Economic crisis points out need for more democracy

Our federal legislators and the folks in the executive branch seem to mostly agree that bailing out Wall Street is required to save our economy.  A handful of them are opposed, but for some reason, we are not hearing about any alternate proposals that will actually benefit the American people directly, including especially those homeowners who were swindled into predatory mortgages.  Yet, from reports I have heard, very significant portions of the population are objecting to the proposal(s) currently on the table.  Maybe if we had a system that would let everyday Americans get in on the discussion, we could come up with a better plan.  I have a couple of ideas, but I am certainly open to others.

If we are going to throw $700 Billion at this thing, it seems to me that there would be a much better way to do it.  Of course, the way that I believe would be best in the long-run would not fly at all with many Americans, or with any of our corporate-capitalist politicians because it would involve ending our sanctification of capitalism.  Nationalizing the banking industry and restructuring banking as a non-profit enterprise would benefit a lot more Americans than just those who are feeling pinched by the current crisis.  Of course, the only legitimate way to do that would be to include a citizens oversight board that would be superior to, and have at their disposal, both of the congressional oversight committees.

Another option that would be a more direct and short-term solution to this particular problem would be to guarantee all mortgages.  If a homeowner fails to make a mortgage payment, there is no foreclosure, no default, the government would make the payment, and the homeowner would then owe the government that amount, collectible at tax time.  I know the IRS already has some trouble collecting all of its debts, but at the very least, it seems like it would stabilize the market, prevent social disruption, and create a system that would transform us into a nation of homeowners rather than a divided nation of owners and renters.  Yes, if you are in the rental business, you might have to find some real work, but it would be a drastic improvement of our society.

I do not pretend to be a master of economics.  If this idea has flaws, and I’m sure it does, feel free to share them in comments, but try to stick to lingo that non-economists can understand.  And of course, if you have a suggestion for a wholly different idea that you believe is better, please make your case.

The Case for Abolishing the Presidency

In high school history and government classes, I was taught the basics of American government, but through a rose-colored lens. Perhaps that lens was placed there beforehand by growing up reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every school day since first grade. Perhaps hearing “with liberty and justice for all” for about half of the days in each year put the idea in my head that it was true, but certainly not much of what I learned in high school history or government, or the required undergraduate government classes in college did much to dispel that notion. However, when I decided to become active in politics and got involved with the Green Party, I began to learn some of the harsher realities that got left out of those courses. Since then, I have learned more about the undemocratic tendencies of our political system, and that liberty and especially justice in this country are reserved for the few.

While there are many aspects of our political system that are undemocratic and/or oppressive of the people’s right to self-government, no institution is more so than the presidency. The mere fact that no singular person can possibly represent the broad range of perspectives of even a small nation, much less one of 300 million, combined with the fact that our system allows the president to populate the highest offices of the executive branch and determine all executive branch policy provides testimony to the unrepresentative nature of the presidency, and thereby the entire executive branch of our federal government. This is compounded by the president’s power to veto legislation that has passed both houses of Congress, nominate justices of the Supreme Court, and to act as commander-in-chief of the mightiest military the world has ever known. The amount of power vested in the office is more than any one person should ever have, and the unrepresentative nature of it makes it completely incompatible with any form of legitimate democracy. These are chief among the reasons why we the people of the United States must develop a movement to abolish the presidency.

While the powers of the presidency may have seemed appropriate in 1787, many realities have changed. The United States has become the world’s largest economy; almost immediately, we developed political parties that have more influence over our national politics than the separation of powers among the branches of government; slavery and indentured servitude have been abolished; former slaves and women have been guaranteed the right to vote; our nation has expanded across the continent; and our military has become more powerful than any in history. Furthermore, beyond our borders, other nations have developed political systems that are more representative that we might borrow if we are truly concerned about “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Perhaps the most important of these changes with regard to the inordinate power of the presidency is the might of our military. In 1787, the most likely, if not the only conceivable use of our military was in defense against a more powerful attacker, especially England, France or Spain, all of which still had colonial entanglements in North America. Indeed, in 1812, we had to defend ourselves against an attack from England. This was perhaps the first and last justifiable use of our military. Regardless, since then our military has engaged in several imperialist wars, and none legitimately in defense of our constitution. Most of these have begun as a result of actions taken by our presidents, and only later approved by Congress with a declaration of war, or in the last six decades by authorization to use military force without such a formal declaration. It is likely the decisions to attack Mexican troops in the disputed territory between the Nueces and Rio Grande Rivers, to initiate an embargo on the Japanese, to fabricate the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and to fail to respond to the attacks on New York and Washington, DC on 9/11/2001 were all done with some consultation among the Cabinet or other presidential advisors, but since all these positions are filled by the president, there is little chance that such deliberations included a broad spectrum of opinions.

Some other aspects of the presidency that have proven to be antidemocratic are less due to changes than to trial and error. For instance, the veto power of the presidency was intended to provide a check on Congress, but the fact that only about 10% of all presidential vetoes have been overturned suggests that the 2/3 supermajority needed to override a veto may be too great an obstacle, unless we are to believe that one person (the president) is 9 times more likely to reach the better conclusion that a democratically deliberative body (Congress). In fact, this is more likely a result of the bipartisan nature of our politics, which makes it nearly inevitable that one party will achieve a majority, but virtually impossible to have a 2/3 supermajority.

Another flaw in our political system that exhibits the undue power of the presidency is that federal judges, including Supreme Court justices are nominated exclusively by the president. Yes, they must also endure the confirmation of the Senate, but no matter how many times the Senate might reject a president’s nominees, the next nomination will also be made by the president. One of the detrimental effects of this system is that the Senate may on occasion confirm a nominee simply to avoid being seen by the public as obstructive, even though it may be the president who is refusing to nominate anyone who is worthy of the position. To some degree, these appointments have always been political, despite the concept that the judiciary should be independent of politics (hence the life tenure granted them in the constitution), but the politics associated with judicial appointments, especially to the Supreme Court, has heightened over time. In fact, I have heard several people argue in regard to this year’s (2008) presidential election that the most important reason to elect a Democrat this year is to ensure that the Republicans are not able to pack the Supreme Court any fuller with conservative justices, and I am sure that there are complementary arguments being made by some conservatives in regard to the rationale for electing a Republican this year, even though the Republican candidate is not very well liked in conservative circles. Consequently, we may elect someone to ostensibly the most powerful position on earth not based on that person’s own merits, but merely because of secondary considerations, such as likely judicial appointments.

All of these very important reasons for not vesting so much power in a singular individual notwithstanding, there is another reason that we should abolish the presidency that I believe is equally important. The preamble of our constitution sets out that the purpose of that document, and our experiment in representative government, includes a desire to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility… promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” By maintaining a system of government that has such a decidedly unrepresentative structure, and that allows the interests of capital to supersede the interests of the people, we have failed to meet any of these objectives. Only by moving closer to democracy, by becoming vastly more representative in both the legislative and executive branches, and by seeking even greater independence for the judiciary, can we hope to realize these aspirations. Only when both the legislative and executive branches are made up of the people in a (proportionally) representative fashion and our judiciary is appointed by a process entirely independent of the other branches of government will We the People be able to set and enforce policy that is truly for the benefit of all, by truly striving for universal justice, peace, welfare and liberty.

The most unrepresentative of these in our current system is certainly the executive branch, which generally represents a large plurality, very nearly a majority, or perhaps sometimes actually a majority of Americans who bother to vote, but in any case, leaving a large portion of the American people unrepresented in the executive branch. While changes are needed in the legislative branch to make it more representative and more functional, the executive branch requires greater change more urgently. Furthermore, although it is difficult to prove empirically that decisions reached through one method are superior to those reached by another, it seems entirely logical that more often a better decision would result from a deliberative process and the meeting of many minds than from allowing one person to make unilateral decisions.

With all these points in mind, I suggest that the American people must create a movement that will eventually replace enough legislators at both the state and federal levels to amend the constitution to abolish the presidency and replace it with an executive committee. That committee, whatever we may call it, should be proportionally representative of the American population as a whole, should rotate the duty of presiding over that committee among its members, and should play no part in the legislative or judicial process. The nation’s military forces should not be commanded by a member of that committee, but should be subordinate to it, and commanded by a smaller committee made up of the various military departments’ chiefs-of-staff and secretaries (or whatever we may choose to call them after the reconfiguration of the executive). Furthermore, I would recommend that each of the departments of the executive (including the various departments of the military) should not have individuals (Secretaries) but rather smaller committees (Secretariats) leading them that are still somewhat representative of the population. The Cabinet could simply be the sum of all the departmental Secretariats.

Since many of the problems of our political system stem from the influence of money on elections, we should either have all state and federal elections paid for entirely through public funds, or we should select federal officials through some method other than national elections. Possibly the best solution would be to combine these two ideas: electing half of the Cabinet (including half of each departmental secretariat) through a publicly-funded party-line proportional vote, and the other half selected by an independent commission, which should be selected randomly to meet proportional demographic criteria. If the membership of the Cabinet is considered too large to make emergency decisions, we could authorize it to select a Steering Committee from among its members, with frequent rotation of terms to prevent any overreaching for personal power.

Although these specific suggestions about how we may eventually revise our executive branch may be different than the actual revisions we may choose through the democratic process of constitutional amendment (or perhaps through a new constitution), the office of the presidency has overstayed its welcome. We must abolish it and replace it with an executive branch that is not partisan and controlled unilaterally, and that does not have the power to control our legislative and judicial branches.

An Open Letter to Ralph Nader

What is the most important political issue in America today? There are probably many different answers to that question; however, most of them, if not all, can be reduced to one important root. In essence, we might say that root is a deficiency of democracy. That is, the core problem that leads to most or all of our other problems is that we are not sufficiently democratic. The people of the United States are not provided with sufficiently equal access to participate in our political deliberations and decisions, even though they affect all our lives, and as a consequence, the decisions made by our government are too often contrary to the interests of the American people, or even the nation as a whole. Instead, our political system provides access to corporations and those with the most capital to spend, and these are the beneficiaries of most of our public policy, often to the detriment of the rest of us, to our nation, and to the world.

For instance, if you are in agreement with the plurality of folks in this country, your answer is “the economy.” So then we must ask ourselves what is the problem with the economy? Again, there might be several different answers. In fact, most of the likely answers to this are actually interconnected. Some might say the problem is outsourcing of jobs. Some might say it is the influx of undocumented immigrants. Others might blame the subprime lending crisis. Yet others may reply that the occupation of Iraq is primarily responsible. The most clearly connected of these issues are immigration and outsourcing. Corporate globalization and so called “free trade” agreements have done considerable harm to the working classes here and in other nations, primarily for the benefit of large multinational corporations. NAFTA is largely responsible for the outsourcing of certain jobs to Mexico while also damaging small farms there and setting off a chain reaction that has led to falling wages throughout Mexico and an increase in immigration, both legal and illegal, into the United States. The combined effect of losing skilled jobs to Mexico and an influx of unskilled labor from Mexico has also had a negative impact on jobs and wages here. While many try to paint the immigrants themselves as the culprits, they are victims of the same policies that we are. So, why did our government approve a policy that would have these effects? Well, certainly some of the politicians who supported it can honestly claim ignorance. Some of them simply believed their “leaders” who told them it was a good idea, and did not believe the thousands of people in the streets who knew it was not. However, many of them were complicit with or unwitting victims of corporate lobbyists (and their own greed, of course). Who has benefited from NAFTA and other such agreements? Almost exclusively, it has been multinational corporations, the politicians who take their money, and the investor class.

Well, what about the other choices? If you are among those who believe the subprime lending/housing crisis is behind our economic hardships, you are not wrong, but you may be among those who simply did not notice that our economy has actually been going downhill for a while. In reality, the subprime banking industry came about because the economy was already slumping. More and more people were finding themselves unable to meet the credit and cash-on-hand standards to purchase a new home, so a new sector of the banking industry was created to meet a new need. Of course, the nature of banking being what it is, the industry that had already sent many of these folks swirling down the economic drain by sucking out their savings through credit card debt incurred from usurious interest rates had to take yet another stab at squeezing out whatever blood might be left in the stone. Well, how does that relate to the other issues, or to the common root issue? To answer that, we must ask how this new subsector of the credit industry was allowed to come into existence. Subprime lending, along with higher credit card rates, payday lending, and new bankruptcy laws that favor the creditors more than ever are results of new changes in related laws that all favor whom? That’s right, large multinational (banking) corporations, the politicians who take their money, and those who can afford to invest in those companies. And who have been the victims? Once again, it has been Americans who have to work 40 or more hours per week to keep food on the table and roofs over their heads. Dare I say “the working class” without fear of some right-wing pundit calling me a class warrior? Yes, I do. One of the hard truths that we must face as a nation is that the solutions to our national problems will inevitably involve the rich becoming less rich. That may not necessarily mean a direct redistribution of wealth, but it does mean at least ending subsidies, no-bid contracts and other sweetheart deals to corporations, tax cuts for the rich, and other laws that favor the wealthy over the rest of us and allow them to get richer from our toil while we get poorer.

That brings us to the other possible answer to what is driving our economy down: the occupation of Iraq. While it is one possible reason for our slumping economy, for other Americans, it is in itself the most important current issue in American politics. So, here we’ll be bridging the gap from the economy to our next subject: the military-industrial complex.

Some of you may call the occupation of Iraq “the war.” I refuse to do that. It is not a war, except a civil war among Iraqis. For the United States military, it is an occupation subsequent to an invasion. Like all our other military misadventures since the end of World War 2, there has been no declaration of war by Congress, and yet again, our troops are there in the middle of another country’s civil war, only this time, they don’t even know which side they’re on.

The problems with the Iraq issue are so numerous, it could easily be a book on its own (and certainly, it already has been), but I will try to keep it as brief as I can. First, I must point out that the invasion was illegal and entirely unwarranted. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or even WMD programs. There were no meaningful connections between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda. There was no authorization from the United Nations Security Council for an invasion. Furthermore, there was a very good reason why there was no such authorization: because anyone who bothered to check the media almost anywhere outside the United States, and even in the “alternative” media within the US knew there were no WMD in Iraq, knew the UN weapons inspectors were doing their jobs and had control of the situation, and knew that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were not a threat to the United States or any of its allies, nor to Iraq’s other neighbors.

Scott Ritter, who had been the UN Chief Weapons Inspector in the 1990’s, before Bill Clinton ordered him and his team out to begin a bombing campaign in Iraq, told us that even then, at least 90-95% of Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons had been destroyed by his team, or destroyed by Iraq and verified by his team. Furthermore, he told us that because of the tough sanctions program and relatively tight monitoring of the Oil For Food program, that US and UK officials inspected just about everything that went into Iraq, and the likelihood of Iraq being able to reconstitute any of its WMD under such scrutiny was very close to zero. That aspect was further supported by reports from humanitarian activists from the US working in Iraq that many needed medicines and other medical supplies were unable to get through to the people of Iraq because they were deemed by the US-UK coalition to be “dual use” materials. Add to that the fact that well before the invasion the UN had assigned Hans Blix to lead a new team of weapons inspectors and had been able to find no evidence of any WMD. Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief inspector, Mohamed El Baradei, had found no evidence of any nuclear weapons capability or program. In addition, the US sent Joseph Wilson to investigate claims that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Niger, and returned to tell us that those claims were false (and then, of course, his wife was outed as an undercover CIA operative as punishment for not playing along with the administration’s game)….

So that was all before the invasion. The rest of the world knew it, and that is why the Security Council would not approve a resolution that authorized an invasion. I knew it, and millions of other Americans knew it, yet somehow 296 of our Representatives and 77 Senators apparently did not, including 81 of 208 (39%) of the “opposition” Democrats in the House and 29 of 50 (58%) Senate Democrats. And if you believe that, there’s a little place in your neighborhood strip center that would like to offer you a payday loan….

The invasion of Iraq and toppling of its previous regime took around 40 days. Our military has been there now for over five years, and despite occasional lulls in the violence of the civil war, there has been no political progress toward creating any sort of sustainable society for the Iraqi people. So again, let’s ask ourselves who is benefiting and who is suffering as a result. The “winners” in this debacle have been Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater and other mercenary groups, the military-industrial complex, the politicians who support them and take their money, and those wealthy enough to invest in those companies…and let’s not forget al-Qaeda, whose recruiting and donations have been rising due to increased antipathy towards the United States, as we show ourselves to be ruthless invaders, imperial occupiers, and corporate colonists. And of course, once again, the losers are the working class of America, who pay a larger portion of their income in taxes to finance military misadventures we cannot afford instead of rebuilding our schools, roads, bridges, levees or power grid, instead of creating new “green” jobs through promotion of renewable energy, and instead of developing a single-payer universal health care system….

Speaking of which, perhaps some of you wondered why I didn’t mention our health care crisis as a possible reason for our economic woes. Others have simply been waiting for me to get to it as their number one issue in our current political vortex. Certainly, many of our nation’s nearly-poor and newly-poor have gotten there because of health care related debt, and this is undoubtedly having a negative effect on our economy, but that is only a part of the problem. As of 2005, the people of the United States spend 53% more per capita than the second biggest health care spenders (Switzerland), and 140% more than the median of other industrialized nations (1), yet our health care system is ranked 37^th in overall effectiveness and 40^th in satisfaction by the World health Organization (2, page 4). Our for-profit health insurance industry spends 31% of its revenue on administrative costs (3), while Medicare overhead costs only about 3%. We spend a large chunk of money reimbursing hospitals for emergency room care for people without insurance, instead of offering a universal health care system that would cost less and cover those same people, and allow them to seek care before it became an emergency, which would, of course, cost even less. Yes, moving to a single-payer system would add some taxes for many of us, but for most, it would be more than offset by eliminating insurance premiums, co-pays, co-insurance, and other health care costs under our current for-profit private insurance system. In this case, even most corporations would benefit from such a move, as they would no longer have to be responsible for maintaining a corporate health care plan to cover their employees (not that they are forced to by law now, but many must in order to compete for employees and/or to meet the demands of labor unions). So then, who benefits from this wrong-headed system? Just two industries really, but they are very powerful: the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and again, the politicians who are in their pockets and the investors who own their stocks.

The other two issues that polls show most Americans believe to be among the most important right now have already been mentioned here: terrorism and immigration Let’s address terrorism first. Despite the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, terrorism did not really measure on the public radar as a major issue until the attacks of September 11, 2001. Since then, despite very few terrorism related arrests, and very few terrorism events, it remains near the top of our list. However, while many Americans are concerned about it more than we were before that tragic event, what are we really doing about it? It is difficult to say exactly, as our government has become very secretive, but in general, when they talk about it, they talk about our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In reality, confronting terrorism has very little to do with the military. Domestic law enforcement is what protects us from most potential avenues of terrorism, and dramatic attacks, like those of 9/11 would involve the military, but in a wholly defensive mode within or very near our own borders, not halfway around the world. Another important step we should be taking to prevent future acts of terrorism is a cultural exchange and outreach to those who seem most likely to threaten us. It is probably common enough knowledge that I need not say it, but I will anyway, to avoid any confusion or ambiguity. The current threat of terrorism seems to be greatest from radical, fundamentalist Islamist groups. One thing we should be doing as a nation in response to this is educating our own people. Specifically, Americans need to have a better understanding of Islam and Islamic cultures. We need to understand that the threat is not from the average Muslim, not from Islamic nations, is not a by-product of Islam as a religion, but is merely a small percentage of Muslims who have perverted their own religion in similar ways to how many Christians have. From the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Salem Witch Trials to the modern apocalyptic fundamentalists who would install a theocracy in place of our pseudo-democracy or the white supremacists who twist the Bible to fit their hatred and xenophobia, we have seen this before in a slightly different mask. We should also be developing diplomatic, political and economic connections with the people of the world, not only in Islamic nations, but also in southern Africa and South America, rather than pursuing corporate globalization and military hegemony that can only lead to further anti-American sentiment that might lead to new waves of terrorism in the future. We should also realize that there is a continuing threat of domestic “terrorism.” Within the US, there are separatist and survivalist groups who are usually well-armed and generally unhappy about the current state of affairs in our own country. Despite that threat, our government will often cite anarchists, environmentalists and animal rights groups as our greatest domestic terror threats, despite the fact that these groups, while often guilty of acts of vandalism, almost never cause injury (or death). Nevertheless, whether we call them terrorists or vandals, we should realize that their actions are a response to our society, and while we may not be willing to alter our behavior as they would desire, there might be avenues of progress that could diminish the threat without adversely affecting our society.

Furthermore, there is another type of domestic terrorism that we usually do not call by that name: violent crime, or even crime in general. While our overall crime rate has not risen dramatically, our perception as portrayed in our mainstream media suggests that it has. Furthermore, while the number or percentage of incidents of crime may not be increasing, perhaps the intensity is, although that may also be merely an impression resulting from media sensationalism. In any case, rather than merely calling attention to it, increasing law enforcement efforts (which never actually reduce any sort of crime), imprisoning more Americans, and propagating fear (i.e. terror), we ought to be taking proactive steps to reduce crime in America that can only come from addressing the controllable causes of criminal behavior. For the most part, these are socio-economic: poverty, unemployment, inadequate education, homelessness, social isolation. It should be easy to see that these are interconnected issues that lead us back to where this discussion began: our failing economy.

Moreover, as we look at each of these subgroups of “terrorism,” we see that our military approach to international terrorism has not only failed to decrease the risk, but has actually strengthened the groups we have singled out. The more we antagonize people in Iraq and Afghanistan by destroying their lands and killing their people, including tremendous numbers of civilians, the more we increase anti-American sentiment, which results in both greater funding and new recruits for the very groups we should be trying to diminish. Similarly, our economic and military policies in other parts of the world only increase the risk that new terror threats will grow from them, and our domestic “crack down” approach to crime and home-grown “terrorism” increases the number of people in prisons and children without one or both parents in the home, but does nothing to actually address the conditions that drive people to criminal behavior. Why? The military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, our antiquated fossil-fuel energy industry, and huge agricultural corporations are driving policy rather than the people.

Finally, we come to immigration. As I noted earlier, one of the primary causes of our increases in immigration in the last decade or so has been NAFTA. Passed in 1994 and effective in 1995, it has allowed subsidized American corporations to sell cheap foods and other goods in Mexico, driving many small farms and other small businesses out of business, or at least forcing layoffs as smaller producers transition to niche markets. This drives unskilled workers into urban centers where they can work below standard Mexican wage levels for newly relocated American corporations who have moved there for cheaper labor and production costs. This drives wages down and forces workers north for better wages, and driving some of them, as well as many displaced workers in the north, across the border to find work in the US. Simultaneously, of course, those jobs that have moved south of the border have evaporated from the American economy, creating higher unemployment here, which in turn creates hostility toward the immigrants who have come here to work. However, the jobs must be here, or they could not stay. Yet our government fails to increase the quotas for immigration to match the actual demand for the labor, so we end up with a tremendous number of undocumented workers. Certainly, they do not remain undocumented and receive lower wages without any occupational safety protection or other standards purely by choice. Some may immigrate hoping to achieve citizenship, others may simply desire employment and an eventual return to their home country, but our failure to provide a pathway to either in sufficient number to meet our own demand is simply that: our failure. The results are:

• the anger of many Americans over what they see as criminal behavior, again as a result of economic conditions imposed by our own policy;
• millions of undocumented people in this country who are probably afraid to come forward to report crimes, create black markets for a variety of goods and services, are virtually untraceable to our law enforcement if they do commit a crime, etc.;
• reduced wages and occupational safety standards for all American workers, especially in those industries that use considerable amounts of undocumented workers.

I probably should not even need to say it by now, but once again, let us ask ourselves who is benefiting from these policies. Undoubtedly our answer again will be corporations (those selling cheap goods in Mexico, those taking advantage of cheaper overhead costs for production, and those hiring undocumented workers at reduced wages and not maintaining proper safety standards here in the US), the politicians who accept their contributions, and the stockholders in those companies.

It should not be difficult to understand now that all of our top political issues are problems stemming from the influence of corporate lobbyists and corporate money in our political system and the solution to all of these problems begins with reversing that. On this, I am sure that Ralph Nader would fundamentally agree; however, where we differ is in how we should confront this problem.

Earlier this year, I attempted to mount a campaign for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives to initiate a plan to tackle this issue by shifting political power to the people. I believe that it could be a very effective plan, but it will require someone other than me to pick up the banner. I believe you, Ralph Nader, could be that person. While my base of support was a small number of Greens, a few progressive independents and even a few Democrats here in Travis County, several of whom did not even live in the district; you have a national support network, national name recognition and considerably more resources than I. While it is certainly too late for you to exit the presidential contest this year and begin a congressional race, I hope that you may still be willing to consider a congressional run in 2010, utilizing some or all of my plan for bringing the people of your district, and eventually all Americans, into the political process in a much more meaningful way than merely voting.

The main plank of my platform was to develop a path by which every resident in the district could participate directly in discussion and deliberation of the issues; and through a democratic process, reach decisions that will be based on the needs of the people not of corporations; to seek solutions, not quick profits; and to direct their representative in Congress to pursue those solutions, or face a certain defeat in the next election.

My plan might have to be adjusted somewhat to fit the specifics of your district and others, but what I did was divide the district into 16 divisions of between 12 and 19 voting precincts each in such a way that each division was entirely embedded in one county (My district includes six whole counties and portions of two others). If I had been elected, the process would have worked like this:

Twice a year, each precinct would hold a caucus. These would be entirely separate from the partisan caucuses of primary season. Rather, they would be transpartisan, open to every registered voter in the precinct. If a caucus exceeded two hundred participants, it would be subdivided into assemblies of two hundred or fewer. Each caucus (or assembly thereof) would discuss the various issues of concern, and try to achieve some resolutions.

At the end of the session, each caucus would elect four or five delegates using Single Transferable Voting, or some such system that would produce a proportional balance of representation. These delegates would then attend a division assembly, where they would each bring forth the resolutions passed by their precincts. When possible, several resolutions might be combined into a compromise resolution. Again, after their deliberations, they would elect delegates to a district assembly.

The district assembly would meet at least once per month until the next one was elected (roughly six months), and would serve as the advisory committee to the Congressional Representative. In addition to their monthly deliberative sessions, they would also hold an open hearing each month for residents to express their concerns on issues that might arise or change between precinct assemblies.

This process would provide a way for voters to participate directly in discussions and deliberations that could actually affect the way their representative votes in Congress, a more meaningful access path to their representative than letters or phone calls, and would create an organizational structure that citizens could use to oversee their representative, apply political pressure, and if necessary, choose and elect someone else who would be more responsive to the people’s concerns.

Of course, none of the career politicians who currently inhabit our Congress is likely to initiate such a plan, and despite the best efforts of myself and the state and county Green Party organizations, we were unable to provide this opportunity to move closer to democracy here in Texas. I can think of no person besides you who might be both willing and likely to succeed in such a venture. I know that running for the presidency in some sense give you a chance to talk about crucial issues on a national stage, but more and more, you are being shut out from that national stage, despite of, or perhaps because of your presidential bids. This would give you a chance to set in motion a real process of democratization that the corporate media could not stop.

Ideally, if you win and establish these democratic assemblies in your district, it will inspire the residents of other districts to organize in similar fashion and develop a Congress that is entirely accountable to the people. Perhaps that will eventually lead to amending our constitution to enshrine such democracy into our political system officially, and make even more democratic progress, like allowing the people the ability to recall a representative in mid-term. I sincerely hope you will choose to use the popularity and other resources you have won over the years to give the American people one more gift. I am opening the door, but you must step through it. Welcome to democracy.

In pursuit of liberty and justice for all

Even with the progress our society has made in 221 years since the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, we are still far from achieving the lofty goals laid out in the Preamble, or reiterated in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (“government of the people, by the people and for the people”) or the Pledge of Allegiance (“liberty and justice for all”). Our government has been usurped by corporate lobbyists, and a number of other special interest groups, none of which are synonymous with “we the people.” I contend that the only way to achieve these goals is for power to rest with “all” rather than the select few. This is the essence of democracy, and it is why I am an advocate for a more democratic system of governance.

One of the arguments against democracy is that it can be inefficient. However, there is also an argument to be made that democracy can be more efficient than any other form of government in implementing policy and law. This is because when there is broader participation in making a decision, there is also greater acceptance of the decision that is eventually reached, making implementation of the law or policy more efficient and effective.

Another argument often leveled against democracy is that it can lead to tyranny by the majority; however, a truly democratic process involves all perspectives in any debate and ensures that no viewpoint is left out, thus making it less likely that any minority will be tyrannized by the result. In fact, it is a system such as our current two-party system with winner-take-all districts that leaves significant segments of the population out of virtually every decision and results in the marginalization of many minorities.

Of course, marginalization, especially when it becomes systematic, leads to social degradation, which hurts even those who benefit politically and/or economically from the inequalities of the system.
Thus, it is in everyone’s best long-term interest to pursue democracy and justice.

To that end, I suggest that we need to change the following undemocratic aspects of our constitution.

I. The Presidency

First and foremost, we must abolish the most undemocratic aspect of our political system. In the presidency, our constitution gives one single individual tremendous power, including the power to:

• veto legislation passed by both houses of Congress
• appoint all federal judges to any vacancies occurring during his term
• appoint and direct the heads of the various executive departments, as well as ambassadors
• be the chief commander of all national military forces
• issue Executive Orders

These are not the sum of all powers of the president, but they are sufficient to point out the tremendous power invested in one individual, who is not required to deliberate with anyone in reaching decisions on these matters. Indeed, there are checks on three of these, as Congress can override a veto, and the Senate must confirm appointments of judges and executive officers. However, empirical evidence shows us that presidential vetoes are only overridden 5% of the time. Worse, consider the case of Executive Orders.  If Congress were to attempt to supersede an executive order by passing a law, the president would have the power to veto that bill and force Congress to achieve a supermajority in both houses.  Obviously, the president has a stronger position in regard to legislation than does the legislative branch of government.  That is unacceptable in even a pseudo-democracy such as we have.  Furthermore, while the Senate may refuse to confirm an appointee, it has no power to direct the president’s next choice, and if they end their session without confirming an appointment, the president can make a “recess appointment” thereby temporarily sidestepping the need for Senate confirmation.   Thus, in all these cases, the power of the president far outweighs the power of Congress. And while there are problems with how we elect our Congress that make it less than ideally democratic, it is nevertheless a far more democratic body than the office of the president, held by a single individual. If one of these should have more power, it should be Congress.

In the place of the president, we should create some sort of executive council. Perhaps we might retain the term Cabinet for the interdepartmental federal executive council. Rather than a nationwide election in which the issues are subverted by personality and marketing, we should institute a more deliberative but representative process for selecting those who will serve in the top offices of the executive. Furthermore, rather than individuals serving as the chief officers of each department (Secretaries), I suggest that each department should have a small deliberative body of four or five individuals making executive decisions (Secretariats?). Each of these Secretariats should be chosen in a way that will allow for some degree of proportional representation of the American population in each department rather than the one-party executive we have today. One member of each Secretariat should serve on the Cabinet, and that responsibility should rotate among the members of each Secretariat every year, so that no individual will have too much influence on the federal executive. The Cabinet should be a body that will deliberate on behalf of the American people with continuity from one to the next, instead of being dominated by any individual or party with distinct “administrations” and often dramatic shifts in policy between them.

In terms of the selection process, I suggest some sort of random selection process of citizens that will guarantee that every political viewpoint, age group, gender and gender identity, race, sexual preference, and socioeconomic class will be represented proportionally. These citizens would then evaluate candidates for executive and judicial positions. I suggest that they be divided into three groups. The first and largest group would evaluate applications and resumes of candidates, and refer the best choices to the second group, who would nominate the requisite number of candidates for each position, and rank the others referred to them as alternates. Then the third group would evaluate those nominated by the second group, confirming or denying each, and considering alternates for each candidate denied in the order ranked by the second group.

II. The Federal Judiciary

Second, aside from the presidency, the least democratic aspect of our government is that our federal judges serve life terms. Of course, part of the problem with the federal judiciary is also that they are appointed by the president. If we adopted the changes above, this aspect would be less egregious, but I still agree with those constitutional scholars who advocate a single fixed term for federal judges.

One of the primary reasons for life terms for federal judges was to avoid their being dependent on the politics of the day for their positions. Changing the selection process so that they are not appointed by a single partisan individual (president) and confirmed by a political body (Senate) and instead using a system like that described above should also provide some insulation against the politicization of judges, but in any case, a single term of ten to eighteen years should be sufficient to ensure that judges are able to stay above the political fray, and by making the term non-renewable, it should remove any further temptation to succumb to political influence.

Additionally, the duties of the Supreme Court should be divided among several courts. We should have one court whose function is solely to determine the constitutionality of statutes. This Constitutional Court should have two tiers. There should be several regional courts to which a civil or criminal court can refer a case for consideration of constitutionality, and a superior court to which appeals from these regional courts could be made. However, these courts would make no decisions specifically about the outcome of the original case. After the Constitutional Courts had reached their decision, the case would be returned to the original civil or criminal court.

We should also divide the Supreme Court into civil and criminal branches, and each branch should have three coequal courts, each having jurisdiction over three of the circuit courts of appeals. This should allow many more cases to be heard at the highest level, and remove some of what I believe are political reasons for not hearing cases.

III. The Legislative Branch

Undoubtedly, the legislative branch is the most democratic of the three branches of our federal government, yet there are still many problems with it that separate the government from the people. Democracy is citizen self-government, and that goal will only be realized when the citizens and the government are in essence synonymous. The legislative branch is the most likely place to make this a reality.

In order to set out a better design without completely starting over, we need to look at what is wrong with our current system. One is the incredibly disproportionate Senate. Seven cities in the U.S. have over a million residents, and seven states have fewer than a million. Three of those cities are in Texas, and two are in California. Those three largest cities in Texas combined — Houston, San Antonio and Dallas — have a larger population than the six smallest states combined. The two largest cities in California (LA and San Diego) have more people than all seven of the smallest states combined. Nevertheless, Texas gets two senators, and California gets two senators, and so do Wyoming, Vermont, North and South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware and Montana.

Since no legislation can be passed without going through both the House and the Senate, thus giving each house a “veto” over the other one, this gives these small states, and to some extent, their residents, an inordinate amount of power on the national stage. Of course, it is not as egregious as the presidential veto, but it is a problem that should be addressed.

A related problem is that it would seem on the surface that we can do little about this problem, due to the final clause of Article Five of the constitution: “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” However, we do have some options. There are also other problems related to Article V, including the requirement that amendments be passed by 3/4 of the states. While it is understandable that we would not want 26 states to be able to ratify an amendment to which the other 24 states have principled objections, neither does it seem just that 13 states can prevent the other 37 from fixing what they see as a problem in the constitution. I will address my ideas for remedies to such problems later, or perhaps in a separate post, but the important point now is that these point out that we do not, and can not have equal justice for all Americans with these problems in our constitution.

Another problem with the legislative branch is the way we choose our legislators. That is, our voting systems are not the best ones to insure that the people are best represented in Congress. We have a system in which every state with more than one representative in the House of Representatives uses an individual congressional district for each seat, and each district then can choose only one person to represent all the people who dwell there. It should not be hard to imagine then, especially given that each of our congressional districts has over half a million residents, that one person cannot truly represent all of the people in such a district. While there may be no perfectly representative system, since our constitution was written, several other nations have implemented systems of proportional representation, and have shown such systems to be a better way of representing a broader cross-section of a population.

Some might argue that this problem does not stem from the constitution and therefore does not require a constitutional amendment to fix. We could indeed pass a proportional representation statute that would not violate the existing constitution, but the Preamble sets out the purpose of the constitution as “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Defining the means of selecting representatives to ensure that we provide ourselves the best method of representation possible would seem an important step to most of these ends, while failing to do so has allowed us to continue using an inferior system, even when proportional systems have been in use in many countries for nearly a century.

There are several issues that we must confront with regard to the conduct of elections.  Paper ballots vs. electronic/computerized voting, full public financing, and free and equal media ads are among the most important issues we must face in regard to how we elect officials.   However, I think we can eliminate these issues entirely by changing the way we elect public officials entirely.  By moving to a system wherein we begin our legislative process at the local level in community assemblies of no more than 200 people, and proportionally elect delegates to wider and wider-area assemblies until we select our city, county, district, state and federal representatives through these assemblies.   Using this system, there will be no protracted campaigns.  Elections will be among the members of an assembly based on the proceedings of that assembly, not on advertising or other methods requiring any funds.  In an assembly of 200 or fewer people, the votes will be easy to recount and verify.

One issue that we should address immediately, and which should remain in place even if we move to a system of graduated assemblies is term limits.  Democracy begs that as many of us as possible be afforded the opportunity to participate in some aspect of our government and that we eliminate career politicians.  Therefore, no person should serve more than one consecutive term in any office, and should serve no more than four years in any ten year period.

Conclusion

With so many changes to our constitution needed, and very little chance that career politicians will voluntarily take these steps to bring about a participatory democracy that will eliminate their jobs, we the people will need to bring these changes about by some means not expressly laid out in our current constitution.

I suggest that we should build a national transpartisan organization, a citizens’ union, similar in many ways to a trade union, but open to all Americans regardless of employment status, and negotiating not with employers but with our governmental officials.  When we have built a substantial organization, then we will have the ability to elect new officials to replace those who do not support the democracy we seek with others who will support the constitutional amendments we hope to achieve.  Failing that, we can create the local and graduated assemblies of a future democracy and use those to propose constitutional amendments and pass them on to the national level, and then to call state conventions to ratify them.

Starting Over

Well, my campaign for Congress is now over because the Green party was not able to gather enough petition signatures to achieve ballot access in Texas.  During the campaign, I had neglected this blog to focus on creating and maintaining a campaign website (which was also a WordPress blog).  It is now time for me to return to this one.  I have moved the old position pages into an archive, and will write new pages and posts here to express my current views on where we should be going, and how we might get there.

A New Strategy: TRIMBLE IS DEMOCRACY

I have undertaken a personal path toward democratizing my corner of the country.  I am running for Congress in Texas’ 25th Congressional district.  The key element of my campaign is that I am promising the people of this district that I will establish a democratic process here that will enable all citizens in the district to express their ideas in a meaningful way, and for the ideas of the people to have a clear path for progressing to me, or whoever the Congressional representative may be.  If I am elected, I can guarantee the establishment of this process, and that I will use that resource to stay in tune with the people of the district, and to ensure that I will vote in Congress as a directed representative of the people of the district, and not for corporations or other special interests.  However, even if I am not elected, if we can develop some momentum in the campaign, then we may be able to continue with the creation of this mechanism for getting the people into the discussions that affect their lives.  Furthermore, if we set up this system, the people will also be able to use it to influence other elected representatives at all levels of government.

For more info about my campaign go to Scott Trimble for Congress.  Remember: A vote for TRIMBLE IS a vote for DEMOCRACY.

A Strategy for Moving Toward Democracy

 

Ultimately, we should amend the Constitution to make our system more democratic, to eliminate the distinction between government and the people, to ensure that we are all represented in the processes of governing, and to require more deliberative decision-making in all aspects of government. However, that is certainly not something that will happen easily or of its own accord. Therefore, we must create a strategy, with certain steps that we can begin immediately.

The most important factors in a successful democracy, and in the success of any people’s movement, are organization and participation, so let us begin by building these. While I do not intend to destroy partisanship, in order to build a truly democratic people’s movement, we must be able to set aside our partisan differences when organizing.

Right now, we have single-member districts in Congress, and single-seat Senate offices elected separately in different election cycles. So, in every Congressional district, we are each supposedly represented by one person, despite our ideological differences. Of course, it is impossible for one person to represent the diversity of viewpoints of over half a million people, so each representative is really only representing the majority who elected him or her to office. The remainder of people in each district are more or less unrepresented. If we presume the average margin of victory in a Congressional election is 60-40 (and I certainly do not know the correct average, but if you do, please fill us in), then about 40% of the voting population is unrepresented in Congress. Furthermore, at least 30-50% of the voting age population either registers but doesn’t vote, or never even bothers to register. Another roughly 30% of Americans are not yet old enough to vote at any given time. By my calculations, as many as 78% of us are not actually being represented. Furthermore, even those who did vote for the candidate who won the election do not have an equal amount of influence over their representatives as do the lobbyists or the corporations and other interests they serve. When viewed in this sense, only those who can make very large campaign contributions and/or offer something else to the political careers of these politicians can really hope to have their ears. It is very hard to even attempt a calculation of how many people this leaves out, but I’d venture a guess that less than 5%, and probably closer to 1% of the population is actually being represented, and another small percentage may agree with the decisions of their member of Congress or other elected officials enough of the time to feel represented.

The question is: what do we do about it?
Well, to begin with, I think we need to organize at the most local levels. That is, we need to form associations in our voting precincts. The two major parties already do this in most precincts, but these are partisan organizations that ultimately work to serve the status quo, which as I’ve pointed out, really doesn’t serve the people. We need to build pan-partisan organizations in every precinct that can assemble occasionally — perhaps once a month? once every two months? — and discuss the issues that concern them. At the local level, we may find there is less polarization of views than we see in national politics, but even if there is just as much, we must not let that discourage us.

Then we must form associations with the other precincts that are in the same counties, congressional district, state legislative districts, etc. In many places (like here in Texas), this may require several different coalitions of precinct organizations. For instance, here in Austin, most of the city is in one county, Travis, but the county is divided into five state legislative districts, and three different congressional districts reach into the county. While there will be several precincts that will share city, county, state leg. district and congressional districts with mine, others will share only some of these.

It would be great for these citizens’ organizations to push for embedded jurisdictions to eliminate these different associations, but each state may have to develop a different answer for that. Here in Texas, we have 34 Congressional districts, 31 state Senate districts, and 150 state House districts. One way we might remedy the problem here would be to change our state constitution to make the number of state senate districts equal to the number of congressional districts, and to make their boundaries identical. Then we might add that each of these districts be divided into five legislative districts, or that each district will elect five representatives to the state House by a proportional representation method. Using proportional representation, we might also push for different divisions, and I believe proportional representation will serve the people much better, but we can reserve these discussions to our assemblies after we form them.

In any case, until such reforms are made, each precinct may need to elect one set of delegates to represent it at the county assembly, and a different set of delegates to represent them at the state House district assembly. Congressional districts and maybe some other jurisdictions may also need to be divided into subdivisions in order to have effective assemblies. I’d suggest each precinct, and each higher level assembly, should elect 3-6 delegates to represent its various constituencies at the next higher level assembly. I’d also suggest that they carry with them proxy votes according to how many people each is representing. At some point in wider area assemblies, it may be more efficient to have each proxy represent 100 or some other number of votes, but by carrying the proxies up through each level, we will still be representing each person.

When the assembly of delegates meets representing the entire congressional district, the decisions reached there can be taken to the member of Congress for that district, and the people can tell him/her that the people of your district want X, and if any member of Congress should make a habit of ignoring the will of the people in that district, there should already exist through these assemblies a strong enough organization to remove that member from office in the next election.

Eventually, we need to force our representatives to propose constitutional amendments to bring in proportional representation with proxy voting so that each of us will be represented, but until then, we can at least each participate at the local level and be represented in these assemblies that will take our issues directly to our elected leaders servants.

In most places, organizing these assemblies will not be easy either. Americans have largely become too complacent, apathetic, or just too damn busy trying to make ends meet to be involved in politics. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t have opinions. So, prior to forming precinct associations, we might need to conduct precinct-level surveys, or surveys for the relevant jurisdiction based on the issues being addressed. Undoubtedly, these will be more informal and less scientific than surveys by professional pollsters, but I don’t think we should let that discourage our efforts. We need to form local polling groups who will try to get opinions from as many people of as many varied perspectives as possible within the relevant jurisdiction to the topic, and take those results to the elected representatives, and to the press. Make sure everyone there knows the results, and knows that the official(s) in question also knows them. If these results are routinely ignored, or ignored on the most important issues, use that information against them in their next bid for reelection. Once the surveys show some clout, it may get easier to get people to get involved. And really, the local assembly is just a survey taken in one time and place. And of course, the larger the percentage of participation, the more valid the results become.

Please share your thoughts, critiques, additional ideas, etc.

Amendment Proposal – 4th revision – legislative branch

In this section, I will use the same technique as I did on the 4th revision page regarding the executive branch. I will begin with the current text of Article I of the U.S. Constitution in italics, and I will add my suggested edits and additions in bold.

Article. I. – The Legislative Branch

Section 1 – The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2 – The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

No person who is currently serving, or has served any elected or appointed government office, or as a delegate to an elected Citizens’ Assembly, in the two year period preceding the beginning of the term for which the election is being held shall be eligible. No person shall serve in such office for consecutive terms, nor more than two terms in any ten year period.

The actual Enumeration shall be made every Term of ten Years, according to the United States Census. The Number of Representative Districts for each state shall be determined by multiplying the state’s percentage of the whole population of all the states and the District of Columbia by seventy-four. Fractions below 1/2 will be rounded down, except that no state nor the District of Columbia shall have less than one District.

Each District shall elect five Representatives according to Single Transferable Vote. Each Representative shall carry in the House one proxy vote for every ten thousand votes received in the election, but no Representative shall have less than one proxy vote.

The presiding officer of the House of Representatives shall be The Speaker of the House, who shall be chosen from its membership by the other members at the beginning of each session.

Section 3 – The Senate

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of four Senators from each State, elected for four Years in a single statewide election by Single Transferable Vote; and each Senator shall have one Vote for each percent of the total vote received from the state in the election, so that each state shall have one hundred votes.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

No person who is currently serving, or has served any elected or appointed government office, or as a delegate to an elected Citizens’ Assembly, in the two year period preceding the beginning of the term for which the election is being held shall be eligible. No person shall serve in such office for consecutive terms, nor more than one term in any fifteen year period.

The Senate shall elect a President of the Senate and a Senate Minority Leader (maybe we can come up with a better title for this office), who shall be of a different political party than the President of the Senate.

Section 4 – Sessions

The Congress shall convene for four sessions every year. The first shall convene on January 3rd, and remain in session until the first day of March. The second session shall begin on the first day of Spring and adjourn on the first day of June. The third session shall begin on the first day of Summer and adjourn on the first day of September. The fourth session shall begin on the first day of Autumn and adjourn on the ninth day of December.

In the recesses between sessions, Representatives shall meet with their District Councils, and Senators shall meet with their State Councils.

Section 5 – Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, except those rules that are outlined in this Constitution or elsewhere by Law.

Each House, and all committees thereof, shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and publish the same; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6 – Compensation

The members of Congress shall receive compensation for their services at a salary equal to the median household income for all the United States, according to the most recent Census.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section 7 – Presidential Veto and Legislative Process

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States where it shall be subject to a veto process, as outlined hereafter.

Upon a veto of a bill, each House shall reconsider the bill. A vetoed bill that cannot attain at least 3/5 of each House shall be considered failed. If it shall be approved by at least 3/5 but less than 2/3 of either House, the presiding officer of that House must assign an ad hoc committee to amend the bill in attempt to gain the necessary 2/3 for passage. The sponsor of the bill and one other member, chosen by those members voting in favor, and two other members elected by those members voting against, shall convene to deliberate on how to amend the bill to achieve a 2/3 vote. Once amended, another vote shall be taken, and this same rule shall apply until it either shall fail, be passed, or be withdrawn.

Section 8 – Removal From Office and Citizens’ Assemblies

When electing members of Congress, each voter shall be able to choose either a public or private ballot. Those choosing private ballots shall have their votes counted, but shall not be eligible to participate in Recalls of any member of Congress, or in Citizens’ Assemblies. Those who choose a public ballot shall be entitled to participate in both Recalls and Citizens’ Assemblies.

Within 60 days after the announcement of election results in each precinct, the clerk thereof shall deliver, by U.S. Mail, to each voter who selected a public ballot, an invitation to a Precinct Assembly. This invitation shall also designate the Representative and Senator for which that person’s vote was counted. Until the next election for each office, that person shall be considered a Constituent of that Representative and/or Senator. If a person who chose a public ballot cannot be considered a Constituent of any Representative, then he or she shall be considered a Constituent of all the Representative in the District. In like fashion, if any person who selected a public ballot is not considered a Constituent of any particular Senator, then he or she shall be considered a Constituent of all the Senators in that State.

A. Citizens’ Assemblies

Precinct Assemblies shall convene on the 90th day after the election of Congress. This day shall hereafter be a national holiday, and shall be called Precinct Day.

The Precinct Assemblies may designate committees. elect officers, determine or adjust rules, except those defined hereafter or elsewhere by law, set an agenda, and determine any future assembly dates.

The legislature of each state may determine the number of levels of citizens assemblies above the Precinct level as needed for greatest efficiency in that state, provided that:

1. All assemblies shall elect four delegates to the next level of assembly, and all such elections shall be according to Single Transferable Vote.

2. If any Precinct Assembly should have more than three hundred participants, it shall immediately divide itself into a number of separate assemblies such that each shall have fewer than three hundred members. Prior to the next election, the state legislature, or some delegated authority thereof, must then reapportion that precinct, or any number of precincts, so that no precinct will have more than that number of members.

3. No elected assembly shall have more than two hundred delegates.

4. There shall be an Assembly for each legislative district of the state, each federal Representative District, and for the whole state. In states with bicameral legislatures, there should be an assembly for each district of each house.

5. No person serving as an elected or appointed officer in any level of government may serve as a delegate to any elected assembly, but may participate in the Precinct Assembly of residence.

6. Once any elected assembly convenes, the delegates thereof shall cease to be members of the assembly from which they were elected.

7. All delegates at all higher level assemblies shall be compensated for their service for each day of travel and each day in session at a rate of one-fourth the average monthly rental rate of a single-person dwelling in that state per day. They shall not be paid for days the assembly is not in session, or on which the delegate is not in attendance, except for travel days.

8. After the election of delegates to a higher level assembly, a lower assembly shall not meet in excess of two days per month, unless authorized by the state legislature, or called to special session by a higher level assembly, except that Federal District Assemblies shall meet one additional session each quarter, during the recesses of Congress, to advise the District’s Representatives concerning the will of the people. These quarterly sessions shall consist of at least two days of open public testimony, at least one day of deliberation, at least one day of joint session with the Representatives, and not more than ten days total.

9. Attending Citizens Assemblies shall be considered a civic duty. No person attending any Citizens Assembly shall be terminated, demoted, suffer a reduction of pay, except in not being paid for those specific days in attendance of the Assemblies, or in any other way reprimanded by his or her employer for participating in these Assemblies.

10. District Councils shall convene no later than the last Monday of June in odd numbered years, and Statewide Citizens’ Assemblies shall convene no later than the last Monday of September in odd numbered years.

11. Delegates to any elected assembly shall remain members of that assembly until the next assembly is elected two years later, except those elected to higher assemblies.

B. Recall

Each level of Citizens’ Assembly shall have Committees for the Constituents of every Senator and Representative.

Recalls of any member of Congress may only be proposed or voted on in the Committees of his or her Constituents. If the Constituents of a Representative pass a recall measure in the Constituent Committee of District Council, there shall be a thirty day filing period for new candidates to register for a special election. The current Representative shall automatically be registered as a candidate, unless he or she withdraws from the election. Thereafter, all Constituents of that Representative in the District shall be entitled to vote in a special election, using an Instant Runoff Vote to determine who shall serve that constituency for the remainder of the term.

No member of Congress shall be subject to more than one recall measure in a single term.

In case of removal from office for any other reason, including resignation, illness, incapacity, incarceration or death, a similar special election of designated constituents shall elect a replacement.

Section 9 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the people of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years, and no army but reserves or reserve state militias may be kept in times of peace, except the necessary personnel to train and maintain those reserves, and those necessary to protect the nation’s borders and air space;

To provide and maintain a Navy, but only a Navy sufficient to protect the nation’s territorial waters, guard the coastlines, and train and maintain a Naval reserve shall be kept in time of peace;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 10 – Limits on Congress

Congress may not borrow money on the credit of the United States, unless authorized by 2/3 of the Precinct Assemblies and 2/3 of the State Legislatures.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published every year.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section 11 – Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. and

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 its Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Amendment Proposal – 4th revision – Executive Branch

 

I have tried to explain my rationale for the abolition of the presidency to a variety of folks on different blogs, but have been met with nearly unanimous opposition to the idea. Apparently, this idea is too radical for even most Americans who are trying to reform the system. Therefore, instead of that concept, I will offer some less radical suggestions on amending Article II of our Constitution. I hope this will meet with more open-minded consideration.

Below I have copied the original text of Article II of the Constitution (italicized) and will add my comments and amendment ideas in bold.

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in several Executive Departments, coordinated by a Cabinet, whose presiding officer shall be the President of the United States of America. The various chief officials of the executive branch shall hold office during the term of four years, and be elected or appointed as follows:

The President and a Vice President shall be elected separately in a national election, according to the principles of instant runoff voting.

The various departments of the executive shall be administered by a Secretary, a Deputy Secretary and an Undersecretary. The President, the Vice President, the Senate President Pro Tempore, and the Senate Minority Leader shall each nominate not less than one nor more than two candidates for each of these offices. Between the fifth and ninth days after the inauguration of the President and Vice President, the candidates shall be interviewed by the Committee of the House of Representatives responsible for oversight of the relevant executive department. The House Committees shall narrow each field to three candidates, and nominate these to the relevant Senate Committees. The Senate Committees shall nominate a single candidate from these for each position, and submit them to a confirmation vote of the entire Senate.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office or any of the chief executive offices described in this article who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

In the case of removal, resignation, death or other inability to carry out the duties of office of any other chief officer of the executive branch, Secretaries shall be replaced by Deputy Secretaries, who shall be replaced by Undersecretaries, and each department shall designate at least five other positions in that department in specific order to succeed these officers, and upon approval by the relevant House and Senate Committees, these orders of succession shall become law.

These officers of the executive shall, at stated times, receive for their services, compensation which shall neither be increased nor diminished during their term, and shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before entering on the execution of office, they shall each take the following oath or affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of [title of office], and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Section 2.

A. The Military

Whenever there exists no declaration of war by Congress, the command of the military shall be by a Defense Command Committee consisting of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Undersecretary of the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President, Vice President, and chairs and ranking minority members of the Armed Forces Committees of both the House and Senate. In deliberations of this Committee, the Secretary of Defense shall have two votes, and the President shall have three.

Upon declaration of war by Congress, or upon invasion by a foreign power, it may designate one member of this Committee to be Commander-In-Chief. Until such appointment is made, the President shall serve as Commander-In-Chief. At any time during such war, the Congress may appoint any other member of this Committee to replace the Commander-In-Chief.

Unless there is a declaration of war, the military shall remain primarily a reserve force, with only enough regular full-time personnel to maintain a defense of the national borders, airspace, and territorial waters against foreign invasion.

B. Executive Departments

Operation of the executive departments shall be by joint decisions of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Undersecretary of each. In these deliberations, the Secretary shall have two votes, and in case of a tie, the President shall cast the deciding vote.

All decisions that involve the coordination or cooperation of more than one of the executive departments shall be made by the Cabinet. The Cabinet shall consist of the President, Vice President and the Secretaries of the various executive departments. In sessions of the Cabinet, the President shall preside and shall cast two votes.

The Cabinet may exercise authority over the operations of a department only by a 3/4 vote.

C. Pardons and Reprieves

The President, the Attorney General, and the Party Leaders in each House of Congress of all Parties represented in each House, shall have the power to appoint one member each to the Federal Board of Pardons and Paroles, which shall be the sole authority to grant pardons and reprieves in matters of federal law.

D. Treaties

The Secretary of the Department of State shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Foreign Affairs Committees of both the House and the Senate, to make treaties.

Repeal or withdrawal from treaties and other international agreements may be recommended by the President, the Secretary of State, the State Department, or the Cabinet, but must be approved by both houses of Congress.

E. Other Appointments

The President, Vice President, President Pro Tempore and Senate Minority Leader shall each nominate not more than two persons to be considered to be Ambassadors, Consuls, Federal Judges, and other officers of the federal government. The relevant House Committee shall choose three of these to be interviewed by the relevant Senate Committee, which shall designate one person for each position, who upon approval by the entire Senate shall assume that position.

The Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

If any appointed office shall become vacant during a recess of Congress, the President may grant a commission which shall expire upon the 15th day after Congress reconvenes.

Section 3. Removal

These executive officers, or any other elected or appointed member of the federal government, may be removed from office upon impeachment for violations of the duties of office, failure to uphold the oath of office, treason, bribery, or other crimes against the Constitution, the nation, or the people. Such impeachment may be brought by a majority vote of either House, relevant oversight committee of either the House or the Senate, majorities in 2/3 of the states’ legislatures, petitions of 10% of the voters (measured by the most recent presidential election) in 2/3 of the states, a 2/3 vote of the Cabinet, or by a recommendation of removal by the President. Conviction and removal from office shall occur upon a 60% vote of the House and the Senate.

Section 4. There shall be no executive privilege. Neither the President nor any other officer of the federal executive shall be privileged or immune against investigation by Congress or the courts.

Section 5. Veto Power

Upon passage of both houses of Congress, a bill shall be presented to the President who shall have power to sign the bill into law, fail to sign it, upon which it shall become law after 30 days, or recommend a veto, either for constitutional or other reasons.

If the President believes the law that would result from the bill would be unconstitutional, the bill will be presented to the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court in this case shall consider only whether or not it would be unconstitutional. If it does not find the law would be unconstitutional, it shall immediately become law.

If the President’s recommendation for veto is for any other reason, the bill shall be presented to the Cabinet. A 2/3 vote of the Cabinet shall be necessary to uphold the veto. In any such vote, the President shall be recused from the deliberation of the Cabinet.

Any bill passed by 2/3 of both houses is only subject to the constitutional veto.

Section 6. Executive Orders

The President shall have no power to create law by Executive Order. The Cabinet may create temporary law by Executive Order by a 2/3 vote. Within 90 days of any such Executive Order issued by the Cabinet, it shall be entered into both houses of Congress as a bill. If Congress does not pass the bill, the law shall be expired. No Executive Order of the Cabinet may counter or circumvent any law passed by Congress.

Section 7. Open Government

All proceedings of Congress, all committees and subcommittees thereof, the Cabinet, and the executive officers of each department shall be available to any registered voter at any public library.

A question about the filibuster

So, the Democrats assumed the majority in both Houses this year, apparently at least in part due to changing public opinion about the conflict in Iraq.  Yet Congress has not been able to get any substantive measure passed to reduce troop levels or end the conflict, even force a veto, much less actually change our course there.  One of the reasons for this has been the Republican filibuster in the Senate.   Most recently, they apparently stopped the Webb-Hagel Amendment that would have forced the military to give active duty military equal time at home to recover following any tour of duty in Iraq, and reservists and National Guard members two or three years at home for each year served in active duty.  Some of you may know the specifics of the matter better than I do, and I will not be offended if you want to help clarify the issue in comments. However, what I really want to talk about is the nature of the filibuster itself.

I guess I’m naive, and don’t watch enough CSPAN, but it seems to me that the filibuster is a measure that prevents cloture, which is to say, that it prevents ending debate on the issue at hand.  It does not kill debate, or kill the issue, but rather extends debate…right? So, why then does the Republican filibuster against the Webb-Hagel Amendment indicate that the amendment has been “defeated,” as has been reported so often already? Instead of defeating it, it seems to me that the filibuster should indicate that either the amendment should still be being debated, or some other measure, such as tabling, or referring to committee, should be required before the Senate can move on to another topic. Have they done something along these lines?

While it makes some sense that a large minority should be able to keep something from moving forward to a final vote prematurely, and that is a legitimate use of the filibuster, but it should not be able to kill anything, unless it is continued long enough to get either more people to vote for cloture, or more people to vote against the measure. However, if something has at least 50% support, but less than 60%, then it should stay on the floor until it is resolved in some way.

So, if there is somebody reading this who understands, and can explain to me, how simply failing to get 60% on one single vote constitutes a filibuster and somehow kills a measure that has majority support, I would really appreciate it.