Yes, the original US Constitution was written for landed citizens----citizens with rights to vote were white men. Yes, there were people with no rights, enslaved, so the original US Constitution was not good for WE THE PEOPLE.
THAT IS WHAT 3 CENTURIES OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION WERE ABOUT. ALL OF THE ABOVE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY AMENDMENTS. IT'S NOT PERFECT BUT IT IS FROM WHERE WE WOULD WANT TO START.
Anti-monopoly laws and US Constitutional laws are already there to guard against extreme wealth and power-----THEY ARE BEING IGNORED BY CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. There are already laws stating that EVERYONE IS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE UNDER RULE OF LAW----they are simply allowing massive Wall Street and corporate frauds and government corruption because the 1% is MOVING BACK TO THE FUTURE WHERE THE 1% AND THE 2% HAVE NO LAWS HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
We have the US Constitution laws guarding our free and fair elections----they are simply being ignored. We have a US Constitution and a structure of government WITH BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT SERVING AS CHECKS AND BALANCES -----they simply are not enforcing those duties.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE US CONSTITUTION ---THERE IS NO NEED RIGHT NOW FOR AMENDMENTS----
The goal of 1% global Wall Street which started this movement to amend-----is to create a constitution that reflects ONE WORLD, TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT, GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL RULE, GLOBAL TRIBUNAL COURTS, AND FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE recognition. So, all the Wall Street Baltimore Development Corporation 'labor and justice' organizations will be out selling these goals as HELPING WE THE PEOPLE.
How to Amend the Constitution
Five Parts:Proposing an Amendment in CongressUsing the Constitutional Convention MethodRatifying an Amendment in State LegislaturesRatifying an Amendment in Statehttp://www.wikihow.com/Amend-the-Constitution#Ratifying_an_Amendment_in_State_Conventions_sub ConventionsEnacting the AmendmentCommunity Q&A
Article V of the United States Constitution provides authority and instructions for amending the Constitution. Amendments can be proposed by Congress or by constitutional convention. Congress then decides how to ratify the amendment if approved by Congress or convention. The amendment can either be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states. Some parts of the procedures for proposing and ratifying amendments are well established in federal and state laws, but others, such as the constitutional convention, has never been successfully used.
Proposing an Amendment in Congress
Write an amendment to be proposed by Congress. Amendments have usually been written by legislators. Ideas for amendments are also initiated by social movements and interest groups.
Secure two-thirds majority support for the amendment. One of the two methods for amending the Constitution is for Congress to propose an amendment. In order for an amendment to be proposed, it must have two-thirds majority support from both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  This is also known as a “supermajority.”
- This means that at least 290 Representatives must support the amendment and 67 Senators must support the amendment.
Introduce a joint resolution to propose the amendment. Once you have secured your support, you need to propose the amendment to the entire Congress. Either the House of Representatives or the Senate can initiate a joint resolution.
- After introduction, resolutions are usually printed and then reviewed by one or more congressional committees.
Debate the resolution. Joint resolutions are usually debated by the full membership of each house after receiving committee approval.
Pass a joint resolution in Congress. Congress can propose an amendment to the Constitution by passing a joint resolution. Two thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate must approve the resolution.
- The resolution does not have to be approved by the President, who has no required role in the amendment process.
Using the Constitutional Convention Method
Write an amendment to be proposed to state legislatures. Amendments have usually been written by legislators. Ideas for amendments are also initiated by social movements and interest groups.
Introduce a bill in the state legislature to call a constitutional convention. Article V of the United States Constitution also allows for amendments to be proposed by constitutional convention. A constitutional convention is a meeting of the states to collectively decide whether to amend the constitution. This convention is also known as the “Article V Convention” or the “Amendment Convention.” Each state must approve to submit an application that calls a constitutional convention.  Once the state has approved the bill, then the state can file an application with Congress.
- The Constitutional Convention of 1787 brought together delegates to write the original constitution.
- This method has been attempted hundreds of times, but a convention has never been called successfully.
- Sometimes, the threat of a convention has pressured Congress to introduce a proposal for an amendment. Simply initiating this process and gathering support might push Congress to act.
Initiate a constitutional convention by the act of a state legislature. Legislatures in two-thirds of the states have to apply to Congress to call a convention that can propose constitutional amendments. This means that at least 34 state legislatures must submit an application.
- This step was almost completed in the late 1970s and early 1980s during a push for a Balanced Budget Amendment. States in 2015 are trying again to assemble a constitutional convention.
- States can also rescind their applications, especially if their application was submitted under a government controlled by one party and the government is now controlled by a different party.
Consult constitutional law experts. An amendment has never been proposed by constitutional convention before, so work with experts and officials to build consensus about adopting a procedure.
Determine the parameters of the convention. Because the constitutional convention method has never been used to propose an amendment, it’s unclear how the convention would actually operate. 
- Congress would need to determine how many delegates each state would get, how the process would proceed, and so on.
- There are concerns that once a convention is called, delegates could propose anything, even including language that was not part of the original amendment. There are three models that could be implemented in the convention:
- The “general convention” model considers any and all changes to the Constitution.
- The “limited convention” restricts debate to one issue.
- The “runaway convention” is one that was originally intended to consider a single issue but moves beyond its mandate to look at a range of suggested amendments.
Draft and approve the amendment in the convention. Once the convention has debated the amendment and arrived at consensus, the convention will draft and approve the amendment. While it is unclear whether Congress itself must ratify the amendment, Article V of the Constitution does specify that Congress must determine the process of how the states will ratify the amendment. It is unlikely that Congress would be able to veto an amendment.
Ratifying an Amendment in State Legislatures
Work with state legislators to secure support. Congress has the power to decide which method of ratification to use. One of these methods is wherein amendments to the Constitution must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
- State legislatures anticipate that they will receive the proposed amendment and begin debating and taking action on it before receiving official notice.
- All but one of the 27 amendments have been ratified this way.
Allow the States to consider the proposed amendment. The Office of the Federal Register, a division of the National Archives and Records Administration, will circulate the joint resolution, along with legislative history notes and “red line” copies (changes made to the resolution), to every state’s governor. The governor then submits the resolution to his or her state legislature.
Introduce resolutions in state legislatures to ratify the amendment. Procedures vary from state to state, but generally both houses of the state legislature pass a ratification resolution.
Pay attention to any time limits. The Supreme Court ruled that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Congress often requires that the proposed amendment is approved within a certain period of time. Read the resolution that proposed the amendment to see if there are any stipulations.
- Congress often sets a seven-year time limit.
- Congress can also extend time limits for ratification. During the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment proposed by Congress in 1972, Congress extended a seven year time limit by three years. Ratification on this amendment still failed.
- The 27th Amendment, which limits congressional pay, was written with no time limit in 1789. It was finally ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1992, over 200 years after the amendment was proposed.
Wait for three-fourths of States to ratify the amendment. At least 38 of the 50 states must ratify the amendment. Once the states have ratified, each state legislature will submit an original copy of its ratification to the Office of the Federal Register. Then the amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as the 38th state ratifies it.
Ratifying an Amendment in State Conventions
Call a ratifying convention in each state. Congress has the power to determine the method for ratification. One of the methods is to call a ratifying convention in each state. Article V of the United States Constitution allows for ratification of amendments through approval by conventions in three-fourths of the states.
- Ratification by state conventions has been used once before, to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing prohibition.
Check state laws. Many states have laws in place that govern the procedures for calling and running conventions to ratify constitutional amendments.
- Some states allow voters to elect delegates to a convention who are bound to vote a certain way, while other states require that convention delegates be free to deliberate.
Campaign for convention delegates. Voters in each state will elect delegates to a convention that will decide whether or not to ratify the amendment. The process varies from state to state, but backers of the amendment will have to campaign for delegates that support its adoption.
Build support in three-fourths of the states. Once conventions in three-fourths of the states have ratified the amendment, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
- Currently, the amendment needs ratification from conventions in 38 out of 50 states.
Enacting the Amendment
Arrange a ceremonial signing of the amendment. The president does not have any formal power to ratify an amendment. The amendment does not need the president’s approval, nor can a president veto an amendment after it has been approved by the states. Therefore, it’s purely ceremonial to have a dignitary such as the president sign the amendment. Having a notable or influential person participate in signing the certification of the amendment can serve as a symbol of the overall thrust of the amendment.
- For example, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 24th and 25th amendment certification as a witness.
Start adjusting federal and state laws to reflect the amendment. As soon as the amendment gets the required number of states to ratify it, the amendment is part of the Constitution. State and federal governments must then start making changes to policy and laws to ensure that the amendment is observed.
- Even if a state did not ratify the amendment, it must still follow the amendment now that it’s part of the Constitution.
Gather support to repeal the amendment. If your state does not support the amendment, it is possible to repeal it. This process has been successfully completed once before, with the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment prohibiting alcohol.
- In order to repeal an amendment, you’d need to propose a new amendment and go through the entire process again. Unless sufficient time has passed and public opinion on the amendment’s subject matter has changed considerably, or the amendment was highly controversial, it’s unlikely that you’ll succeed in repealing it.
We use the term KABUKI THEATRE to describe Congress under CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. These few decades have been about 1% Wall Street installing their politicians who PRETENDED to be right-leaning conservatives----like Reagan or Bush----left-leaning social progressives ---like CLINTON/OBAMA ----when they were installing SHOW ME THE MONEY pols who would work as Robber Baron pols. Today's Congress is not Republican vs Democrat----both parties are captured by ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ----simply pretending to be fighting one another. IT IS STAGED AND NATIONAL MEDIA HAS BECOME PROPAGANDA because journalism holds power accountable----today media simply repeats what the 1% and their 2% say.
TODAY'S CONGRESS IS THEATRE---BOTH PARTIES CONTROLLED BY CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA 1% WALL STREET GLOBAL POLS ARE SIMPLY MOVING FORWARD POLICIES IGNORING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
So, the right-wing voters knew this a few decades ago and mounted a movement to get rid of the Bush neo-cons. This was the Tea Party. The left-leaning Democrats knowing Clinton neo-liberals were right-wing have been mounting their attacks ---both undermined by farm team SHOW ME THE MONEY WALL STREET PLAYERS.
Regarding this AMEND THE CONSTITUTION----we will now see CLINTON/OBAMA pretend to be fighting for campaign reform protecting WE THE PEOPLE---and Republicans who will force COMPROMISE----if Clinton/Obama amend for TPP then Bush neo-cons will amend for campaign reform. Together both CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA will amend for foreign economic zones.
THESE 5% TO THE 1% WILL PRETEND THEY ARE FIGHTING IT OUT -----AND WE WILL END WITH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS CREATING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONSTITUTION---NO WE THE PEOPLE.
Just so I do not appear to belittle a great art form-----indeed, Kabuki is being used as American slang for PUTTING ON A SHOW-----
It's Time To Retire Kabuki
The word doesn't mean what pundits think it does.
By Jon Lackman
Judging from op-ed pages and talk radio, American pundits know a lot about Kabuki, the 400-year-old Japanese stage tradition with the Lady Gaga get-ups. Health care reform recently brought Kabuki to mind for both Rush Limbaugh—"what you have here is 'Kabuki theater' "—and New York Times columnist Frank Rich: "[I]f I were to place an incautious bet on which political event will prove the most significant of February 2010, I wouldn't choose the kabuki health care summit." For The New Yorker's George Packer, all the capital's a Far Eastern stage, and all its men and women merely players. "I looked for answers outside the Kabuki theatre of Washington personalities."
Pundits use Kabuki as a synonym for "posturing." The New Republic's Michael Crowley, for example, has defined it as a "performance, in which nothing substantive is done." But there's nothing "kabuki" about the real Kabuki. Kabuki, I'll have you know,is one of UNESCO's Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity! And it's nothing like politics. It does indeed use stylized gestures, expressions, and intonations, but it's far from empty and monotonous. As the scholar A.C. Scott has written, a great Kabukiactor's performance will "contain an individuality beneath the unchanging conventions, his symbolism must be something more than imitative repetition." Unlike a Dick Durbin stemwinder, the quintessential Kabuki moment (known as a kata) is colorful and ruthlessly concise, packing meaning into a single gesture. It is synecdoche, synopsis, and metaphor rolled together—as when, in one Kabukiplay, a gardener expecting a visit from the emperor cuts down all his chrysanthemums except one, the perfect one. And in contrast with our own shortsighted politics, Kabukiconcerns not the present so much as a "dreamlike time shrouded in mist but ever present in the subconscious," to quote critic Shuichi Kato.
Of course, pundits don't care about the real thing. They use Kabuki precisely because they and everyone else have only a hazy idea of the word's true meaning, and they can use it purely on the level of insinuation.
They deploy Kabuki because:
1) It sounds funny.
2) It sounds childish.
3) It sounds foreign.
4) It sounds incomprehensible.
Kabuki succeeds chiefly because it makes your opponent sound silly and un-American.
And finally kabuki works because:
5) It sounds Japanese.
Needless to say, it sounds Japanese because it is Japanese. Point is, the word can conjure certain stereotypes about Japanese politics. As the scholar Gerald Curtis has noted, we have "an image of Japanese politics in which bureaucrats dominate … and policy making is little more than a process of collusion." For Rush Limbaugh, what better image with which to tar health care reform?
But how did Kabuki, one of Japan's most revered arts, come to signify loathsome fakery? Kabuki escaped derision only so long as no one had heard of it. The Japanese initially considered it too difficult to export; indeed, seeing a Kabuki play cold is like tuning into Lost midseason. Consequently, the word didn't appear in print in English until the late 19th-century, and then only rather infrequently. That changed when, following World War II, Japan's government tried to shed its image as a global marauder by touring its best Kabuki troupes. As historian Barbara Thornbury has written, "spectacular, larger-than-life kabuki was seen as having the potential to reignite America's nearly hundred-year-old romance with exotic Japan." This concept, alas, failed miserably. Although America's urban theatergoers lauded Kabuki, their good opinion did nothing to improve ties between the United States and its one-time enemy. Indeed, relations worsened due to drawn-out treaty negotiations. When American official James C. Hagerty visited Tokyo in 1960, protesters surrounded his car, broke its windows, and nearly flipped it.
According to my research, it was in this hostile atmosphere that Kabukiacquired its modern derogatory meaning. Writing in 1961 about a State Department plan to revise its security measures, Los Angeles Times writer Henry J. Taylor declared, "[By] finally dismissing Chester Bowles as undersecretary of state at the moment he did, the President unhitched the plan's kingpin in this shoddy piece of left-wing kabuki." Six months later, Taylor struck again, "Agriculture Secretary Freeman announced he has discussed Billie Sol Estes' political corruption kabuki with Robert F. Kennedy and 'had mentioned it informally to the president.' "
Writers have enlivened their prose with Kabuki ever since. Usage increases whenever Japan is in the news for disingenuous behavior—as in the early 1990s, when it turned out that Japan's go-go economy was an elaborate sham. It's been cropping up most recently due to the Toyota recall, which has made some Americans question the Japanese car company's commitment to safety. "Toyoda Is Wary Star of Kabuki at Capitol," blared the Wall Street Journal. The word is also on the ascendant whenever fakery seems particularly rife in American politics. Kabuki loves itself a Senate nomination hearing.
It may seem P.C. or peevish to ask writers to resist kabuki. (Is Kabuki resistance itself Kabuki?) The request is impractical, I admit. If a former theater critic such as Frank Rich can't be trusted to use it properly, who can? This is one of those writerly words that is helpfully absent from ordinary conversation, that says, "Stand back, pundit here!" (Slate writers, by the way, have also abused Kabuki--repeatedly!) But how would you feel if your favorite art form, ballet or truckers' quilts, say, became another nation's derogatory epithet? How many Americans today steer clear of actual Kabuki(it is regularly performed here) because of the word's reputation? And there's a final reason to ditch it: Posturing is far too tepid an indictment of contemporary American politics. I'd sooner opt for Grand-Guignol, which Wikipedia aptly defines as "graphic, amoral horror entertainment." It is seppukutime for Kabuki.
Clinton era saw the practice of intervening in war zones for no national security reason-----we did that with the Korean War---with the Vietnam War----with the Desert Storm Iraqi War---and here is the Bosnian War and each time WE THE PEOPLE were told by national media there was some kind of horrible threat to America to justify. Each one of these wars ended with the US installing Foreign Economic Zone global corporate neo-liberalism in those nations----this is why Asian nations are heavily tied to Foreign Economic Zones. What came with that is creation of these FREE TRADE ZONE CONSTITUTIONS. Today, these same nations are now AMENDING THEIR CONSTITUTIONS to include Trans Pacific Trade Pact.
SO FAR MANY OF THESE NATIONS HAVE SIGNED ON TO TPP.
So, this article shows the CLINTON handiwork and the Clinton Initiative has these few decades pushed for these ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE constitutions since. Since this 1990s installation of far-right extreme wealth and extreme poverty governance----of course this created that 1% and their 2% in both nations----
FOR A DECADE THE 99% OF CITIZENS PUSHED INTO GLOBAL CORPORATE FACTORIES AND CAMPUSES HAVE BEEN PROTESTING AND THERE IS INSTABILITY ALL OVER AGAIN.
The US Constitution is the only one in the world----giving citizens rights outlined in Bill of Rights, which guarantees CITIZENS the rights to LEGISLATE----to assure EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER RULE OF LAW. Developing nations' constitutions do not do that.
Pursuant to Article IV.
7. a) (IV) of the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
I hereby promulgate DECREE ENACTING THE LAW AMENDING THE LAW ON FREE ZONES
The Law Amending the Law on Free Zones adopted by the Parliament of the Federation of BiH at the session of the House of Representatives of 25 May 2004 and the session of
the House of Peoples of 2 June 2004 is hereby enacted.
Number 01-615/04 28 June 2004
LAW AMENDING THE LAW ON FREE ZONES
In the Law on Free Zones (Official Gazette of the Federation of BiH no. 2/95) Article7 is hereby amended and it shall read:
“Any industrial, commercial and service activity (banking and other financial activities, services of insurance and reinsurance of property and persons, etc.) may be carried out in the free zone.”
The industrial activity shall be understood as manufacturing of products which have undergone a certain process of modification or processing in the free zone.
Carrying out the activities or construction of facilities that endanger the environment, health of people, material goods and security of the country and that are not in accordance with the Law on Waste Management, Law on Air Protection, Law on Water Protection, Law on Environmental Protection and Law on Nature Protection (Official Gazette of the Federation of BiH no.33/03) and the enactment son plants and machinery which require an environmental impact assessment or
plants and machinery which may only be constructed and put in operation if they have an environmental permit, shall not
be permitted in the free zone.
In Article 8, paragraph 1 is hereby amended and it shall read:
“Free zone founders may be one or more domestic or foreign legal or natural entities (hereinafter: free zone founders).”
Paragraph 2 is hereby deleted.
In paragraph 4, sub-paragraph 7 is hereby amended and it shall read:
“Other provisions prescribed by the laws regulating the establishment of legal entities.”
Paragraph 5 is hereby deleted.
After Article 8, new articles 8 (a), 8 (b) and 8 (c) are hereby added and they shall read:
“Article 8 (a)
The zone management enterprise
shall submit to the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, through the Federation Ministry of Trade (hereinafter: the competent ministry) a request for giving consent as to the location (area) and conditions for
the free zone or a zone therein, i.e. a sub-zone (hereinafter: consent)
Beside the request referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the zone management enterprise shall also submit:
the act on establishing a zone or a sub-zone;
city-planning consent by the Federation Ministry of Spatial Planning and Environment;
a feasibility study on economic justification for founding a zone or a sub-zone with an estimate of foreign and domestic investments, number of employees and expected profit from the zone operation;
proof that the zone management enterprise or the founder of such an enterprise is entitled to use the land on which the zone or a sub-zone is being founded, on any legal grounds
Article 8 (b) Exempt from the provision of Article 8 (a)
are the instances when facilities had already
been built, in accordance with provisions of the Law on Spatial Planning (Official Gazette of the Federation of BiH no. 52/02) and the Law on Construction (Official Gazette of the Federation of BiH no. 54/02) and they are designated for an activity permitted in the free zone; if the designation of an already constructed facility is to be changed, the Federation Ministry of Spatial Planning and Environment shall issue its
consent pertaining to
environ mental protection.
Article 8 (c)
If the enterprise obtains consent as to the location from the Government of the Federation of BiH for the construction of facilities in the free zone or a sub-zone, under the city-planning consent referred to in Article 8 (a) paragraph 2 sub-paragraph 2, it must complete the construction of the facilities in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Construction.”
Article 9 is hereby amended and it shall read:
“Upon a reasoned proposal by the competent ministry, which shall contain in particular an opinion on economic justification, harmonization with spatial planning and an opinion on the protection of the living environment, the Government of the Federation of BiH shall give consent referred to in Article 8 (a) within 30 days following the day the request was submitted.”
Following Article 9, a new article 9 (a) is hereby added and it shall read:
“Article 9 (a)
The free zone establishment shall be economically justified
if it can be assessed, on the basis of the feasibility study
and other accompanying proof submitted, that the value of
goods exported from a free zone outside of the customs territory of BiH will exceed at least 50% of the total value of the manufactured goods leaving the free zone with in the period of 12 months.
The value of the goods shall be established in a manner
referred to in Articles 24 through 32 of the Law on Customs Policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of BiH
no. 21/98 and 34/00)
The Customs Administration of the Federation of BiH
shall, through the customs authority carrying out the control within the free zone, submit to the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of BiH a report on fulfillment of conditions referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article every six months.”
Article 13 is hereby amended and it
“The fulfillment of conditions for the commencement of
the operation of a free zone shall be determined by the Commission appointed by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of BiH.
The Commission shall consist of a representative from
each of the following bodies: the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of BiH, Customs Administration of
the Federation of BiH, Federation Ministry of Spatial Planning
and Environment and local authorities of the canton or municipality.
Having verified the fulfillment of all necessary conditions, with mandatory presence of a representative of the founder and based on the record drafted by the Commission, the Ministry of
Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of BiH shall issue the decision confirming that all conditions for the commencement of the operation of the free zone have been fulfilled and that the free zone may commence its operation.”
Article 20 is here by amended and it shall read:
“The equipment imported into a free zone to be used
for industrial activity in the free zone shall be exempt from payment of customs duties – including customs processing
fee, unless otherwise prescribed by the provisions of the Law on Customs Policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Customs, export duties and fees shall not be paid on exports from the free zone to other countries.”
Article 30 is hereby deleted.
In Article 32 paragraph 1 line 1, the words: “in the range from DEM 10,000 to 50,000” are hereby replaced with the words:
“in the range from KM 5,000.00 to 15,000.00”.
In Article 32 paragraph 2 line 1, the words:
“in the range from DEM 1,000 to 5,000” are hereby replaced with the words: “in the range from KM 1,000 to 3,000”.
Article 33 is hereby amended and it shall read:
“The user and the founder of the free zone shall be fined p
ursuant to the Law on Customs Offences of the Federation of BiH (Official Gazette of the Federation of BiH” no. 4 6/00)
removes the goods from the free zone
without an approval from the competent
consumes or uses the goods in the free zone;
engages in retail in the free zone;
hinders the inspection of goods entering, leaving or remaining in the free zone;
prevents inspection of persons or inspection of transportation means entering or leaving the free zone;
for all other activities contrary to the provisions of the Law on Customs Policy of BiH.”
Articles 3 and 37 are hereby deleted.
To all issues pertaining to the establishment, operation and cessation of the operation of free zones not regulated by this Law, provisions of the Law on Free Zones in Bosnia and
Herzegovina (Official Gazette of BiH no. 3/02 and 13/03) shall apply.
This Law shall come into force the day after being published in the Official Gazette of the Federation of BiH.
House of Peoples Parliament of the Federation of BiH
House of Representatives
Parliament of the Federation of BiH
Bosnia is now in revolution three decades after Clinton neo-liberals installed what was A FREE-TRADE FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE constitution and governance having a goal of creating that 1% and their 2% in Bosnia and Herzo-------so this WILL BE AMERICA if we allow today's CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA to keep installing MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global corporate campus rule.
The entire process of filling US cities with global labor pool immigrants and foreign corporations is to create this wealth inequity and societal instability. THAT IS WHAT ALL MARYLAND POLS --ESPECIALLY BALTIMORE POLS ARE DOING RIGHT NOW----WE MUST FIX THESE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ELECTION RIGGING/FRAUD.
Monday, Feb 24, 2014 12:07 PM EDT
Bosnia: The European unrest we should be talking about
Fierce anti-government protests this month have a class consciousness lacking in Ukrainian revolt narratives
VIDEO Natasha Lennard Follow
Bosnian government building attacked in early Feb. (Credit: CrimeThinc)
While the U.S. media focuses on ongoing turmoil in the Ukraine, with an uptick in Cold War-style geopoliticking, another Eastern European nation has been aflame with protest this month. Anti-government protests in Bosnia, involving tens of thousands of people, have focused on the fierce inequality and neoliberalism marking the postwar Balkan state. As anarchist writer B. Traven noted for CrimethInc, “Unlike the recent conflicts in Ukraine, this movement has eschewed nationalistic strife to focus on class issues. In a region infamous for ethnic bloodshed, this offers a more promising direction for the Eastern European uprisings to come.”
In early February, protests — initially organized around solidarity with workers who have for some years mobilized against the privatization of Bosnian companies — took a violent turn when police brutally cracked down on demonstrators.
Detailing the February upheavals and their swift escalation, Predrag Kovacevic noted:
[I]n Tuzla (formerly a large industrial centre), the workers of a bankrupt factory joined forces with an organisation of young activists to carry out a protest of relatively minor proportions in the city centre. Unexpectedly, the demonstrators were joined by huge numbers of people sharing their grievances.
Some of the messages that were conveyed that first day were:
the demand for a revision of privatization throughout the country, an increase of the minimum wage and the prosecution of corrupt politicians. It was clear from that afternoon on that nothing would be the same in Bosnia. Within the next two days, most key government buildings were in flames and protesters had occupied government buildings in Tuzla, Sarajevo and Mostar. Other protests were carried out in a whole range of small towns.
The significance of the Bosnian revolt is multifaceted. Commentators have noted that the escalated unrest marks the failure of the Dayton Peace Agreement (brokered by the U.S. to end the 1992-1995 Bosnian war). “While Dayton helped stop the ‘ethnic cleaning’ and mass murder that drew global media attention, it also created a largely dysfunctional and struggling state,” wrote Georgetown law professor Mark V. Vlasic. Vlasic, writing a HuffPo column, called upon the U.S. to offer bureaucratic intervention, and for a European-style technocracy to be put in place. Vlasic’s assumption — that Bosnia should go the way of its neighbors toward a neoliberal nation state model — does not reflect much of the prevailing sentiment of the current unrest. A liberal or neoliberal reading of the Bosnian protests, however, misses their significance as a class struggle.
As Kovacevic put it, “the leftist, proletarian character of the protests in Bosnia asserted itself over and over again”:
The liberal and libertarian currents, of course, saw the protests as a message against the corrupt state bureaucracy, the massive public sector and the meddling of the state with the free market. But although there were some anti-government demands among the protesters, most of them were attacking the government for protecting the wealthy tycoons who emerged from the wars of the early 1990s. With their obscene wealth, they bought factories for peanuts and then sold them to foreign investors for five to ten times the sum, thus multiplying their loot from the war. Of course, no liberal commentator tackled the question of the protesters’ demands for the revision of privatisation – and if they did, it was merely written off as a Utopian idea incapable of yielding any productive results.
The limits of Dayton in maintaining Balkan peace have not been determined by corruption and greed alone. A process of privatization and wealth concentration has left the Bosnian people impoverished and unemployed. The situation carries echoes of recent Greek history. As such, commentators urging the installation of a technocratic government should be wary of lessons from beleaguered Greece. And in Bosnia too (as in Greece, as in Ukraine) a rise in right-wing demagoguery has accompanied the social crisis. Interestingly, though, the Bosnian unrest has been colored by rhizomatic organizing and a revolution in leadership predicated on placing power in the hands of the Bosnian people.
Protests are still going on, and people have organized themselves in plenums [assemblies]. Four cantonal governments have been forced to resign. Two of them are negotiating with plenums about forming governments of people who are not active members of any political parties. The authorities are fighting back hard—spreading fear of another civil war, arresting people, beating them, pressing charges for terrorism and attack on constitutional order… The movement is still continuing on a daily basis, the protests as well as the meetings of the plenums. The demands that are being made by the plenums are clearly social: the revision of the privatization process and the like. Politicians are terrified of losing their privileges, their positions, their wealth, and their freedom; this is causing different political parties to unite against their own people. They are using the mainstream media to discredit protests and plenum participants.
While the attacks on government buildings and the street clashes have quieted in the last week, the unrest in Bosnia is far from over and the political situation remains in flux. With media focus squared on the Ukraine — unrest all-too marked by nationalistic fervor — it is worth keeping an eye on Bosnia, where upheaval is opening up new modes of political organization with a fierce class consciousness.
The Philippines have been captured by all this Reagan/Clinton Foreign Economic Zone policy since the MARCOS-----extreme wealth and extreme poverty. The Philippines 1% export so many of their 99% to the global labor pool---they represent the largest human capital in the global labor distribution system.
Below we see where Philippines are AMENDING THEIR CONSTITUTION including language that their 99% may think protects vital infrastructure and natural resources. Look, there is that broad language----UNLESS PROVIDED BY LAW. A plebiscite is simply a vote of the people.
So, the Clinton/Obama teams have worked hard to get these developing Asian nations to sign TPP-----Hillary pushed Myanmar several years ago---today the military junta are becoming enriched and the citizens of Myanmar are in global labor pool and global corporate factories as foreign economic zones.
Below we see the Philippines 1% and their 2% AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION for Trans Pacific Trade Pact.
TPP is good for the Philippines
BREAKTHROUGH By Elfren S. Cruz (The Philippine Star) | Updated October 18, 2015 - 12:00am
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has become a major political issue in the American elections. When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she called TPP the “gold standard for trade agreements.” Now that she is running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, she has reversed her stand because of political pressure from American labor unions who believe that the agreement will result in the loss of manufacturing jobs in the USA.
In the Philippines, TPP is hardly discussed except in business circles. Even among business leaders, there is still very little appreciation of its beneficial effects on the Philippine economy. For instance, some claim that the contents of the TPP Agreement is a secret. The TPP document has 30 chapters which can be downloaded and read by any interested party. There is also a summary that lists the key features of the agreement.
In order for global US corporations to expand into these new Asian and Latin American nations-----the US 1% has to allow foreign corporations to expand in our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones. Each way sovereign citizens from these nations are simply pushed into that global labor pool leaving the extreme wealth 1% and their 2% to great wealth and power while the 99% are captured to a global ONE WORLD extreme poverty with no connections to any national sovereignty or citizenship. THAT'S THE GOAL OF AMEND THE CONSTITUTION HERE IN THE US!
The resolution will include the phrase "unless provided by law"
"We will fast track the deliberation so the plebiscite for it will be done alongside with the 2016 national and local elections, " he said.
Philippine Congress to fast track constitutional amendments to allow foreign ownership
English.news.cn 2015-02-09 20:14:44
MANILA, Feb. 9 (Xinhua) -- The leader of the Philippine Congress on Monday ordered to speed up the deliberations on the proposed economic amendments in the present constitution that will give more access to foreign investments.
House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said that he has instructed his colleagues in the House of Representatives to fast track the floor deliberations of the measure amending the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
Belmonte said that the Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 1 or the proposed amendments to the economic provisions of the Constitution should be passed this year so that it can be put to vote through a plebiscite that will be synchronize with next year' s National Elections.
"We will fast track the deliberation so the plebiscite for it will be done alongside with the 2016 national and local elections, " he said.
The Resolution, filed by Belmonte and Senator Ralph Recto, is eyeing to amend economic provisions on the 60-40 rule that limits foreign ownership of certain activities in the Philippines.
The resolution will include the phrase "unless provided by law" in the foreign-ownership provision of the Constitution, particularly land ownership, public utilities, natural resources, media and advertising industries.
Under Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution, foreign investors are prohibited to own more than 40 percent of real properties and businesses, while they are totally restricted to exploit natural resources and own any company in the media industry.
The amendments to the charter will be decided through separate votings by the both chambers, with a three-fourths vote required from them.
The Joint Foreign Chamber of Commerce and Philippine business groups already expressed support for the passage of the economic amendments.
As this article states---our US Constitution was written for instilling FREE TRADE-----global market economies. We have never been anti-trade. So why are today's 1% and their 5% feeling the need to create a NEW CONSTITUTION?
The global 1% and their 2% no longer see an America------they see themselves as global rich and the US as a territory to EXPLOIT. This is why everyone says Trans Pacific Trade Pact is not about free trade----it is about breaking down our US sovereignty, our governance structures----our centuries of legal court precedence and US Rule of Law. These 1% Wall Street players are now selling all of this under the guise of GETTING MONEY OUT OF CAMPAIGNS.
It is because WE THE PEOPLE allowed CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA to ignore all US Constitutional laws around anti-trust and monopoly that our national corporations grew to such size and wealth to being today no longer American ----they do not see an America---and they are bringing the US down to a colonial entity to be fleeced of natural resources and to make human capital of citizens.
'After the Constitutional Convention, many saw a problem with the draft document: It did not include a Bill of Rights. They insisted this be corrected.
Approved by the first Congress and sent to the states for ratification, the Bill of Rights expressly protected many aspects of individual liberty'.
No BILL OF RIGHTS under Trans Pacific Trade Pact in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones! DO YOU HEAR ANY OF 2016 CANDIDATES SHOUTING THIS? That is how we know they are 1% Wall Street players!
We Already Have a Free-Trade Deal: It's Called the Constitution
By Terence P. Jeffrey | October 7, 2015 | 4:28 AM EDT
Our Constitution gave Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes."When the founders of this nation wrote the Constitution they created a charter for the greatest and truest free-trade zone in history — and they did not seek its approval on a fast track.
It is instructive to look at some of the basic differences between our Constitution and the free-trade zone it created and President Barack Obama's proposed 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Our Constitution gave Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes."
At the same time, it said: "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws." And that: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
These clauses effectively prevented states of the union from raising trade barriers against each other or foreign nations while empowering the federal government to raise trade barriers at the nation's external borders.
The Constitution also gave Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises."
This empowered the federal government to impose consumption taxes both internally and on foreign imports.
After the Constitutional Convention, many saw a problem with the draft document: It did not include a Bill of Rights. They insisted this be corrected.
Approved by the first Congress and sent to the states for ratification, the Bill of Rights expressly protected many aspects of individual liberty.
The First Amendment protected the right of individuals to exercise their religion freely, speak freely, publish freely and assemble freely. The Second protected their right to own guns. The Fourth protected their persons, houses, papers and other property from warrantless government searches.
The Fifth said they could not be deprived of their property without due process of law and that the government could take private property only "for public use" and only with "just compensation."
One great flaw in the Constitution is that it did not prohibit slavery. It thus allowed some people to be deprived of their God-given rights and treated like property. It took a long civil war, further amendments to the Constitution, and the Civil Rights Movement to correct that flaw.
Yet the ultimate product of the Constitution was a continental nation, under the rule of law, where individual rights — including property rights — were broadly protected and generally respected by the culture, and where government was restrained from infringing on the right of the people to engage in commerce with one another.
The United States became a remarkably prosperous nation as well as a remarkably free one. When the administration announced this week that it had completed negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, no one called on would-be member Vietnam to adopt the Bill of Rights.
"The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is an authoritarian state ruled by a single party, the Communist Party of Vietnam," says the State Department's 2014 report on human rights in Vietnam.
"The most significant human rights problems in the country," said the State Department, "were severe government restrictions of citizens' political rights, particularly their right to change their government through free and fair elections; limits on citizens' civil liberties, including freedom of assembly and expression; and inadequate protection of citizens' due process rights, including protection against arbitrary detention."
And, eventually, Vietnam may not be the only Communist government to join Obama's trade zone with the United States.
The New York Times reported Monday: "To members of Congress, administration officials have repeatedly pressed their contention that the partnership will build a bulwark against China's economic influence, and allow the United States and its allies — not Beijing — to set the standards for Pacific commerce."
But the Times also reported on Tuesday: "United States officials, while making clear that they see the pact as part of an effort to counter China's influence in the region, say they are hopeful that the pact's 'open architecture' eventually prompts China to join, along with other important economic powers like South Korea."
"The People's Republic of China (PRC) is an authoritarian state in which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the paramount authority," said the State Department 2014 report on human rights there.
Establishing the free-trade zone created by our Constitution required ratification by conventions in 9 of the 13 states. It also required ratification of a Bill of Rights.
Thanks to fast-track legislation that the Republican-majority Congress enacted this summer, President Obama's trade zone — which includes Communist Vietnam and may someday include Communist China — will need only a majority vote in both houses of Congress.