Forwarding exchange below for those who do not belong to LPCA list. By way of background, the issue boils down to whether the LPCA should protest against the LP "Iraq Exit Strategy." The LP exit strategy is on he LP website.
Marcy
1) Dan Wiener's objection is easily rebutted, since the Resolution
is to be done only in the name of the LPC Executive Committee, and
not in the name of the LPC (unless someone really believes that the
two are really the one and the same). That being the case, it is
hard to get particularly interested in whatever pontifications are
emitted from this teapot of self-importance.
2) Any resolutions, for or against the invasion, are somewhat tardy,
the event having taken place more than 2 years ago.
3) In the meantime, is anyone lining up candidates for the 2006
elections?
Regards,
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Marcy Berry" <amarcyb@h...>
wrote:
Forwarding exchange below for those who do not belong to LPCA
list. By way of background, the issue boils down to whether the
LPCA should protest against the LP "Iraq Exit Strategy." The LP
exit strategy is on he LP website.
Marcy
From: Lawrence<mailto:lawsamz@h…>
To: Kelly Helbig<mailto:kelbig86@u…> ; Vincent
Torrente<mailto:vincent.torrente@w…> ; Colin
Hotchkiss<mailto:thelowend@s…> ; Arwyn
Sheeman<mailto:bitethewaxtadepole@s…> ; Bryan
Nunes<mailto:bnunes16@y…> ; Michael Seebeck<mailto:michael@s…> ;
Anthony Gregory<mailto:Anthony1791@y…> ; Mark
Seizer<mailto:markselzer@S…> ; Jay Ecki<mailto:Jae4free@a…> ;
Mark W. Stroberg<mailto:mwstroberg@c…> ; Erich
Miller<mailto:erich@e…> ; George Gori<mailto:jeffersonian@c…> ;
Clarence Gardner<mailto:clarence@s…> ; Susan Marie
Weber<mailto:susanmarieweber@e…> ; Dan
Fernandes<mailto:dfernandes@a…> ; Joe Cobb<mailto:chair@l…> ;
Constance Ericson<mailto:constance@t…> ; Dave
Larkin<mailto:dlarkinhome@m…> ; Dave
Bowers<mailto:davebo1000@a…> ; Bob
Glessco<mailto:rbglassco@s…> ; Paul Studier<mailto:studier@p…> ;
Marcy Berry<mailto:amarcyb@h…> ; Paul
Ammaypayoat<mailto:paulamnuaypayoat@g…> ; Gene
Trosper<mailto:gtrosper@e…> ; Jeanne
Simmons<mailto:jeannes@s…> ; Bill
Adasiewics<mailto:billadas@p…> ; Rick
Nichol<mailto:wrick36@y…> ; Carol Moore<mailto:news@c…> ; Allen
Hacker<mailto:allen@l…>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:11 AM
Subject: LP Peace Caucus/Resolution on AgendaTo All:
The anti-war resolution will be on the LPC Excom. agenda Aug. 20
in Los Angeles. Allen needs to bring plenty of copies of the revised
LP Anti-war Resolution to distribute.
--Lawrence Samuels
A motion to place this item on the agenda is not necessary. I've
already
discussed it with Aaron, and I will put whole matter on the agenda
that I am now
preparing for the August ExCom meeting.
However, I continue to believe that it is highly inappropriate for
the Executive
Committee to be taking any action on this matter, as I expressed
in a previous
email. For those who may not have seen my reasoning, I have
attached a copy of
that email below.
Daniel Wiener
CA_Secretary@L...<mailto:CA_Secretary@L…>From: Daniel Wiener
To: Lawrence Samuels
Date: Jul 7, 2005 6:18 PM
Subject: RE: Dan: Anti-War Resolution for Aug. 20 MeetingLawrence,
I think it is highly inappropriate for the LPC Executive Committee
to be voting
on the type of resolution you're suggesting. Such a resolution
is properly the
domain of the annual state convention.
Our Bylaws are very specific that a two-thirds supermajority is
required at a
state convention in order amend the Platform or the Program or to
pass a
separate Resolution on any issue. That assures that the official
Libertarian
Party position on an issue represents a strong, principled
consensus. It also
prevents competing factions from whipsawing our official position
when the Party
is closely divided.
Under Bylaw 11, Section 8(c), the Executive Committee can, by a
two-thirds
majority, "endorse or oppose any proposed ballot measure, but
rescinding such
action shall be considered a normal main motion" (i.e., it can be
rescinded by a
simple majority). Again, the intent is to make sure there is a
strong consensus
before taking an official Libertarian Party position.
The Executive Committee has also, on occasion, passed motions
endorsing or
opposing some bills which were being proposed in the California
Legislature.
Those motions were generally non-controversial, and the ExCom
motions passed by
more than a two-thirds majority, so the question of whether there
was an implied
requirement for a two-thirds majority never came up.
The justification for allowing the ExCom to vote on ballot
measures and perhaps
some bills is that those issues come up between conventions, and
time is of the
essence. That rationale does not apply to an anti-war resolution
such as you
have proposed. Nothing substantial has changed since our last
state convention,
nor is it likely to change before our next state convention, which
would justify
having the ExCom substitute its judgement for that of the
delegates to a state
convention.
If the delegates had wanted to, they could have passed a
resolution calling for
an immediate withdrawal from Iraq during any of the past several
conventions,
based on pretty much the same constellation of facts and arguments
which
currently exist. I suspect that no such resolution or platform
plank was passed
precisely because a two-thirds majority was in fact lacking.
I would recommend that you bring this resolution up at next
February's state
convention, and in the meantime lobby on its behalf and try to
make sure enough
sympathetic delegates attend the convention so that the resolution
can be