I am running for U.S. House of Representatives to represent Texas’ 25th Congressional District. My primary reason for running is to build something much closer to democracy in the United States, beginning here with the people of District 25.
I want to create a process that will allow every registered voter in the district to participate in the decisions that will affect her/his life. If I am elected, I can guarantee the people of the district that I will actively seek the advice and counsel of the people through this process.
Let me explain what that process is:
What I hope to do is to arrange assemblies in every voting precinct in the district. Any registered voter can attend and participate equally in their local precinct assembly. At the first assembly for each precinct, I will try to be there personally to explain the process and what we can achieve through it, before letting the people get to work on their issues, but if this campaign picks up any steam, we may need to have one or two other people to do this. After discussing the issues of concern among the people of the precinct, they will do two things before adjourning:
- elect four delegates to a division assembly (I have divided the district into 16 divisions) ; and
- determine when the precinct assembly will meet again.
Any precinct assembly may also choose to subdivide the precinct into a number of wards in order to create assemblies of manageable size. Personally, I would advise any precinct with more than 150 people attending to do this, but certainly if there are more than 200, it may be necessary just to find a place to meet that can comfortably seat all participants.
Additionally, if they choose, they may also elect delegates to assemblies for State Legislative or Senate District, city, county, etc. These assemblies will require further organization, which I will facilitate as much as I can, but may require some additional efforts of the people in the relevant jurisdictions. We may want to form a separate organization that would take on the task of helping people organize precinct and other assemblies outside of district 25.
At the division assemblies, delegates will discuss the issues brought forward from the precincts, amending them as necessary to try to gain greater consensus among all the delegates there. Proposals that pass at division assemblies will be forwarded to the District Council, which will consist of four delegates from each division. Proposals that pass in the District Council will determine how I will vote as the representative of the district.
Let me know what you think now:
Click Here to take survey
Beyond what we can achieve here in TX-25, I hope that people in other districts will begin to organize themselves to emulate the process. This organization can lead to not only pressuring representatives to act in accord with the will of the people, but also to electing representatives who will support a more formalized transition to democracy through constitutional amendments that will give the people the right to take a more active role in how we govern ourselves, rather than simply “consenting” (even though we have never really been given the choice) to be governed by others. All of this, of course, is dependent on finding enough campaign volunteers and raising enough funding to do all the organizational work. If you want to see this become a reality, please consider volunteering or contributing to my campaign for real democracy. Contact me at trimble_for_25@yahoo.com.
Peace.
Transform25's Weblog 
Lisa D. Keele said,
March 22, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Though I exist outside the realm of most things political, I can assure all that Scott Trimble is a man of excellent character. He is passionate about his mission to bring about a participatory democracy in which all people have an equal voice. He is a dedicated and loyal friend, a loving parent and can be depended upon to give voice to issues so long held silent by an unfair and corrupt political machine. He will fight for what rightfully belongs to the people of the 25th district of Texas. He will fight to make this country a better place for all peoples. He is a man deserving of the support and the vote of all who wish to make democracy real.
Missy said,
March 24, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I may be partial, but I can honestly say that Scott is a man of character and principle. He has the interest of the people at heart and would make an excellent representative for District 25. He has great ideas and knows how to get things changed. It’s time to breathe new life into District 25 and Scott Trimble is the man to do that.
Carol Wolman, MD said,
April 9, 2008 at 5:50 am
From one candidate for Congress to another- Did you know that it’s possible to impeach Bush and Cheney after they leave office, strip them of post office perks and protections, and render illegitimate their signing statements and executive directives? I believe they also should be put on trial for war crimes, and perhaps treason. Do you agree?
Peace, Carol Wolman, MD
Green Candidate for Congress, CA District 1
http://www.carolwolmanforcongress.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/carolwolman
Coordinator, New Broom Coalition
http://newbroomcoalition.org
Cochair, Impeach Bush-Cheney
http://www.opednews.com/author/author20.html
http://www.paracove.com/HighCrimes.html
transform25 said,
April 9, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Carol,
No I did not know it was possible, or that it might be useful, to impeach them after their term had expired. I thought the only real reason for impeaching was to lead to a trial, and that the only potential consequences of that would be removal from office. I knew that it was possible to also try them for crimes committed, and that they could theoretically be imprisoned for those. I did not know that we could effectively nullify Bush’s signing statements through this process. I knew that we could reverse his executive orders, but thought that the only method for that was through specific legislation in Congress. I have read the Constitution many times (and written some revisions of it, as well as several amendment proposals), and did not get the impression from it that an officer could be impeached after the expiration of the term, or that impeachment would necessarily have these other effects, even if a sitting officer were impeached and convicted.
I like the idea, but I have not seen evidence that it is true. I’d love to read more about this. I will check out the links you have provided. Do they offer more about the legal case for post-term impeachment? If not, please send me anything you have on it.
As for my assessment of whether Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes as well as domestic crimes, there is no doubt that they should. While there may have been an argument to justify the invasion of Afghanistan, at least according to the minimal requirements of international law, there was absolutely no legal justification for the outright war of aggression waged upon Iraq. Certainly, they have violated the Fourth Amendment, the Presidential Records Act, and the Hatch Act. They have authorized torture and extraordinary rendition, and have violated the right of many Americans to habeas corpus.
I am not so sure they should be tried for treason. “Treason” is one of those tricky words that people throw around without giving it a proper definition, like “terrorist.” Certainly, animal rights and environmental activists who take great pains to avoid killing or even harming others while engaging in destruction, damaging or defacing property are not actually “terrorists” by any definition that existed before the Bush administration (although it would probably be appropriate to call them vandals), but they are now considered such by the government. People use the word treason very loosely, and most people do not understand its meaning. I am not really sure I can say that I understand what it really should mean, what it means in the strictest legal sense, or how its meaning may have changed since 1787.
The only accusation that I have known anyone to level at either of these two specific persons that would clearly constitute treason is that they were actually involved in staging the attacks of 9/11 for political gain. While there is some circumstantial evidence that suggests that there may have been inside involvement and/or that the truth is different than what the public has been told, and while they certainly did reap political gain from it, I know of no hard evidence that would link either of them to the acts of that day. I should also note that there is also no evidence that I know of to the contrary, but the burden of proof in our courts is on the prosecutor. If a solid case can be made, then it certainly should.