The Nation of United States was a promise, and agreement, a contract that we all have agreed to, with some basic premises about who is responsible for what. We the people were promised that we would be self governing.
The mechanics of providing that self governance is outlined in our constitution.
The question to be asked and answered is whether those mechanics are still, (if ever) adequate to fulfill our promise to ourselves.
If the mechanics of the system that we use is inadequate then it must be fixed!
Electing new people will never fix the system, there is no election currently being considered that tackles the inadequacies of our systems. None.
We see our elected officials behaving as rulers, making laws that benefit them and their interests, while explaining that we, the common people cannot object, because they have information that we don’t. They have secrets. They act on secret information. They have become de facto rulers.
Being ruled by secret tribunals was never part of the promise, the agreement we accepted as our constitution.
Unlike previous victims of predatory rulers acting in secret, we have a precedent of legal authority to remove ourselves from an oppressive or inadequate system, and to install a better one.
To remove the current system, without having another installed is to be an anarchy, and invite a dictatorship. With that said, the next question becomes, how shall we design a new system of mechanics that is adequate, and that retains the promise of liberty, justice and responsible self governance that is the foundation cornerstone of this nation?
We have seen many attempts at differing systems in history, however the conditions in which they were designed were always much the same, communication was always limited to the speed of a horse.
Technology has advanced such that in a great majority of the earth, communication is nearly instantaneous. That simple, single fact changes the entire field of possibilities.
Why are we reliant on a system designed to operate in a time that communication was transported by horse??
We now have the opportunity, for the first time in human history to design a system of mechanics that allow self governance of the people, by the people, WITHOUT “rulers” deciding our fates.
I propose a system that uses technology to place the authority and responsibility to enact law directly into the hands of the people.
We need an executive branch, we need a judicial branch and yes we need a congressional branch, however in addition we need a public branch of government.
We remove the authority to enact law from Congress. Congress would be tasked with writing law by the executive branch, but have no power to enact law.
Congress crafts potential solutions, then passes those to the Judicial branch.
Judicial branch reviews the proposed laws for legality. Does the proposed law meet tests of constitutionality? This is done BEFORE enactment!
If the law is bad, legally, it is sent back to congress with suggestions for a fix.
If it is good, legally, then Judicial passes it to executive, which reviews it for plausibility. Is the law proposed likely to solve the problem?? Is the law going to fall within current policy? Is the law accurate in the definition of the problem and are the costs and methods of payments accurate?
Once a proposed solution passes the 3 branches, it then is presented to the public branch, which is the ONLY branch authorized enact law. Once the public has voted to enact a law, the executive then signs it as law.
Who is the public branch? How can that be organized?
We are the public branch. The entire citizen population.
We claim and hold the sole authority and responsibility for our self governance. (was that not the original promise??)
Each person may choose a representative, or we may choose to vote on each law ourselves.
Note that a representative is not elected, a rep is chosen by consent and at will. A Rep controls only the number of votes that individuals assign, and that assignment can be changed at will, by individuals. As long as a Rep is voting in line with an individuals choices, then the individual, by consent abdicates authority, and is freed to go about his business without undue concern about the absolute details of the laws being passed.
However that abdication by consent may be rescinded at any time, and that full authority can be held and exerted by an individual at any time, and for any reason.
For every election, a rep will publish the vote they will cast for the pool of votes they control. That publishment will occur some reasonable time prior to the election. Any citizen can then, prior to the election, remove their vote from that rep. The citizen is then responsible for their vote, casting it, or not as they wish. Note that the goal here is to empower the individual with choices of assuming full control of the right to vote, or allowing another to control that vote, without any loss of control of that choice.
The public branch cannot, will not ever be tasked with crafting of laws, that is the sole responsibility and authority of Congress. Elected to represent the best minds to craft the best solutions.
The Judicial branch goes to work. They no longer get to cherry pick the work they do. EVERY law will be reviewed and will be judged legal before enactment. There will be no more misery foisted on the public by rulers passing bad law, illegal law, that must be fought back into the courts. At great public expense and pain, division and anger, we the people have been forced to live and work under illegal law, until a court could be convinced to judge the work of lawmakers. NO MORE.
We understand that there is some reluctance to trust the public with the role of self governance. However the mechanics of the system outlined here protect the public from the consequences of “mob action”. As well as protects the public from the corruption that has corroded our previous mechanics. The salient point here is that our Declaration of Independence, is quite specific in that we agreed on the legal argument of self governance. The people of this nation have the legal authority to make the decisions of governance.
If there is a successful argument that the people of this nation cannot be trusted with the role of self rule, then we have negated the legal authority of this nation to exist.
I accept the risk of the freedom of others, because I expect to enjoy the benefits of my own freedom.
If we reject this premise, the legal argument that we have the right of self governance cannot be supported.
Our Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights clearly define the lines of responsibility and authority.
Laws which criminalize behavior that do not cause actual injury to another, are way outside the line of authority we have established.
Our current system is a rogue state, operating as a ruler class.
I want to be honest, what I have proposed has some weak spots, for instance, our current judicial branch is not adequate to handle the task they would be required to accomplish. I have some ideas about that but I hope others will engage with that as well.
Another weak spot is that my proposal does not have any mechanism for the public to force a repeal of a bad law.
There are several other problems that need to be fixed that I know of, and likely more that will crop up.
Therefor what I am suggesting is that we set up and test my proposal. I would like to see several public tests by different university social science departments.
Testing will highlight the weak spots and let us try different fixes and choose the best fixes.
ALSO, and this is important, by making the testing public, we can demonstrate to the public how much better this is than what we use now, (if it is in fact better).
Once a vast majority of the public is aware of how much better this works than our current system, we can simply tell the current elected assholes to pack up and go home.
We don’t need a violent revolution, we can do this with a peaceful transition. I REFUSE to be involved or support any sort of armed violent insurrection. However if a vast majority of the public agrees to this system, then the transition can be fairly quick and painless.
Thanks for your support, SHARE!!
If you agree with what I am proposing, please feel free to share any of my texts and / or links to my texts where ever you think appropriate.
Please discuss this in conversations face to face also.
I keep a text file open on my desktop that contains many of my common comment texts and links. You can also do this by downloading my text file which I have posted on my website here:
http://www.45ink.com/4branch.txt
Thanks!
Some questions, answered:
1. Can citizens introduce bills? Is that a good idea or how would that work? 2/3’s vote or something?
I generally would not agree to allowing the public to craft legislation.
There needs to be clear separation between the duties, and authorities of each branch. However the congress members are certainly available for public comment and suggestion.
They have no incentive to write bills that don’t adequately address the problems they are tasked with solving. They must not only devise the method of solution, but also estimate the cost of that solution.
They could write a law that gives every citizen a brand new Ford pickup, but the cost would be the price of a new ford PU for every taxpayer., they could not pass that off as a freebie, past the president, and the public would not allow that taxation.
The public on the other hand might be tempted to vote themselves free circuses, and that ain’t a good thing, so let’s not go there.
2. What are the implications of more representatives to casts votes? Is this a huge number of citizens that can be reps (anyone? Millions of reps?) or is that something slightly more limited?
I think the chosen reps needs some tweaking. I think that it is a good concept, but it is untried, and in use, there is likely some snags.
I don’t think there would be an issue with the number of reps. i think that the rep might need minimum and maximum limits on constituents, perhaps. We elect congress based on populations, so perhaps we can do something similar with districts and such.
Each rep can only cast the number of votes that are in their “bucket” at the time of the vote, and each vote is counted. I am not sure that the number of buckets is relevant, except for logistics, which is a tech issue, not a process issue.
“If it is a large number of citizens, does that open up more avenues for corruption? (Say if the Koch brothers were paying people off) “
No.
Consider the process. Imagine a bill considered that tells corp A that they cannot dump dioxins in the river above a water intake for a town.
Now, corp A might want that bill defeated. They can advertise, lie on TV, radio, newspaper, internet about how bad this law will be for the public.
That requires a hefty investment in lies and propaganda, and a hefty risk of being caught in those lies and propaganda. If they get caught, they might lose the entire business, not just have to pay to have their waste dumped legally.
Instead they might consider bribing reps. Say $10,000 each for 20 reps, that represents about 2 million people. If they can sway 2 million votes, they can defeat the bill, and save money on fines and legal dumping costs.
let’s say that all 20 reps take the bribe.
Remember the reps must publish their bucket vote before the actual vote, so they each tell their people they are voting against the law.
the people look at what is going on, and say, LOL, no. And when the actual vote comes up, those 20 reps don’t cast 2 million votes, but only 18,987 votes, because the people generally said hell no, we don’t want three eyed fish in our river, and cancer in our kids.
The reps got $10,000 each, but the corp A got nothing.
Most businesses are smart enough to already figure that out and would not even bother bribing reps.
I hope that addresses that concern.
What i propose is near as I can tell corruption proof.
3. What part of your system/does the system have a way to protect minorities populations from the opinion of the majority?
Our Bill of Rights, and our Declaration of Independence are both documents that I do not want to see changed.
The judicial branch is tasked with testing every proposed law against the principles and admonitions described in the declaration of independence and bill of rights.
If a law say that purple people must not use green people water fountains, that is a clear violation of the principle of equality as stated in the DOI.
If a law is proposed that says that people cannot stand on a corner and talk about how great the spaghetti monster is, that is a clear violation of article one of the BOR.
Not sure what other protections we need to discuss, as long as those principles and rights are clearly protected.
4. Will this process effect the rate at which bills are produced? If speed up/slow down. Could this be a negative for outcomes?
Yes, and no. Both ends of the question.
For matters that are pressing and have a clear consensus for resolution, no, the process could be very very quick.
For matters that are not time critical, and have no clear consensus for resolution, the process could be quite slow and deliberate.
Depending on the circumstances a quick or slow passage of resolution might be good or bad.
i generally would prefer a slower more deliberate process, but recognize that some matters need a fast and decisive response.
A hurricane. Should not need three years to approve aid relief to disaster areas.
Whether to invade Russia with nuclear weapons, hell people we can take 6 billion years with that decision, and I still think we should talk about it more, before voting.
If you are interested in discussing this, please visit my note on facebook, where the discussion is raging!
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/4-branch/10152613377812278
For a detailed look at the process changes I broadly outlined above, look here:
Or visit THIS facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/testing4branch/
There is an email link at the very bottom of this page, if you want to send me an email, but I prefer to discuss my proposal on my facebook pages, where it can be public.