claymaker

During the 2014 legislative session, www.Wolf-PAC.com passed resolutions in 3 states (VT, CA, & IL) to call for an amendments convention in order to propose a Free and Fair Elections Amendment and reverse Citizens United. In the Constitution, 34 states can call for a convention, propose an amendment, and then ratify it by passage in 38 states (without needing Congress at all!). Also, the untold history of amending the US Constitution is that most amendments start with the states calling for an amendments convention and then end with Congress proposing it. The Bill of Rights started this way with NY and VA calling for a convention for those amendments. 4 out of the last 10 proposed amendments also started with similar movements in the states. Most notably, Congress proposed the 17th Amendment when the states got within 1-2 applications of actually calling for a convention. The historical record is clear: if you need an amendment (and we do), then you gotta call for a convention. This is how we win and we are on our way - onward to victory!

Here's the reddit links to the stories of CA, IL, and VT passing these resolutions:

Vermont first state to call for constitutional convention to get money out of politics http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/24kvs5/vermont_first_state_to_call_for_constitutional/

California calls for constitutional convention over Citizens United http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/29mdk4/california_calls_for_constitutional_convention/

Illinois third state to call for constitutional convention to overturn ‘Citizens United’ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2obwwt/illinois_third_state_to_call_for_constitutional/

edit: corrected Vermont reddit link

could Elizabeth Warren be your vice president?

he talks about this here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/the-plan-part-2-referendu_b_8033838.html

Hello, I found your work through an interview on CNN, good stuff. I love the ideas you're presenting. It'll be the common consensus in the future, but it's a bit different. I'd need to read more of your stuff to be sure.

Here's the setup for my question:

Some people who hear about spiritual experiences on psychedelics are dismissive, especially if they've never tried them personally. However, there's a growing body of research showing that people commonly report a "mystical, sacred, positive, transcendent, and ineffable" experience with earth medicines like dmt, lsd, and psylocibin (75% in one study). That sounds like a description of a pretty valid spiritual experience. In another, 2/3 of atheists reported rejecting their atheism after an experience with those same medicines.

So here's my question.... The scientific method says if we apply a substance and produce a reliable response, there is a causative link between the two. So if we can give people a medicine and they reliably have a religious/spiritual experience, why is this not considered the science of religion? Does that idea mesh with your thesis or would you disagree?

I'm also curious to hear if, in your research, you found evidence of priesthoods and/or fraternal groups that are using these medicines in the modern era?

They still have psychedelic honey in Nepal.