Problems with the NI4D.

 California bans same-sex marriage

' The measure restricting marriage to heterosexual couples gained 52% support - more than 5.1 million votes - with nearly all precincts declaring results.'

That is not true, of course. 52% of 10,270,399 California voters voted for the "initiative", but California has 17,300,000 registered voters. So 52% of 60% of the registered voters in California legislated for 100% of the registered voters in California. 31% legislated for 100%. Not to mention the 13,000,000 unregistered Californians. That's not democracy.

Yet that is what the original NI4d provides for. Even if you think that's ok, I'm down with the majority of American people and we'll never lend you our majority to oppress us. So you're going to have to result to the same sort of trickery to get that passed.

In fact just 36% of registered California voters voted for Barack Obama. And those would be sufficient for the Philadelphia II's sleight of hand to institutionalize un-democracy as the NI4d, according to the original plan.

For a fail-safe version of the NI4d, that is for the ongoing attempt to create a fail-safe NI4d, please see the USpvp.org, and then join us. Saying you're a member makes you one. Running for office as a USpvp.org member makes you a servant of the people. Working for the CFA and NI4d makes you a leader.

--

Times have changed. We are going to empower the American people. Let’s work together. I am tough. I’m not afraid. None of this politics as usual. Mike Gravel

I'm working on another revision of Article Eight. This is designed to fit in with JFL's proposed NI4D revision. Let me state here, that this is a revision that's in the works. I need other's input on this. 

First off, let me say that in this revision, I removed the language of "the house of the people", and replaced it with "the legislature of the people" or just plain "we the people". The 10 year requirement to join "the house of the people" has been removed. Right now the expulsion language is still in there, while I ponder it some more. Without further ado....

Amendment XXVIII

We the People, hereby establish this Eighth Article to the US Constitution.

Article VIII.

Section I. The Legislature of the People

Clause 1: The legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Sovereign, We The People of the United States, and shall be composed of all Citizens having attained the Age of eighteen Years.

Clause 2: Each Citizen shall have one Vote.

Clause 3: We the People, as a legislative body, shall in all times be Sitting, and shall not adjourn for any Reason, but does not need to Gather physically in order to proceed in Session; nor shall the Legislature of the People have any requirement to call a Quorum to do Business.

Clause 4: The Numbers comprising the Majority and two thirds of We the People shall be determined by the most recent Census, or by other method that We the People may prescribe by Law.

Clause 5: We the People shall choose to expel a Member of the Legislature of the People, but only with the Concurrence of two thirds; however, expulsion from the Legislature of the People shall not be construed to deny or disparage other Rights retained by the Person in question, including, but not limited to, Rights of Citizenship.

Clause 6: The Legislature of the People shall choose the manner by which they will conduct its Rules of Proceedings, and shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same.

Section II. The Powers of The Legislature of the People

Clause 1: Any Citizen shall have the power to propose Laws or Initiatives, which upon Majority Vote shall become the Law of the Land, but may not enact any Law in violation of this Constitution, and all Laws enacted Thereof shall be subject to Judicial Review to Test the Constitutionality of such Laws.

Clause 2: We the People shall have the Power to overrule any Legislation, Rules, Appointments, Treaties, or Executive Orders issued by the Senate, House of Representatives, or the President of the United States, upon reaching a Majority Vote.

Clause 3: The Legislature of the People shall have the same legislative Powers as both the House of Representatives and the Senate; but shall not have any of the legislative Powers that are solely reserved to the House of Representatives, or solely reserved to the Senate.

Clause 4: We the People shall have the sole Power of Recall of any executive, legislative or civil Officer, but may only Recall such an officer upon reaching Majority Vote; and the power to Recall any elective Officer shall be reserved solely to the Constituents for which the Officeholder in question serves; however, the Power of Recall shall not extend further than the removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party recalled shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Clause 5: We of the People, whenever two thirds Concur, shall have the Power to enact Amendments to this Constitution.

Clause 6: We the People shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I wanted to note that I recently updated some of the language of Article Eight. 

The biggest fix that needed to happen was a question of who should have the proper soverignty over the power of recall (i.e. removal from office). It makes sense that a nation should be able to vote on removing a President from office, but should all of us get to vote on removing a Congressman from office when they don't live in the district he serves? It doesn't seem right to me that Californians should be able to remove Congressman or Senators from office who serve Alabama. 

So I changed the language in Section 2, Clause 4 to: 

"The House of the People shall have the sole Power of Recall of any executive, legislative or civil officer, but may only Recall such an officer upon reaching Majority; and the power to Recall any legislative officer shall be reserved solely to the constituents for which the legislator in question serves; however the Power of Recall shall not extend further than the removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party recalled shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." 

The other change here is that I took out the power of recall that the House of the People have of the Judicial Branch. I keep going back and forth on this myself. Right now I'm of the opinion that the People shouldn't have that power. My reasoning is that the only check on the House of the People is the Judicial branch. That check would be almost entirely neutralized if the People had the power to recall Judges.

Wonderful points! Wonderful discussion!

Thank you Alva!

--

Times have changed. We are going to empower the American people. Let’s work together. I am tough. I’m not afraid. None of this politics as usual. Mike Gravel

It’s been some time since I contributed to the discussion here, so I figured my input might be appreciated.

Recently I have been reading parts of The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers. What has struck me, particularly in reading the later, is just how much contention there was in the drafting of that document. Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, (a supporter of the ratification of the Constitution), wrote in Federalist #84:

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.”

Hamilton argued that the Constitution automatically gave people the rights laid out in what become The Bill of Rights, even if it didn’t expressedly state it. Hamilton argued that such inclusion might infer that all other rights do not exist. I don’t know if Hamilton meant this in his heart of hearts, or if he was just being disingenuous, but nothing strikes me harder than the words of Patrick Henry in Anti-Federalist #34 who said:

“Let your suspicion look to both sides: There are many on the other side, who possibly may have been persuaded of the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. I am answered by gentlemen, that though I might speak of terrors, yet the fact was, that we were surrounded by none of the dangers apprehended. I conceive this new Government to be one of those dangers.”

Henry’s words were so strong, as well as the words of his fellow Anti-Federalists, that Massachusetts would not ratify the Constitution without the sworn promise that as soon as this new government was set up, the first order of business by the new Congress was to enact a Bill of Rights. And to quell Hamilton’s protests, they included the 9th Amendment which states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

I illustrate this for a simple purpose. Can it not be said that the efforts of the Anti-Federalists made the Constitution a stronger document? Can one imagine our citizens for the last 200 years living without the protections afforded to them by The Bill Of Rights; the protections of free speech, peaceful assembly, to confront your accuser, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, among others? Were the efforts of the Anti-Federalists in vain? I hardly think so. And while all of Henry’s fears of a consolidated government did not necessarily come to pass, I would imagine they would have without The Bill Of Rights.

I say this to illustrate to all those who say that we must accept the NI4D as is. If the argument that we must accept a flawed proposal were weighed more heavily in the days of the ratification of the Constitution, then we would not have these rights today, and Patrick Henry’s nightmare might have come true.

And yet, make no mistake. Despite what some have accused of me, I offer no hostility to this grand idea of direct self-governance. Rather, I offer my passions to this topic with the one hope that the NI4D can be made a more perfect proposal. It is in this vein that I offer my criticisms, and nothing more.

Many are aware of some of my concerns, but I would like to offer my opinions on the statements of late. It has been suggested that as the American People are further dumbed down by our culture, the natural risks associated with direct self-governance increases. While this may prove to be true, I have my doubts. While it could be argued that many Americans lack a knowledge of the fundamental workings of their own government, I would argue that this deficit, however grave, is only limited by the practical application of power afforded to our citizenry. Could it not be said that your average American, however dumb he might be, has a greater understanding of representative government than those living in 3rd world dictatorships? Is it not predictable that an empowered citizenry would quickly learn how to weld that power?

Of course, the danger would always be present that an ignorant citizenry may use this power to great harm. But such danger can be significantly mitigated with the proper safeguards. It is my fervent belief that such safeguards are present in Article Eight. These safeguards are established in the checks the Judicial Branch has over The House of the People. It prevents the enactment of all laws unconstitutional, and provides the significant test of 2/3rds necessary to amend the Constitution. As such, under Article Eight, the dice is less loaded.

However, there is always the problem of our citizens voting on issues of overwhelming complexity. Would it be reasonable to ask our citizens be able to make an informed decision on what the safe level of arsenic in their drinking water should be, or if auto tariffs with Japan should by increased by 2.4%? Furthermore, as Ralph Nader so eloquently once said, “a daily democracy requires daily participation.” Unfortunately, daily participation is exhausting, time consuming, and cumbersome.

It is for this reason that Article Eight includes powers to overrule any government decision by Congress or the Executive, veto any legislation already passed, and gives the People the ability to recall elected officials. This has a transformative effect on the balance of power. It requires our elected officials to do precisely what we want them to do. They can no longer attempt to placate the people come election time; instead they must make us happy that they are doing a satisfactory job at all times. In this way, our own power to write legislation is a power that could be utilized when needed, but that need would likely be infrequent.

I have questioned the ability of the Electoral Trust to rewrite the titles and summaries of proposed initiatives as insidious. While some see no issue with this, I call on a sense of rationality here. Since the Electoral Trust is a representative body, and since men sometimes have ambitions that are not trustworthy, this leaves the People open to tyranny from the Electoral Trust. If the Electoral Trust found a proposed initiative undesirable, the board could rename or rewrite the summary that would ensure it’s defeat.

If set up correctly, the process of holding elections and writing legislation could be a very simple and affordable process. The requirement of an Electoral Trust simply is not necessary. If Americans can use the internet to buy goods from eBay and Amazon, or can use the telephone to name their favorite on American Idol, they surely they can do the same when voting their own desires in governance. The Electoral Trust isn’t necessary to help citizens craft legislation when a specially trained librarian can accomplish the task just as well without the risk of tyranny. The Electoral Trust isn’t needed to count the vote when the People can decide for themselves to select a group of independent watchdog organizations to verify the count.

Unfortunately, we must recognize the failure of representative government. It is this deficiency which has brought all of us here. However, it is a fools game to consider that the enactment of a new representative body, such as the Electoral Trust, would behave any differently than Congress, even with the marginal constraints listed in the NI4D. It is to say to the copperhead, “you are not a snake”, only to suffer its bite. Similar constraints have also been issued to Congress, often to no avail. Again I state, if such constraints were effective barriers against corruption and tyranny, we would not be discussing direct self-governance here today.

Some question my objection that only registered voters be allowed to participate. But what needs to be understood is the nature of power. The old cliché is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would argue that the degree of corruption is equally proportional to the degree of power. With that in mind, the more participatory the NI4D, the greater the degree the distribution of power is to our citizens. 

We should also note, that it is extraordinarily rare for dictators and tyrants to voluntarily cede their power. Power is an elixir and it's quite addictive. For those who have it, they will not give it up without a struggle. That is true of a single powerful person, such as a President, or a group of people, such as an economic class or a legislative body. 

What we should also note is that the NI4D is a powerful tool. It grants extraordinary powers to those who participate in it. Any glance at the expenditures needed to field Congressional candidates should bear this out. The ability to write legislation is power. For those who have it, they will not be comfortable granting that power to others, as it diminishes their monopoly on that power. 

Since that is the case, the NI4D establishes a set of incentives by requiring only registered voters be allowed to participate. The resulting incentive is to make it difficult to allow people to register to vote. How long would it take for an initiative to pass that would require a large sum of money in order to register as a participant in the NI4D? One can only imagine a litany of requirements. Even the origins of voter registration itself has a long history in preventing freed slaves from being able to vote. 

It is for this reason that my proposal Article Eight is all inclusive. It’s only participatory requirement is that you are a US citizen for 10 years, which includes your childhood if you’re a natural born citizen, and that you have reached the age of 18 years. This prevents a tyranny from developing of the registered voter and non-registered citizen.    

While some see it necessary to rigidly define the format and structure of proposed initiatives, I see it as wholly unnecessary, and a probable deterrent of making the NI4D genuinely participatory. Requiring a complicated format and structure to proposed laws can only act to disqualify most of our citizens from being able to submit their own legislation for consideration. As such, the NI4D could become a tyranny of “smart” People. Similar concerns have been raised to my opposition of a 5000 word limit to initiatives. One says, that proposed initiatives shouldn’t be 80,000 words long, as it would make it too difficult for the common citizenry to understand. Yet, is it not the duty of our citizens to review such complicated proposals with a grain of distrust and suspicion, and vote accordingly? Furthermore, very good proposals could be fielded that goes over 5000 words. A practical example might be a reform of our nation’s tax laws.

Another significant problem with the NI4D is the complex process needed to qualify an initiative for an election. Again, this can only serve as a disadvantage to those who do not have a scholarly understanding of Constitutional law. While I do recognize that a qualification process is necessary to prevent the People wasting their time on silly and ridiculous proposals, such a process can be streamlined to be more efficient, while keeping the qualification process simple, and thus more participatory.

One such possible process would be to require all federal proposals pass a local test first. For instance, if you lived in the 12th Congressional district of Virginia, then you would submit your proposal before your citizens in the 12th district. If it passed, it would then be submitted for federal consideration.