You seem to think that citizens assemblies are some form of anarchy. Ballot initiatives are not anarchy. Just because a proposal may originate with a group of citizens, it has nothing to do with law enforcement. Our agency is not given to us by the government, it is a natural right given by God to all people in the world. Whether a government recognizes it or not. Maybe you just don't understand constitutions? There have been hundreds of constitutional conventions in this country since our founding. Each state went through it for statehood, there were also reconstruction conventions, and completely voluntary moment when they wanted to update things. That is where we are on a national level. We need to assemble. Those conventions weren't filled with legislators, they are common people who went back to their normal jobs when it was over. That isn't a society without government or law enforcement, it is a society that defines who they are and their mission.
What restraint? The words that are written as clearly as can be are suddenly ambiguous to the Supreme Court. Now people that are born in the United States are no longer citizens if our police force think so. The president ignores unanimous decisions by the Supreme Court. Which isn't so much a problem because they're enabling him to violate the constitution most of the time. Does Congress impeach when the Supreme Court or the president violates the Constitution? Not anymore. They already realized that that's a fruitless effort that doesn't work. Is George w bush said, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. That's how they treat it. A functional Constitution restrains the power of government whether they respected or not. When our law enforcement is sending citizens to foreign gulags without trial, I don't know how much less restrained they can be. How much do you want them to be allowed to do to you? If you can be sent to another country without trial, your life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is totally in their control. The president is violating posse comitatus, violating the 14th amendment, violating the sixth amendment, overreaching by dismantling agencies and defunding them when Congress appropriate but that funding, violating the 10th amendment marching troops into states without the cooperation of the governor. The list goes on and on I have no idea what universe you live in. We are not all equal before the law. Clearly some are above it. A lawless society quickly devolves just like Venezuela. They had Jack booted thugs kicking in doors and going door to door through high-rise apartment buildings at homes. They just funded ICE more than the Marines. What do you think that means is coming?
Clearly we need to refresh. We cannot allow the arcane language of this constitution to be misinterpreted by this Supreme Court and this president or future ones. The checks and balances that rest with the three branches of government do not work when all three branches are corrupt. The people need checks and balances that do not exist in this constitution, but do exist in state constitutions. We need the Democratic tools to clean up the corruption in our government. We need to restrain our government because our government is unwilling to abide by the Constitution. Giving the people the power to check politicians and basically just call shenanigans on the whole thing, it's obviously a contemporary need not a convenient desire. The more we decentralized power, the better of our country will be.
I used to think that a few strategic amendments would solve a majority of our problems. Now I have to accept that the inadequate Constitution we have is the cause of our problems. A functional constitution restrains the powers of government. This one doesn't do that. It isn't a matter of respecting the Constitution, a functional constitution restrains them regardless of their respect. The people need their own power of checks and balances within our Constitution. Things like recall, initiatives, vote of no confidence, and other democratic tools that have worked at the state level for years. That is how we get our nation beck on track and we need to fix this document first. Iceland had to do the same thing when they got screwed by their government.
How can the Constitution be the cause of our problems? If anything, we're suffering from too much restraint on the power of government; it should be doing more to promote the general welfare, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, ect, but isn't.
What sort of society would you like to live in that is impossible under the existing US Constitution and Congress's legislative authority? (No answers related to the workings of government; only its output and the resulting society.)
What restraint? The words that are written as clearly as can be are suddenly ambiguous to the Supreme Court. Now people that are born in the United States are no longer citizens if our police force think so. The president ignores unanimous decisions by the Supreme Court. Which isn't so much a problem because they're enabling him to violate the constitution most of the time. Does Congress impeach when the Supreme Court or the president violates the Constitution? Not anymore. They already realized that that's a fruitless effort that doesn't work. Is George w bush said, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. That's how they treat it. A functional Constitution restrains the power of government whether they respected or not. When our law enforcement is sending citizens to foreign gulags without trial, I don't know how much less restrained they can be. How much do you want them to be allowed to do to you? If you can be sent to another country without trial, your life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is totally in their control. The president is violating posse comitatus, violating the 14th amendment, violating the sixth amendment, overreaching by dismantling agencies and defunding them when Congress appropriate but that funding, violating the 10th amendment marching troops into states without the cooperation of the governor. The list goes on and on I have no idea what universe you live in. We are not all equal before the law. Clearly some are above it. A lawless society quickly devolves just like Venezuela. They had Jack booted thugs kicking in doors and going door to door through high-rise apartment buildings at homes. They just funded ICE more than the Marines. What do you think that means is coming?
Clearly we need to refresh. We cannot allow the arcane language of this constitution to be misinterpreted by this Supreme Court and this president or future ones. The checks and balances that rest with the three branches of government do not work when all three branches are corrupt. The people need checks and balances that do not exist in this constitution, but do exist in state constitutions. We need the Democratic tools to clean up the corruption in our government. We need to restrain our government because our government is unwilling to abide by the Constitution. Giving the people the power to check politicians and basically just call shenanigans on the whole thing, it's obviously a contemporary need not a convenient desire. The more we decentralized power, the better of our country will be.
I would never suggest the people should enforce laws. I am anti-monopoly, price fixing, etc. Very much so. I believe people can discover their own agency in citizen assemblies. We can propose the ideas that won't create carve outs for special interests. At this point, I would even support the amending of each of the bill of rights and add, "and we really mean it." to the end of all of them.
And this is why I say we're suffering from too much restraint on government. These goliath corporations should never have been allowed to develop in the first place, but when the government watchdogs are denied resources to do the people's work, we shouldn't be surprised that it happened. So they're happy to extract a little more here, a little more there, and surprise! people are too busy working to pay their bills instead of being able to watchdog the government. It's a vicious cycle.
I love your energy and vision. But >95% of our societal problems can be addressed through the legislative process, which as the One Big Beautiful Bill demonstrates, can be accomplished with less than 270 members of Congress. This is a much smaller hurdle than trying to propose something that the state legislatures of 38 states will all agree to ratify.
What sort of society would you like to live in that is impossible under the existing US Constitution and Congress's legislative authority? (No answers related to the workings of government; only its output and the resulting society.)
You're partially right. Some legislation could be passed, but it's not going to be. Congress is either unwilling or unable to fix our problems today. The Supreme Court is misinterpreting arcane language by convenience. There is nothing ambiguous about birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment. Legislation doesn't overrule the Supreme Court, but a constitutional amendment does. Your profile says you're a former legislator. I should not have to explain this to you. You understand that the constitution belongs to "we the people". It is ours to change. We are not governed, we are represented. At least that's how it's supposed to work. In practice today that is not what we have. I don't think legislation is going to fix that. We need holistic change, but embracing our present Constitution, we can modernize it and add to it. It would need to be ratified by States, but I trust the American people a lot more than I trust any politicians. Any of them.
If a simple majority of Congress is unwilling to fix our problems, they're not going to put any Constitutional amendments to the states by a 2/3rds vote. And your statement that you trust the American people more than any politicians is a non sequitur, since the politicians of 38 state legislatures would have to ratify any hypothetical amendments.
You say we need to add to and modernize the Constitution, but why, exactly? What sort of society would you like to live in that is impossible under the existing US Constitution? (No answers related to the workings of government; only its output and the resulting society.)
> There's nothing ambiguous ... in the 14th amendment.
Of course there is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." If the qualifying phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" wasn't there, then you would be correct. But the fact the authors specified that two different conditions must be true ("AND" instead of "OR") introduces ambiguity. Try to see the other side, even if you don't agree with their conclusion. #unifyUSA
The US Constitution is written in such a way that you can actually remove the words between the commas to make it easier to understand. Such as,
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, .. , are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
It is absolutely not a non-sequitor. Please note I mentioned Congress is unable or unwilling. Imagine if you will, a national Assembly where every eligible voter in the United States is allowed to participate, propose, and vote on those proposals. If there is overwhelming support among the people for a new constitution, state legislators will act. It is much easier to get action from States rather than the federal government. Plus ultimately it is our constitution. It belongs to the people, so if the people would like to change it, the government is obliged to respect it. You may not be aware of the article 5 convention clause in the Constitution which bypasses Congress and takes proposals to the states for ratification. This is a state action under Article 5. It has never been used before, but the ability to bypass Congress exists.
However, the people are not states and do not need permission to assemble, propose, vote, or deliberate. All of those things are well within our rights. We have freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to vote. They can't stop us. That is why Unify-USA is different. And the declaration of Independence it mentions the ability of the people to lay down new forms of government. Once again this is a natural right. All people of the world have a natural right to lay down new forms of government to ensure their life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Before you scoff, the declaration of Independence was codified. It discusses the right to alter or to abolish. It is a real right, it is not rhetoric, it does not come and go every 250 years. I intend to use that right. This government is corrupt as hell. The 14th amendment also mentions due process to all people not just citizens. What's ambiguous about that?
We are losing rights these days. We're headed in the wrong direction. What makes you think the status quo is acceptable?
The President, ... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, ... , Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
tHe QuAlIfIeR "aNd CoNiViCtIoN oF" dOeSn'T cOuNt BeCaUsE iT's InSiDe CoMmAs!
See how dumb that is?
And you can imagine any sort of national assembly... but I dare you to imagine a way that your new Constitution will be accepted as legally binding on the existing government and the states unless it is adopted through the channels which already exist for amending the Constitution. That could be an Article V convention, but again, you'll have to convince the politicians of 38 states to ratify it.
But why, exactly? What sort of society would you like to live in that is impossible under the existing US Constitution? (No answers related to the workings of government; only its output and the resulting society.)
Brian, I didn't say it doesn't count. You're putting words in my mouth. I said it's easier for you to understand. Apparently you're having trouble with that. Seems kind of dumb doesn't it?
You seem to think that citizens assemblies are some form of anarchy. Ballot initiatives are not anarchy. Just because a proposal may originate with a group of citizens, it has nothing to do with law enforcement. Our agency is not given to us by the government, it is a natural right given by God to all people in the world. Whether a government recognizes it or not. Maybe you just don't understand constitutions? There have been hundreds of constitutional conventions in this country since our founding. Each state went through it for statehood, there were also reconstruction conventions, and completely voluntary moment when they wanted to update things. That is where we are on a national level. We need to assemble. Those conventions weren't filled with legislators, they are common people who went back to their normal jobs when it was over. That isn't a society without government or law enforcement, it is a society that defines who they are and their mission.
What restraint? The words that are written as clearly as can be are suddenly ambiguous to the Supreme Court. Now people that are born in the United States are no longer citizens if our police force think so. The president ignores unanimous decisions by the Supreme Court. Which isn't so much a problem because they're enabling him to violate the constitution most of the time. Does Congress impeach when the Supreme Court or the president violates the Constitution? Not anymore. They already realized that that's a fruitless effort that doesn't work. Is George w bush said, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. That's how they treat it. A functional Constitution restrains the power of government whether they respected or not. When our law enforcement is sending citizens to foreign gulags without trial, I don't know how much less restrained they can be. How much do you want them to be allowed to do to you? If you can be sent to another country without trial, your life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is totally in their control. The president is violating posse comitatus, violating the 14th amendment, violating the sixth amendment, overreaching by dismantling agencies and defunding them when Congress appropriate but that funding, violating the 10th amendment marching troops into states without the cooperation of the governor. The list goes on and on I have no idea what universe you live in. We are not all equal before the law. Clearly some are above it. A lawless society quickly devolves just like Venezuela. They had Jack booted thugs kicking in doors and going door to door through high-rise apartment buildings at homes. They just funded ICE more than the Marines. What do you think that means is coming?
Clearly we need to refresh. We cannot allow the arcane language of this constitution to be misinterpreted by this Supreme Court and this president or future ones. The checks and balances that rest with the three branches of government do not work when all three branches are corrupt. The people need checks and balances that do not exist in this constitution, but do exist in state constitutions. We need the Democratic tools to clean up the corruption in our government. We need to restrain our government because our government is unwilling to abide by the Constitution. Giving the people the power to check politicians and basically just call shenanigans on the whole thing, it's obviously a contemporary need not a convenient desire. The more we decentralized power, the better of our country will be.
I used to think that a few strategic amendments would solve a majority of our problems. Now I have to accept that the inadequate Constitution we have is the cause of our problems. A functional constitution restrains the powers of government. This one doesn't do that. It isn't a matter of respecting the Constitution, a functional constitution restrains them regardless of their respect. The people need their own power of checks and balances within our Constitution. Things like recall, initiatives, vote of no confidence, and other democratic tools that have worked at the state level for years. That is how we get our nation beck on track and we need to fix this document first. Iceland had to do the same thing when they got screwed by their government.
How can the Constitution be the cause of our problems? If anything, we're suffering from too much restraint on the power of government; it should be doing more to promote the general welfare, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, ect, but isn't.
What sort of society would you like to live in that is impossible under the existing US Constitution and Congress's legislative authority? (No answers related to the workings of government; only its output and the resulting society.)
What restraint? The words that are written as clearly as can be are suddenly ambiguous to the Supreme Court. Now people that are born in the United States are no longer citizens if our police force think so. The president ignores unanimous decisions by the Supreme Court. Which isn't so much a problem because they're enabling him to violate the constitution most of the time. Does Congress impeach when the Supreme Court or the president violates the Constitution? Not anymore. They already realized that that's a fruitless effort that doesn't work. Is George w bush said, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. That's how they treat it. A functional Constitution restrains the power of government whether they respected or not. When our law enforcement is sending citizens to foreign gulags without trial, I don't know how much less restrained they can be. How much do you want them to be allowed to do to you? If you can be sent to another country without trial, your life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is totally in their control. The president is violating posse comitatus, violating the 14th amendment, violating the sixth amendment, overreaching by dismantling agencies and defunding them when Congress appropriate but that funding, violating the 10th amendment marching troops into states without the cooperation of the governor. The list goes on and on I have no idea what universe you live in. We are not all equal before the law. Clearly some are above it. A lawless society quickly devolves just like Venezuela. They had Jack booted thugs kicking in doors and going door to door through high-rise apartment buildings at homes. They just funded ICE more than the Marines. What do you think that means is coming?
Clearly we need to refresh. We cannot allow the arcane language of this constitution to be misinterpreted by this Supreme Court and this president or future ones. The checks and balances that rest with the three branches of government do not work when all three branches are corrupt. The people need checks and balances that do not exist in this constitution, but do exist in state constitutions. We need the Democratic tools to clean up the corruption in our government. We need to restrain our government because our government is unwilling to abide by the Constitution. Giving the people the power to check politicians and basically just call shenanigans on the whole thing, it's obviously a contemporary need not a convenient desire. The more we decentralized power, the better of our country will be.
> The more we decentralize power, the better of our country will be.
So I hope you're a strong advocate for antitrust enforcement.
Which can only be done by *checks notes* the government.
I would never suggest the people should enforce laws. I am anti-monopoly, price fixing, etc. Very much so. I believe people can discover their own agency in citizen assemblies. We can propose the ideas that won't create carve outs for special interests. At this point, I would even support the amending of each of the bill of rights and add, "and we really mean it." to the end of all of them.
To stop monopolies, price-fixing, etc, the people's agency comes through government. Do you read Matt Stoller's Substack? I highly recommend it.
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/synergies-when-customer-service-signs
And this is why I say we're suffering from too much restraint on government. These goliath corporations should never have been allowed to develop in the first place, but when the government watchdogs are denied resources to do the people's work, we shouldn't be surprised that it happened. So they're happy to extract a little more here, a little more there, and surprise! people are too busy working to pay their bills instead of being able to watchdog the government. It's a vicious cycle.
I love your energy and vision. But >95% of our societal problems can be addressed through the legislative process, which as the One Big Beautiful Bill demonstrates, can be accomplished with less than 270 members of Congress. This is a much smaller hurdle than trying to propose something that the state legislatures of 38 states will all agree to ratify.
What sort of society would you like to live in that is impossible under the existing US Constitution and Congress's legislative authority? (No answers related to the workings of government; only its output and the resulting society.)
You're partially right. Some legislation could be passed, but it's not going to be. Congress is either unwilling or unable to fix our problems today. The Supreme Court is misinterpreting arcane language by convenience. There is nothing ambiguous about birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment. Legislation doesn't overrule the Supreme Court, but a constitutional amendment does. Your profile says you're a former legislator. I should not have to explain this to you. You understand that the constitution belongs to "we the people". It is ours to change. We are not governed, we are represented. At least that's how it's supposed to work. In practice today that is not what we have. I don't think legislation is going to fix that. We need holistic change, but embracing our present Constitution, we can modernize it and add to it. It would need to be ratified by States, but I trust the American people a lot more than I trust any politicians. Any of them.
If a simple majority of Congress is unwilling to fix our problems, they're not going to put any Constitutional amendments to the states by a 2/3rds vote. And your statement that you trust the American people more than any politicians is a non sequitur, since the politicians of 38 state legislatures would have to ratify any hypothetical amendments.
You say we need to add to and modernize the Constitution, but why, exactly? What sort of society would you like to live in that is impossible under the existing US Constitution? (No answers related to the workings of government; only its output and the resulting society.)
> There's nothing ambiguous ... in the 14th amendment.
Of course there is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." If the qualifying phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" wasn't there, then you would be correct. But the fact the authors specified that two different conditions must be true ("AND" instead of "OR") introduces ambiguity. Try to see the other side, even if you don't agree with their conclusion. #unifyUSA
The US Constitution is written in such a way that you can actually remove the words between the commas to make it easier to understand. Such as,
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, .. , are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
It is absolutely not a non-sequitor. Please note I mentioned Congress is unable or unwilling. Imagine if you will, a national Assembly where every eligible voter in the United States is allowed to participate, propose, and vote on those proposals. If there is overwhelming support among the people for a new constitution, state legislators will act. It is much easier to get action from States rather than the federal government. Plus ultimately it is our constitution. It belongs to the people, so if the people would like to change it, the government is obliged to respect it. You may not be aware of the article 5 convention clause in the Constitution which bypasses Congress and takes proposals to the states for ratification. This is a state action under Article 5. It has never been used before, but the ability to bypass Congress exists.
However, the people are not states and do not need permission to assemble, propose, vote, or deliberate. All of those things are well within our rights. We have freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to vote. They can't stop us. That is why Unify-USA is different. And the declaration of Independence it mentions the ability of the people to lay down new forms of government. Once again this is a natural right. All people of the world have a natural right to lay down new forms of government to ensure their life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Before you scoff, the declaration of Independence was codified. It discusses the right to alter or to abolish. It is a real right, it is not rhetoric, it does not come and go every 250 years. I intend to use that right. This government is corrupt as hell. The 14th amendment also mentions due process to all people not just citizens. What's ambiguous about that?
We are losing rights these days. We're headed in the wrong direction. What makes you think the status quo is acceptable?
Article II, Section 4:
The President, ... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, ... , Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
tHe QuAlIfIeR "aNd CoNiViCtIoN oF" dOeSn'T cOuNt BeCaUsE iT's InSiDe CoMmAs!
See how dumb that is?
And you can imagine any sort of national assembly... but I dare you to imagine a way that your new Constitution will be accepted as legally binding on the existing government and the states unless it is adopted through the channels which already exist for amending the Constitution. That could be an Article V convention, but again, you'll have to convince the politicians of 38 states to ratify it.
But why, exactly? What sort of society would you like to live in that is impossible under the existing US Constitution? (No answers related to the workings of government; only its output and the resulting society.)
Brian, I didn't say it doesn't count. You're putting words in my mouth. I said it's easier for you to understand. Apparently you're having trouble with that. Seems kind of dumb doesn't it?
It does seem dumb to think that ignoring qualifiers improves understanding, yes.