporate personhood is a CLERICAL ERROR

made into some kind of legal fiction people think is real.

[Peace Patriot]

26. You are right--Corpo personhood was a clerical error--but that doesn't mean we

can't correct that error with an amendment to the Constitution--that is, once we restore transparent vote counting and get the Corpos' 'TRADE SECRET' code out of our voting system.

The trouble is that current bought and paid for Supreme Court justices and politicians will not undo this error. And if Corpo personhood is not purged from our legal system, by a ban on it as the fundamental law of the land, in the Constitution, then this Corporate Tyranny will continue.

A second part of such an amendment should put an end to the life of corporations at, say, 20 years (dismantle them, sell their assets) to prevent these monstrous monopolies that live forever, and vacuum up land, resources and governments.

But first: We need permanent citizen pickets at every county registrar's home in the country. "COUNT THE VOTES IN PUBLIC VIEW! THROW DIEBOLD & ALL ELECTION THEFT MACHINES INTO 'BOSTON HARBOR' NOW!" We need to fire these people--and we CAN do that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. I know

[undergroundpanther]

3. Chavez is not a dictator.

Capitalists lie.because they fear poverty and fear equality even more.
We could use someone like Chavez Here,actually we need someone who is like him here, desperately.



The reality is that the revolution has been at its core a democratic one, driven by mass popular political participation of a kind that should put us in the West to shame. As Brazilian President Lula da Silva (one of the “moderates”) recently put it,

“You can invent anything you want to criticise Chavez, but not for lack of democracy.”

This sentiment was echoed by leaders from across Latin America, who yesterday praised Chavez for his “democratic posture” after losing the referendum. Chavez is a “great democrat”, declared Argentinean President Nestor Kirchner. “If only that could happen in Argentina, where there is a candidate that lost by 23 points and now says that we cheated.” Bolivian President Evo Morales agreed, as did the President of Paraguay Nicanor Duarte, who stated that Chavez’ posture “demonstrates that he is a great democrat and it puts to death the impression that he is authoritarian.” Even the Peruvian President and the Spanish government, both of whom have had disputes with Chavez, praised his handling of the defeat. According to the Spanish Foreign Minister, “the free expression of the people’s will has been accepted by all sides, and that shows the good operation of a democratic system.”
ttp://heathlander.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/chavez-accepts-referendum-defeat-or-how-not-to-be-a-dictator/
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0215-27.htm

[Peace Patriot]

21. Thanks for all those quotes, UndergroundPanther! I was only familiar with Lulu's.

The translation I read was pithier than yours: "You can criticize Chavez on a lot of things, but not on democracy." (--Lula da Silva, President of Brazil.

He also called Chavez "the great peacemaker," for his role in de-fusing the war that the U.S.(Bush) /Colombia tried to start, earlier this year, with Ecuador and Venezuela.

I agree--the leftist revolution in South America is a democracy revolution. It is about empowering the majority, at long last. And the key to its success has been TRANSPARENT VOTE COUNTING.

Political leaders who help set up, encourage, facilitate, and agree to abide by, a transparent vote counting system, are NOT "dictators."

It is OUR political leaders--who deliberately set up an extremely NON-transparent vote counting system--run by Bushwhack corporations, using 'TRADE SECRET' programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls--who are the dictators. Our party leaders went along with this--some out of fear, but many with enthusiasm--and still support it. So, our entire political establishment is a dictatorship, in the service of global corporate predators.

The irony is that South America--so long the butt of "banana republic" jokes--is now the strongest bastion of democracy in the world, and we--who meddled with them, and installed dictators over them, and killed and oppressed them, for purposes of profit--are now becoming the biggest "banana republic" on earth.

I just hope that we can take heart from them, and learn some lessons from them, and the Number One lesson I hope we learn is TRANSPARENT VOTE COUNTING.

[livelongandprosper]

5. Chavez is another high functioning moron n/t

[Peace Patriot]

27. No, Chavez is not a moron. He re-negotiated Venezuela's oil contracts to give

Venezuela a 60/40 split of the oil profits, as opposed to the 10/90 giveaway to the multinationals of previous, rightwing governments.

That took some smarts.

He reads Noam Chomsky. That takes some smarts.

He's still alive. He's still president. And Venezuela is still a democracy. And that has certainly taken some smarts--and widespread popular support--in view of the Bushwhacks' many efforts to kill him and to end democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, and steal their oil.

He has dealt with Venezuela's tax evaders. (A lot of tax scofflaws in Venezuela before Chavez.) That was smart. He has implemented a really smart land reform program, that requires accountability from the land recipients and supports them with training and technical expertise. (Previous rightwing governments just gave land away to their cronies--a useless program--and greatly exacerbated Venezuela's food self-sufficiency problem.)

He believes in education. That's pretty smart.

He is using Venezuela's oil profits for education and retraining, and other benefits. That's way smart.

He's also using the oil profits to subsidize food for the poorest of the poor, so they won't starve. That's maybe dumb--but, hey, have a heart! You wouldn't want a bunch of vitamin-deficient kids to grow up to be morons, would you?

Unless you were Exxon Mobil. Then you wouldn't give a fuck.

I'd say the case for Chavez not being a moron is pretty strong--and I haven't stated the half of it.

Perhaps you have some evidence you'd like to present, in this Great Debate you've initiated: Is Chavez a moron?

[undergroundpanther]

30. Chavez has given

AMERICANS who are too poor to buy oil from American greedy companies oil to survive the winter.Either gave it away or charged drastically less than us greed does.Rich corporate pigs do not care about poor people,they just want to use their labor and suck the life out of them,than toss them away to die.

[Lyric]

31. He's a tinpot dictator who cracks down on free speech

and then has the cajones to pontificate about the problems with OUR government.

When he stops putting people in prison for "disrespecting" government officials, I might listen to him.

Article 147: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light." That sanction, the code implies, applies to those who "disrespect" the president or his functionaries in private; "the term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5755-2005Mar27.html

And lest you attempt to ignore the content and attack the source, here's the same information from Human Rights Watch.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm

The president, vice-president, government ministers, state governors and members of the Supreme Court are already protected from disrespect under the law. The new provisions extend this protection to legislators of the National Assembly, members of the National Electoral Council, the attorney general, the public prosecutor, the human rights ombudsman, the treasury inspector, and members of the high military command.

Anyone convicted of offending these authorities could go to prison for up to 20 months. Anyone who gravely offends the president, on the other hand, can incur a penalty of up to 40 months in prison.

Left-wing or Right-wing, a tyrant is a tyrant. Being in the right side of a few issues doesn't negate being on the worst possible side of really important ones--like free speech. Venezuela is not a democracy unless the people are free to criticize the government and/or the President. Without that freedom, Venezuelan "democracy" is nothing more than a farce.

No, Chavez isn't a moron. He's something worse than that. I will never understand why some people here defend this kind of atrocious behavior on his part.

[Peace Patriot]

33. How many people have gone to prison in Venezuela for "disrespecting" the government?

Answer: 0.

How many people have gone to prison without charges or trial, under the Bush?

Answer: tens of thousands--at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq, in prisons in Afghanistan, in secret torture dungeons in eastern Europe, and in INS detention camps right here in the "land of the free, home of the brave"--and that's just what we know about.

How many people have died in Venezuela, or anywhere, by action of the Chavez government?

Answer: 0.

How many people have died in the U.S., or anywhere, by action of the Bush junta?

Answer: millions.

Wouldn't you say that actual numbers of people unfairly imprisoned without charges or trial, or numbers of innocents murdered were two important criteria for "tyranny"?

Who is a tyrant? Chavez or Bush?

A bad law doesn't make a tyrant. ACTIONS make a tyrant.

-------------

I did not say that Venezuela's Constitution, or the Chavez government, are perfect. I said Chavez is not a moron, and pointed out many smart things that he has done for the people of Venezuela.

And, in reply, you bring up to me one Venezuelan law that has not been enforced, and proclaim that Chavez is a "tyrant"?

Here is who you are aligned with:

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

Here is who I am aligned with:

"You can criticize Chavez on a lot of things, but not on democracy." --Lula da Silva, President of Brazil

[Peace Patriot]

36. I've seen several versions of Lula da Silva's quote about Chavez and democracy.

He has said it in several ways, and in several forums. Here's another version (or another translation--not sure):

"You can invent anything you want to criticize Chavez, but not for lack of democracy."--Lula da Silva, President of Brazil
http://pcasc.net/news/miscellaneous-articles/elected-dictators

Here's another ref to this Lulu quote:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lula:_Venezuela_%22does_not_lack_democracy%22

-------

The article I found this version in has some other interesting things to say, from a person with first hand experience of Venezuela's democracy:

"Venezuelans have been voting with great regularity since Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1998. They voted to establish a constituent assembly and to ratify a new constitution. Chavez was the subject of a recall vote in 2004 (defeated) and was reelected in 2006 by a substantial majority. Brazilian President Lula de Silva recently commented: "You can invent anything you want to criticize Chavez, but not for lack of democracy."

"I, like many others who recently have visited Venezuela, was amazed by the pure volume of political discussion and debate going on constantly. The debate is free and open in the press, on TV and in the streets, both for and against what is called the "Bolivarian Revolution" to bring about "Socialism for the 21st century." This is a massive sea change in what had been one of the most corrupt oil states. Despite the world's fourth-largest reserves of oil, the large majority of the population lived in abject poverty in shanty towns. For the first time, the standard of living is rising for the poor across the country. A recent United Nations report noted: "Thanks to rapid GDP growth and the ongoing implementation of broad social programs, in 2006 alone the poverty rate was lowered from 37.1 percent to 30.2 percent and the indigence rate from 15.9 percent to 9.9 precent."

http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianopinion/2007/11/elected_dictators.html

---------

People who call Chavez a "tyrant" generally rely on one or two points that are blown out of proportion as to their impact on Venezuelan democracy.

One of them is this law about "disrespecting" the government, a law that many countries have in different forms, but is rarely enforced, and is not enforced in Venezuela (--do we not have a law against flag-burning?).

Another is Chavez not renewing the license to use the public airwaves for RCTV, a TV station whose owners actively participated in the violent rightwing military coup attempt in 2002, and who used the public airwaves to host the coup leaders, to broadcast doctored footage falsely alleging that Chavez supporters were shooting anti-Chavez supporters, who broadcast other outright lies in support of the coup--for instance, that Chavez had resigned. They also blacked out news of the coup, and broadcast cartoons, while it was in progress. No government in the world would tolerate behavior like this by a licensee of the public airwaves. Chavez was very restrained in his response, no doubt in the interest of holding the country together just after the coup--and rather than send stormtroops to RCTV studios to shut them down--waited out their license, and did not renew it.

License non-renewal is a routine matter in other countries, for far less cause than Chavez had. The people who constantly refer to this event, as proof that Chavez is a "tyrant," never mention what RCTV executives did during the coup, and the right of the Chavez government--like all governments--to grant or not grant licenses to use the public airwaves, as they see fit, in the public interest.

Before you call Chavez a "tyrant" for not renewing RCTV's license, please see this Irish filmmakers' documentary on the coup, which clearly shows what RCTV did: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," available on YouTube.

[Lyric]

37. My god, the logical mess of this post is just astounding.

Firstly, opposing Chavez does not automatically equate with supporting Bush. I oppose both. Vehemently. It is not a one-or-the-other situation. The enemy of my enemy, in this case, is NOT my friend.

Secondly, do you have any kind of source for your claim that nobody has gone to prison in Venezuela for violating that horrific law? Has anybody had to pay fines? Been put on probation? Had their house ransacked in a search? Has anyone felt afraid to speak their mind? To vote a certain way? To write an article, or send an e-mail? Back up your claim, or I call bullshit.

Thirdly--by your logic, then, Bush can pass a law that restricts OUR freedom to speak "disrespectfully" of the government, and we'd be stupid to criticize him or oppose it, so long as he doesn't actually enforce it. Because the government can always be trusted not to actually USE the insane power that a law like that would give...right? Governments typically have SUCH a long track record of passing draconian, tyrannical laws and then being kind enough to not bother enforcing them. :eyes:

You're right--actions make tyrants. Passing a law like that is an ACTION that puts a boot to the throat of liberty and democracy, and you damned well know it. We wouldn't tolerate it here, and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and keep my mouth shut about it happening *there*. Freedom is not a solely American privilege, it's a human right, and THEIR human rights were violated the moment that madman decided to pass a law that lets him silence dissent with the looming threat of prosecution and imprisonment. He doesn't even HAVE to enforce it much, if at all. The threat alone freezes freedom in its tracks. So tell me--how much freedom can a government take away before we should speak up and say something?

Your laughable comment about who I am "aligned" with is absurd and pathetic. As I said before, I am perfectly capable of loathing both Bush AND Chavez. It is a false dilemma to posit that a given person must EITHER oppose Bush, OR Chavez, but not both. I oppose tyranny, whether on the left or on the right. I am aligned with people like THIS:

http://www.hrw.org/

Without the freedom to express dissent, democracy simply does not exist. And I don't particularly give a damn what the president of Brazil thinks. Even Presidents can be wrong. I'm an American, so I know this painfully well.

[Peace Patriot]

40. Do I have any source...?

"Secondly, do you have any kind of source for your claim that nobody has gone to prison in Venezuela for violating that horrific law? Has anybody had to pay fines? Been put on probation? Had their house ransacked in a search? Has anyone felt afraid to speak their mind? To vote a certain way? To write an article, or send an e-mail? Back up your claim, or I call bullshit."

Do I have any source? No, because there isn't any. It DIDN'T happen. NO ONE has gone to prison in Venezuela for violating that law. If they had, you can be sure we would NEVER STOP HEARING ABOUT IT from our Corpo/fascist 'news' media, the Corpo/fascist 'news' media in Venezuela, the rightwing opposition in Venezuela, the Corpo-funded Human Rights Watch, and the Miami mafia!

'When did you stop beating your wife, Senator?' - that famous old saw describes your question. I can't prove that no one has been imprisoned, or even threatened with imprisonment, in Venezuela, for "disrespecting the government" because IT NEVER HAPPENED.

You show me evidence of it. The burden is on you.

---------------

As for the law itself, it's part of the Venezuelan Constitution, which was voted on by ALL VENEZUELAN VOTERS, in a voting system that puts our own to shame for its transparency. The Constitution was written in constituent assemblies, with vociferous argument and debate, with all sides participating--a fully open and democratic process. Neither Hugo Chavez nor his government "passed this law." The people of Venezuela did.

As you will note, from the Dec 07 referendum, the people of Venezuela get to vote on their Constitution and on any amendments. In that case, they turned down a package of amendments proposed by the Chavez government and the National Assembly (by a hairsbreadth--50.7% to 49.3%).

So don't blame the Constitution on Chavez. That is wrong and unfair.

--------------

The reason I say you are aligned with Bush and Rumsfeld is that Bushwhacks have been the most vociferous liars about Chavez, about Venezuela's democracy, and about the resurgent South American left--with leftist governments and leaders who are STRONG ALLIES OF CHAVEZ elected in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, and further north in Nicaragua (and soon in El Salvador), and in Chile (somewhat weaker ally). Strong friends. Strong allies. One project: democracy in South American, at long last.

With events like this occurring--the triumph of democracy in South America, and its economic consequences for Bushwhack predators like Exxon Mobil--the Bushwhacks and their Corpo 'news' lapdogs have one main resort: LIES! Dirty tricks, disinformation, psyops, CIA-style destabilizations (as they have been trying in Bolivia), assassination plots, coup plots, war plans, and lies, lies and more lies.

Perhaps you are a victim of this brainwashing. I don't know. But you are aligned with Donald Rumsfeld and you ought to think about that (and so should Barack Obama). And I suggest you read this:

http://www.pscelebrities.com/alice/2007/11/latin-americas-shock-resistance.html

"Latin American's Shock Resistance" - by Naomi Klein (11/10/07)

It's very important to understand the CONTEXT of Chavez's popularity, and the widespread respect and admiration he has among South America's leaders and peoples. He is not alone. He may be a key leader and the vanguard of many very beneficial ideas (for instance, social justice--bootstrapping the poor; and the Bank of the South--regional control of development finances), but he is just one leader of a much bigger movement, the leaders of which are working together for certain goals, which include economic/political integration, democracy, social justice, and recovery from a century of U.S./Corpo looting and repression, and have been summed up, recently, in the creation of the South American "Common Market"--UNASUR.

If you sneer at the opinion of Lula da Silva--that Chavez is a democrat, not a tyrant--I really don't know what to do with you. Lulu's opinion is shared by most of the leaders and peoples of South America. It is shared by the people of Venezuela, who give their government some of the highest ratings in polls of all countries on economic and political/democracy conditions.

I don't particularly like Chavez's "politics of personality," but it is not undemocratic. FDR played the same game. So did Churchill. So did JFK and RFK. So did Martin Luther King. In the latter case, it made the civil rights movement vulnerable to just what occurred: assassination. Though some gains were solidified anyway, many were lost with that death, including any real addressing of chronic black poverty; and a formal joining of the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. And look at the result: we end up with another unjust war, fought by the poverty class, with electronic voting systems that purge black voters and soldiers, in particular, from the voting rolls. That is the risk of "personality politics"--but it is simply a risk of democracy. It is not tyranny. And, considering the breadth and depth of the democracy movement in Venezuela, and South America, I am not in the least concerned that Bushwhack success in killing Chavez would end this movement. In fact, I'm sure it would not. The vast poor majority has come to power, all over South America, and only a plan such as I think Rumsfeld is orchestrating--to split off the oil rich provinces of Bolivia, Ecuador and especially Venezuela (Zulia, on the Caribbean), and create mayhem with fascist secessionist movements--a "divide and conquer" plan--could conceivably set the democracy movement back for decades. But that is why the South American governments have formed UNASUR--whose first formal action was to intervene in the Bushwhack plot to split up Bolivia (on-going, as we speak).

And that is where my criticism of Chavez ends. With our own Constitution in shreds, war tyranny and economic tyranny rife in our land, and the coup d'etat of Bushwhack/Corpo-run 'TRADE SECRET' code throughout our voting system, we should only praise the advances in democracy and social justice in Venezuela and other countries, and not pick on their relatively minor faults, until we have cleaned up our own godawful mess. If the people of Venezuela do not consider Chavez a tyrant, and freely vote against him when they so choose--as they did in Dec 07--that's good enough for me.

The rightwing also called FDR a "dictator." In view of the overwhelming evidence of democracy in Venezuela, I take that charge against Chavez as rightwing propaganda, with no substance. NONE of their "talking points" hold up, upon research and investigation. What they're really crying about is the empowerment of the poor majority by peaceful, democratic means.

[dbt]

6. For all his good intentions, Chavez is wrong on this one.

The Constitution of The United States of America is sacred to me, the very last bit of Inviolate Truth that exists in the world that Poppy Bush (and the dark masters he serves) has made.

What we NEED in this benighted land is for every motherfucker who has violated her/his oath (Pelosi, you are first in line here) to preserve, protect and DEFEND the Constitution to be <redacted> (their choice) for treason, one by one, IN PUBLIC, on Sundays, right before the NASCAR races run.

[undergroundpanther]

7. the Constitution needs a few changes

A inviolate wall of separation between church, corporate and state,
Churches must be taxed to limit their power.
Corporations must be taxed cannot outsource jobs out of the United states, must submit to the general welfare and the will of the people or all assets of corporation and Ceo will be liquidated to the people..
All taxes MUST be progressive.
Individual and familial wealth must be limited.
Gays are equal citizens and allowed to marry
Women are equal citizens and get equal pay for equal work.
Loiter laws are deemed unconstitutional as long as people are left homeless.
All citizens have a RIGHT to nutritious food,clean water,health care,decent shelter, and public transport.


Just a start..
The constitution has been changed before, like women's right to vote,blacks cannot be chattel slaves etc.A "living document" can change with the times and needs of the people.

[dbt]

9. Fair enough, but don't forget about the part where it says

The Supreme Court does not elect the president.

:evilgrin:

[undergroundpanther]

11. YES and I'll add a bit more to that...idea...

The supreme court, any other branch of government be it the executive,judicial or legislative branches, any agency of the government,any corporation or any other private or public entity cannot at any time, in any situation elect a president,senator or other government official,interfere in ANY election process,tamper with votes, or override the will of the people in their choices concerning the outcomes of local,state or national elections.

Howz That?

[Cid_B]

22. Individual and familial wealth must be limited?

I just cant get behind this. Whatever number you picked would be random and stifle people who drive the economy. Not to mention just putting their money outside the US.

[undergroundpanther]

28. Myth

people with excessive wealth buy our government and take it away from the people. It is what is going on right now.Excessive wealth concentrated in a few hands creates poverty.Do you like class war? Inequality,crime? Do you think these rich pigs help US all that much,do you find happiness being a cog in their monopolies?
If so, I can see why you believe in such horrible injustices.

[El Pinko]

12. It's not to me.

It was created by, for and of the wealthy of the time, with the primary purpose of ensuring that political and financial power would always be concentrated in THEIR hands.

Jefferson may have been able to get a few democratic principles in there, but it is a deeply flawed document, the weaknesses of which are largely why we are a belligerent militaristic bully state that has been teetering on the brink of full-blown fascism for the last 60 years or so.

[RoyGBiv]

14. Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution ...

He wasn't even there.

[El Pinko]

18. He may not have been in the country, but he had a lot to do with it.

He did help draft the declaration of Independence, was critical of slavery, and it's widely believed that his influence had much to do with Madison's support for including the bill of rights and most notably the establishment clause, which largely mirrored the Virginia statue for Religious freedom, which he authored years earlier.

The fact that he was out of the country when the Constitution was ratified doesn't mean he had nothing to do with it.

[RoyGBiv]

23. He had very little to do with it ...

If you have evidence to the contrary, a number of Constitutional historians would like to have a word with you about it. The Wikipedia article on the subject is incredibly thin and fails utterly to explore the depth of the issue.

Jefferson's influence on Madison is inferred from their relationship. The text of their correspondence, however, shows that they disagreed on a great number of matters in relation to the Constitution as it was drafted.

[undergroundpanther]

17. I agree with you

It was written for the rich by the rich with a few democratic bones thrown in ripped off from the Indians conduct codes.

Back than non-land holders were not even full persons nor women or blacks or Native Americans.That tells you something right there about the nature of the flaws.

Some of those things have been updated,but not enough,and some things in the constitution must be removed for it serves ogliarchy.

[RoyGBiv]

8. Utter nonsense ...

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

We do not need a new constitution, for what is a constitution to leaders who view it as "just a piece of paper"?

The current constitution is a brilliant document, but like all documents of its nature, it relies on individuals respecting the rule of law. We haven't had that for about eight years now.

What we need is a new President, one who respects the rule of law.

Perhaps a constitutional scholar would do the trick.

[undergroundpanther]

10. The constitution needs to be revised

Corporate robber barons MUST be restrained.The constitution does not have the language in it to restrain them...yet.
The constitution has been revised and changed several times.We need to do that again.

[RoyGBiv]

13. Revision of the Constitution is not a problem ...

Part *of* our constitution is a provision for revision, which is one thing that makes it such a brilliant document.

That is entirely different from a "new" constitution. Chavez is speaking out of his ass. I will refrain from providing more depth to what I truly think of his motivations for such comments.

As far as restraining corporations is concerned, I would argue that our constitution does in fact have language that should allow their restraint. We have, unfortunately, had a Court for a number of years that fails to recognize that language or interprets it in a way that invalidates its significance. (This, again, begs the question of what good a new constitution does when those in power refuse to adhere to it.) Corporate personhood, so-called, has been denounced by SCOTUS justices since the inception of the concept, but their voices have been a minority. No amount of realistic change in constitutional language would change that.

[BlooInBloo]

15. It's funny watching people who know nothing about the Constitution....

both here and abroad, talk about the Constitution.

[RoyGBiv]

16. It's funny ...

It's also terrifying, especially when they're here.

[Hekate]

20. Chavez is wrong on this. We need a new Supreme Court to repeal corporate personhood...

We need the reincarnation of the Roosevelt cousins (Theodore and Franklin) to rein in the mega-corporations and their robber baron ways. We need a Democratic president with honor and guts, and a Democratic House and Senate with the spine to back him up.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not at fault -- the fascist takeover we have experienced can be undone, one signing statement and executive order at a time.

Edited to add: These are sacred documents to me. The fact that they were written by human men with human flaws does not detract from their intrinsic character. It is up to each generation that comes along to uphold the ideals therein, and to interpret those ideals for their own times. Thus were the slaves finally freed. Thus were women granted the vote. Thus were Jim Crow laws outlawed. Thus will the fascist legacy of the Bush years be undone. Go to it, my fellow Americans, go to it.

Hekate

[earth mom]

24. What we need to do is get rid of "corporate personhood".

That's where the bullshit started. :grr:

[Peace Patriot]

25. See other DU comments on this same Reuters article at...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3514970#3515534

My comments there address:

Comment 46: Nine amendments to the Constitution that would turn our country into a democracy, including ending corporate personhood, counting the votes in PUBLIC VIEW, ending private money in campaigns, ending the Electoral College, and electing or term limiting the Supreme Court.

Comment 77: Economic growth and economic/social improvements in Venezuela.

Comment 135 (response to #79): The political/legal context that Chavez is speaking from--Latin American tradition of frequent re-writes of the Constitution and more detail in the Constitution than we have. There is in fact an important vote TOMORROW on a new Constitution for Ecuador. The crisis in Bolivia is all about re-writing the Constitution (one big issue being landless indigenous--giving the indigenous majority back some farm lands). Ecuador's Constitution proposes legal standing for NATURE. (See www.BoRev.net--very funny riff on Obama, Rafael Correa, The Debate and Ecuador's pending vote.)

-----------

Someone above notes that two of our most important Founders--Jefferson and Madison--thought that the Constitution would become outdated, and should be re-written every 20 years or so. Well, more than two hundred years later, it is WAY outdated on two vital issues: Corporate personhood and the Electoral College. The other two issues that are critically important are: getting these goddamn Corpos and their "TRADE SECRET" code voting machines the hell out of our election system; and, Corpo/fascist monopoly of the PUBLIC airwaves.

I think the structure of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are sound--and have stood the test of time. But our Founders did not anticipate Corporate Tyranny (they considered it but they thought the states, who charter corporations, would prevent it, by the charter power being closer to the people). Now we have Corporate Tyranny right in our voting booths, 'counting' all our votes (or not) with code that we, the People, are not permitted to review! That is the final Corpo coup d'etat, and we must--WE MUST!--change this, and restore vote counting to the PUBLIC VENUE.

Requiring "instant run-off" voting, and changing Senate representation, would also be good amendments. But it is dreaming to think that we can amend the Constitution without transparent vote counting--the bottom line of democracy.

And, on that, Madison and Jefferson gave us a great gift--the states and local jurisdictions still have control over the election systems. So, the person who is giving Diebold multi-millions of our tax dollars to steal our elections--your county registrar--may live right down the street from you. Ordinary people still have some power at the state/local level. We need to demand transparent vote counting across the country, in every jurisdiction--in a multi-front mass citizen movement. And we must not go back to sleep on this issue if Obama gets (s)elected. Cuz, they can crash the economy, instigate a couple of wars between now and January, and destroy him, and then bring on Hitler II. The Corpo/fascists have the EASY capability to do this--or to (s)elect McDrone and Ms. Endtimes, and get it over with now. (I tend to think they'll take the smarter approach--Obama--cuz there's still some things here to loot--and the Bush III team might inspire the kind of revolt where the people burn their own country to the ground.)

One other thing the Founders didn't anticipate: The Bomb. It has turned our president into a king and now into an emperor. (Hey! What ever happened to nuclear disarmament?) Maybe we should amend the Constitution to ban The Bomb, eh?

But first: TRANSPARENT VOTE COUNTING. They have it in South America. We've lost it. We must--WE MUST--get it back.

[brentspeak]

29. Chavez needs to maybe READ our Constitution first before he opens his pie-hole

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. Chavez can take a running fuck at a rolling donut.

Who gives a FUCK about what he says? His sycophants, and hardly anyone else.

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. Chavez can take a running fuck at a rolling donut.

Who gives a FUCK what he says? His sycophants, and hardly anyone else.

[GammaRay]

38. Fuck Chavez, we just need to actually use the one we have!

[gravity]

39. What authority does Hugo Chavez have to promote the principles of democracy and rule of law

This is a joke

[Peace Patriot]

41. Today Ecuador is voting on a new Constitution. That is what Chavez is talking about.

And Bolivia will be voting on a new Constitution in December. Both of these new Constitutions--developed by constituent assemblies, with overwhelming support in the country--are aimed at overturning a century of highly corrupt, oppressive, entrenched rightwing rule. In Bolivia, the two main issues are land reform and control of Bolivia's gas reserves. The Bolivian proposal creates a legal process for autonomy in the states, but the rightwing thugs who ran rampant last week, destroying government and social groups' buildings, blowing up a gas pipeline and machine-gunning 15-30 unarmed peasant farmers, don't want to compromise--they want ALL of Bolivia's gas profits and ALL fertile land, and a white separatist-controlled government.

In Ecuador, the main issues is also related to the sovereignty of the country. Will the president be able to pull Ecuador out of the 19th century, and create a strong, prosperous middle class--much like FDR did, in our recovery from the Great Depression--or will it go on being a crony state, with a very few, very rich fascists running things in cahoots with multinational Corpo/fascists, and vast poverty and disempowerment of the majority?

Ecuador's proposed Constitution also has the very interesting provision of giving legal standing to Nature itself. Chevron-Texaco inflicted the Ecuadoran rainforest with a bigger toxic spill than Exxon-Valdez--a horrendous mess that several indigenous tribes have sued Chevon-Texaco for (and are winning). But what if the brave, poor people who pursued this lawsuit--amidst death threats and great poverty and suffering--had not been able to continue? In that case, the government or other parties could step in, on the side of Nature, and pursue damages.

Now that is a revolutionary proposal! And it is likely to pass. (The new Constitution was ahead in recent polls, by 60%.)

THIS is what Chavez is talking about--the PEOPLE voting on a NEW Constitution, that changes the balance of power as the fundamental law of the land. In our case, for instance, a Constitutional amendment that deprived corporations of personhood, and limited their "life" to, say, 20 years (at which point they are dismantled and their asses sold), would liberate us from Corporate Tyranny, in a similar fashion to the original American revolutionists and their self-liberation from the British Empire (and its East India Company). Corporations have acquired the rights of human beings, yet they live forever--accumulating vast quantities of land, resources and power. Then the rich hand these tyrannical entities from CEO to CEO, among the rich class, to continually disempower, loot and oppress the workers and the poor. We can never gain traction to restore democracy, because the Corpos own everything--even our government, even our voting machines, which are run on 'TRADE SECRET' code, that we, the People, have no right to review! (--a recent development.)

You can't change this power equation with the stroke of a pen. Our Founders had to fight a war for it. But I do think we can change it without war, by regaining public control of the voting system (which can still be done at the state/local level).

We are rather like South American was, 10-15 years ago, just recovering from heinous coups and vast lootings, and taking one step at a time, to recover democracy, which remained in a fragile state, until recently. Now their long hard work on democratic institutions is paying off, with the election of governments of, by and for the people, all over the continent.

In South America, that has meant re-writing their Constitutions--which took place in Venezuela eight years ago, and is taking place in Ecuador and Bolivia now. This is a common practice in Latin America--unlike here, where we think of the Constitution as fixed (and sacred, like the Bible?). Some of our key Founders--Madison and Jefferson--expected the Constitution to become outmoded and be rewritten every 20 years or so. South America is much more Jeffersonian than we are! I think the U.S. Constitution provides a pretty solid structure, especially with the Bill of Rights, but there is no reason not to AMEND it--and it has been amended--with "lessons learned." Corporate Tyranny, on the scale we see it today--multinational tyranny--Corpo/fascist electronic voting run on 'TRADE SECRET' code (!), TV/radio 'news' monopolized by a few Corpo/fascists, and out of control campaign money are some of the key MODERN problems that the Constitution should address.

But we really do need to restore transparent vote counting, to ever get to the point of peacefully overthrowing Corporate Tyranny.