This is a link to a different view of the EXACT SAME PROCESS:
http://45ink.com/wp/decisions/
It is NOT all that difficult.
We need 4 branches of government.
Any one can submit a problem, for consideration to the executive branch, that may require a federal law to manage or resolve.
The executive branch has two important jobs in deciding public policy.
The executive branch filters those submissions, and decides which ones actually do deserve consideration as a federal law.
If the executive branch decides to consider a problem, a tasking order is written, and submitted to congress. (the legislative branch)
That order defines the problem to be considered, and optionally limits the scope of consideration by congress, along with possible avenues of resolution and management.
That tasking order assigns to congress the authority to consider that problem, and without that order, congress is NOT authorized to consider a problem.
There needs to be some mechanism for the people to force a consideration, or repeal of a bad law, and that will be dealt with in a separate manner.
Once congress has that tasking order, their job, is to consider the problem, in whatever way seems reasonable to them, form committees, commission studies, etc.
Congress then writes a “bill” that specifies the law they think will manage or resolve that problem, along with a detailed cost accounting for enforcement of that law.
That “bill”, or range of “bills”, is then passed to the judicial branch. A supreme court, selected by election, by the public, congress and selected by appointment by the executive. 5 from the public, 3 from congress, and one from the president.
The supreme court, reviews each bill, submitted by congress, for legality. The resulting law, if passed must not contravene existing law, nor infringe on rights protected by a statement of civil rights, nor contravene the process specified.
What that court will NOT consider, is whether such law might or might not “work”, nor how much or little it might cost. ONLY whether the resultant law would be LEGAL.
If such “bill” is rejected by the court, it passes back to congress for re-consideration.
If such bill passes judicial review, it is passed back to the executive branch. (The second review of executive branch, in this process)
Each bill, passed to the executive branch from judicial review, will be reviewed, and tested for effective plausibility. There is also a review by the executive branch for the cost accounting.
Who pays for it, how are those funds collected, and are those costs and funding sufficient and reasonable?
If such bill is rejected by the executive branch, it is passed back to congress for re-consideration.
EVERY “bill” passed from congress shall be passed to the judicial branch. All revisions will be reviewed by the judicial branch. Congress cannot revise a “bill”, then assume it is legal, it must be reviewed.
If such bill is passed by the executive branch, after review, then it shall be passed to the Public branch.
The public branch is the ONLY branch authorized to enact law. ONLY the public will decide if a “bill” shall become a law.
The public branch shall be authorized to employ representatives. Such representatives are not and shall not be elected to an office.
Nor shall a citizen be obligated to use a representative.
The use of a representative is an option, for the convenience of the public.
The power and authorities specified are limited and NOT balanced. The PUBLIC has the authority to enact law.
The other three branches are subservient and subsidiary to the public will and intent.
The public authority does NOT extend to writing bills, not adjudicating legality of such bills, nor reviewing such bills for effective plausibility, nor cost accounting.
The public shall make decisions on the bills passed to them, as written, reviewed and passed.
****
An extended comment on “representatives”:
Representatives have NO authority or power, except that which is conveyed to them by individuals that choose to employ them.
A representative, will monitor the process and actions of the executive, legislative and judicial branches and inform their constituents of those actions, with as little opinion as possible. Facts. ONLY facts.
When a bill is passed to the public all representatives shall within a reasonable time, (hours,, not days), publish into a permanent record how each citizen choosing to employ that representative, will vote.
Each bill will be assigned a reasonable time of consideration by the public. (Generally, if the bill does not have a majority vote within a year, the bill will be retired. If this confuses you, go back and follow the process to this point, ask me if this still confuses you.).
At the end of that period of consideration, all ballots will have been collected and counted and the majority threshold calculated..
(What this means, is that you don’t have to spend your entire life working on “government”. You vote on the matters which you are concerned with and ignore those you do not care about.)
DURING that period of consideration, each citizen that employs a representative, may make decisions regarding the submission of their ballot.
IF they agree with the published vote of their representative, then that citizen releases that ballot, for submission by their representative, who then submits it along with all the other citizen ballots that agree with that vote. If a citizen does not release their ballot, the citizen has chosen to withhold their vote on that issue.
(note:
This means that if you chose your representative carefully, you, need not be actively concerned with their vote, you simply release your ballot, as you generally agreed with them enough to choose them to represent you.)
However if you do NOT agree with your ballot being cast as your representative has published, then:
You as the citizen, can pull your ballot from control of your representative. If you do so, you are NO LONGER represented on that vote, unless you take further action.
You may pass your ballot to another representative, with a published vote you do agree with.
This is a temporary representation on this single ballot. The “other” representative is NOT your chosen representative, simply a temporary on this bill.
You may choose to go to the voting booth yourself, and cast your ballot as you wish.
This is what citizens without a chosen representative would normally do.
You are NOT required to vote.
If you pull control of your ballot, or fail to release your ballot, you may simply choose not to vote at all.
THIS process as outlined above confuses people for some reason. It’s NOT confusing at all.
It’s YOUR ballot. YOURS. You choose how it is cast.
The process of using a representative assures you that you can use a representative as YOU authorize. YOU control that process. NO ONE ELSE.
Your representative has no control or influence on your ballot, that you don’t specifically agree to.
****{
If you chose Billy Bob as your Rep, then when a vote comes up, he will have already explained what that bill does, what it costs you, and HIS vote on that matter.
You either agree, or you don’t.
}*****
YOUR vote counts. EVERY time a decision is made YOU HAVE A VOICE.
Note how that is different from an ELECTED representative.
An election determines who makes decisions for you, and it is NOT YOU!!
The president is elected, members of congress are elected, the court is mostly elected.
YOUR decision however on which laws will be enacted belong to YOU, no one else.
A representative republic, using democracy and representation CORRECTLY.
4 branches, vote for it.
Addendum: Precedent process to force tasking, repeal or maintain civil rights.
Essentially the same process will be used to force a repeal of a law, force a tasking for a problem, and maintaining our list of civil rights.
The process is precedent to the normal legislative process, because it must maintain that list of rights and must be capable of enforcing the will of a clear and vast majority of the public.
As I tried to indicate earlier, the basis for this process is the understanding that the representatives CANNOT make decisions for the public, they are simply an optional tool the public may use to ACCOUNT for their decision.
Therefor, A 2/3 majority of congress can force a decision to task themselves with a problem, and that decision cannot be obstructed by either the judicial, nor the executive. That decision is passed directly to the people. Then, the representatives use their normal process to account the decision of the people to force that tasking.
If the public decides to require that tasking, then, the executive SHALL task congress to consider that problem.
If the executive then obstructs the resulting bill, for plausibility or accounting, then congress may once again, by 2/3 majority pass a decision to the people to veto that obstruction.
If the public, then decides to veto that obstruction, the bill passes to the public for decision.
If Congress is unwilling or unable to force a tasking, then the Judicial branch may pass a tasking decision to the public.
If neither the Legislative, nor Judicial nor executive branches agree to task a problem, the people may, by 10% of their represented and directed vote, decide to require a vote on that tasking.
If that vote forces a tasking, then an obstruction by the executive cannot be raised, the bill must be passed to the public for decision.
ONLY the Public or the Judicial branch may initiate a civil rights maintenance decision. However the Legislative branch will be responsible for writing the bill to amend that list, and the Judicial branch will review that bill, before passing directly to the public. The executive branch will not review or obstruct that maintenance decision.
**** Note that the process I specified covers, as I said, the circumstance you are concerned with, as well as any repeal or civil rights maintenance issue.
****
Sometimes I feel like I am talking to a 12 century French peasant about proper representation.
Imagine trying to explain our government to a 12th century french peasant:
Me: We could elect a president, ok?
peasant: Oui, a president.
me: Then we could elect a congress, ok?
peasant: Oui, a congress.
me: Then we could have congress make laws, and the president could sign them, OK?
peasant: Oui, uhh, wait. What if the King does not like these laws?
Me: We would not have a king, see, that is why we elect……
12th century French Peasant: TREASONOUS BASTARD, Traitor!! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!! BURN him, Hang him! TRAITOR, Traitor!!!
****
Consider carefully the premise of electing a representative.
IF and I do mean if I agree that we elect someone as a representative, THEN, I expect to be factually represented.
Why should I not?
However the reality is quite different, factually I am NOT at all represented by someone that I did not vote for, in that election.
Even if I did vote for that person, it is very likely that on some issue, his decision to vote on a matter might not agree with my will on that matter at all. Again, I am not being factually represented.
I fully understand that is how it works, but I am not allowing that to sway my position, that it is factually NOT TRUE that I am being properly represented. When I say “I am not being represented.”
I am speaking of WE, the people, are not being properly represented.
The concept of “electing” a representative is based on a false premise, no matter HOW that election is structured, managed or otherwise manipulated.
It is a falsity of fact.
*******
We could hire advisors to seats in Congress and elect management of agencies. This process of hiring people as advisors and managers would use simple majority of votes cast.
If a candidate receives fifty one votes out of a hundred that person is hired.
Note this is not how the First Branch decides whether a law is enacted amended or repealed. Recall that the public branch, the first branch makes decisions of law and policy by majority of citizens. In a town of 374 citizens deciding animal control law, 147 ballots collected could not be sufficient to enact that law even if more ballots were yes. (103 yes/44 no) The minimum majority would be 185 yes votes. 50% + 1
Recall as well, that citizens use a ballot that provides the public decision authority of the majority threshold. If a significant minority chooses a higher majority threshold then the majority must be larger. If the threshold calculates to 67% then enactment would require 251 yes ballots. This provides minority defense from “the mob”. It is constrained democracy.
The ballots for hiring are simple majority of votes cast with no option for choosing majority threshold, citizens are not enacting law, the decision is employee hiring.
In that town of 374, an advisor could be hired with 147 ballots with a simple majority of votes cast. (75/72)
A dog catcher could be hired with 3 ballots. (2/1)
Removal of an advisor or management by :force: would require simple majority of citizens, again not of votes cast. 147 remove/37 keep ballots would not remove the dog catcher. That would require at least 185 remove votes. Even if the vote to hire was 2 votes and one no vote.
At the federal level, the election of executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch is decided as employee hiring and removal.
The decision to enact law requires majority of citizens, that majority determined by the votes cast.
That threshold is calculated as votes are counted, calculation begins if simple majority is reached. The citizens that vote quickly have the best influence on that calculation.
The decision to enact or not is decided when the majority threshold is reached, or the bill expires without reaching threshold.
A federal bill will generally expire after 365 days from the date it was passed to the first branch for decision. The expiration may be specified by the bill author.
Generally in local decisions, that expiration might be 30 days, or more or less.
I hope this helps people to comprehend the four branch decision process used as a form of government by the public, the First Branch.