Now we come to items that are a little less about restructuring government itself, and more about adding oil, replacing gaskets, and cleaning the air filters (to use near-obsolete analogies).

The Citizenship Amendment

All citizens of the United States and its Territories shall have the same rights, responsibilities, and liabilities under the law, regardless of position, wealth, religion, philosophy, age, gender, race, or any other recognizable differentiator.

Any person having resided in the United States or any of its Territories for at least 18 years, whether born there or not, and having lived outside the jurisdiction of the United States for no more than 1/4 of those 18 years, having paid taxes and reasonably been law-abiding aside from their immigration status, shall be a citizen and shall have the full rights of any citizen, and no person shall lose their citizenship or their rights of citizenship except by very narrow and clearly outlined CONSTITUTIONAL processes.

The right to vote shall not be infringed for any reason. The right of the citizenry to freely vote and to be polled, is the most important right of a democracy. Any person making allegations of fraud or irregularities regarding the polling processes without REASONABLE evidence, as judged by a court of law to be reasonable, shall lose their own citizenship and be expelled from the United States and all its Territories for life. In this regard, Free Speech requires reasonable evidence.

In a true Democracy, there can be no “special exceptions” to the “laws of the land.” There can be no, “I’m special, because I’m a Pink-Toed Herbivore,” and no, “I’m special because I won the High School popularity contest.” The law must apply EQUALLY to EVERYONE, and you don’t get to break the law with impunity just because you’re President, Senator, Representative or anyone else who thinks they have the right to dump on Democracy. There should be no “different classes” of citizenship.

No one should have special rights because, “My grandparents built this ant-hill!” We are ALL descendants of migrants, regardless of how many generations of our ancestors have or have not lived in any particular place. It’s reasonable to require that people meet certain requirements to become citizens of a democracy, but refusing citizenship after a person has assimilated into a democracy is simply, on its face, wrong. One could debate how long, or how much time, a person must live and participate in a democracy before they should have full rights of citizenship. If a government can’t be bothered to notice someone is in the country illegally within an 18 year period and/or can’t be bothered to do anything about it within that time, then the person should be granted full citizenship. Our laws generally have “statutes of limitation” (frequently 7 years), so that the government can’t harass and persecute people by digging into their distant past (usually, except for murder). The same should apply to immigrants who come to the country, work, pay taxes, and adopt our society as the place they belong. The length of time could be argued, but it certainly shouldn’t be any longer than 18 years.

In a true Democracy, the right to vote must be inviolable. That right depends upon a system that guarantees “free and fair elections.” Citizens must have faith and trust in that process, and it must be zealously guarded. If you have proof, or even REASONABLE evidence that might cast doubt that the system is being operated correctly, take it to court. But weakening the publics faith and trust in the electoral process without REASONABLE evidence should be inexcusable and one of the few reasons for a person to lose their citizenship and be expelled from the country, as that behavior is, in essence, attempted murder of the Democracy.

-Everett

Not to go beyond the leaves on the proverbial limb, but as a final (for now) proposal for “restructuring government,” if we really wanted to go crazy:

The Co-Presidents Amendment

The President shall be replaced with 3 co-presidents, one elected every two years, for a single 6-year term each, along with a new Vice-President that serves for only two years unless promoted to the Junior President position during their two year term. The longest seated is the Senior President, the next longest seated is the Mid-President, and the newest seated is the Junior President. All actions, executive orders, and other core duties of the office of President shall require the agreement of all three co-Presidents.

If the Senior President retires, dies, or otherwise becomes incapable of fulling the duties of office, the Mid-President shall assume the position of Senior President, the Junior President shall assume the position of Mid-President, and the Vice-President shall assume the position of Junior President. No replacement Vice-President shall be appointed. If this happens more than once in a 2-year cycle, then the usual constitutional order of succession shall be used to fill the position of Junior President until the next 2-year election.

No person shall serve more than 6 years total in any position of President. Should any person in the line of succession be beyond that limitation, then they shall be skipped in the line of succession. Should any person exceed the 6-year limit while in the position of Junior or Mid-President, they shall retire at the end of that two year cycle and the standard order of succession shall be applied, under all circumstances. No emergency or other argument shall allow a President to serve beyond the end of the 2-year cycle in which they have completed their 6-year limit.

A President, in too many ways, is just a baby, wannabe king. It was the first baby-step away from Kingships, but the Founders still had the view that a strong nation required a single strong leader. The problem with that is that a single “strong leader” can too easily abuse the system. They rightly recognized that power needed to be split between “co-equal branches” to prevent a run-away dictatorship. What they didn’t foresee (or, rather, didn’t provide for or protect against) was a run-away one-party situation where one party controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches, and the members of the Legislative branch meekly went along with the Executive taking a wrecking ball to the East Wing …er… the government. There are other possible solutions to that situation, but the above is one off-the-sleeve idea to blunt the edge of that possibility (from happening again).

The above is not really a serious possibility, nor even necessarily the best possibility, but it’s food for thought. There are many ‘what-ifs’ and scenarios that would need to be addressed when dealing with a co-Presidential office, but nothing insurmountable. I was tempted to stipulate, for example, that only a man could be elected for the first 2-year cycle, then only a woman could be elected for the next 2-year cycle, then alternating with every 2-year cycle. It’s fun to let loose the dogs of imagination.

Next, we’ll dive into more fertile fields with Power, Immunity, and Benefits – Limits & Guarantees, for which I currently have 16 entries. By the time we get through all of those, there may be 17, 18, 19… 🙂

-Everett

This one is a little less ‘flashy’, but is no less important to the sense of the United States as a Democracy (yes, a capital ‘D’). All residents of a Democracy should be treated with respect and equal rights and protections. The U.S. rules over a number of Territories and the District of Columbia, yet residents of those areas are not treated equally to residents of the States.

The Territories and Districts Amendment

Any District or Territory of the United States, with a population no less than the least populous State, may become a State by a majority vote of the District or Territory and approval of Congress or a National Referendum.

Any District or Territory of the United States, with a population less than the least populous State, may become part of an existing State by a majority vote of the District or Territory, a majority vote of the State, and approval of Congress or a National Referendum.

Beginning with the next Congress:

All Districts and Territories of the United States, with a population no less than the least populous State, shall be treated as a State for all purposes, including but not limited to full rights of representation in Congress, citizenship, rights, and responsibilities.

All Districts and Territories of the United States, with a population less than the least populous State, shall be treated as one single State for all purposes, excluding the test for least populous State, and including but not limited to full rights of representation in Congress, citizenship, rights, and responsibilities.

Considering the preceding descriptions of districts, territories, and groups of districts and territories as being treated as states:

• The total number of Representatives will be 435.
• The total number of Senators will be twice the number of states and group states.
• All states and group states will have a minimum of one Representative and one Senator.
• The remaining seats for Representatives and Senators both shall be distributed as previously done for Representatives by relative populations.
• All Representatives and Senators shall have equal rights, privileges, benefits, and duties, regardless of whether they represent a State, District, Territory, or group of Districts and Territories.

The decennial census shall count all residents of each state, territory, and district, whether citizens or not, and those full counts shall be used for purposes of allocating Representatives and Senators.

The District of Columbia has a population greater than Vermont and Wyoming, and almost as great as Alaska and North Dakota, yet has no representation in Congress. Puerto Rico has voted 4 times to become a state, but the Senate has refused to vote on adding them to the U.S. as a State. Puerto Rico has no representation in Congress, and has a population greater than EIGHTEEN states. The United States was founded, in large part, because they weren’t being treated fairly by their government and had no representation in that government.

Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands together have a population around 340,000. That’s more than half of the Vermont’s population, and well more than half of Wyoming’s population, but again, they have no representation in Congress.

The residents of any ground controlled by the U.S. should have constitutional rights and representation equal to what all U.S. citizens receive. Puerto Rico has repeatedly indicated, via votes, that they would like to be a State, but the Senate, heavily weighted to be “ruled by a minority”, has refused to even discuss or vote on the issue, almost certainly because that ruling minority is either afraid of Puerto Rico’s politics or are racist. I can’t see any other way to read those tea leaves.

Further, this amendment changes how Senators are apportioned among the states. It still wouldn’t be perfect, but perfect is the enemy of better. The House of Representatives is reasonably well balanced in how the Representatives are apportioned among the states, because there are enough Representatives for the slight unequalness of population-to-representative is minor. The Senate has far fewer numbers than the House, so achieving anywhere near the same equality of representation in the Senate is pretty much impossible without just turning the Senate into another House of Representatives. However, the above scheme, of every state getting ONE Senator and an equal number of Senators then being apportioned by population, would at least move the Senate closer to a balance between equal representation of PEOPLE and making sure that small STATES don’t get run over by large STATES. Again, this would move the U.S. much closer to a true Democracy, where everyone is treated equally and has equal rights and possibilities.

-Everett

I expect this one would be widely popular:

The Redistricting Amendment

Gerrymandering is not allowed for any reason. Redistricting shall be done by non-partisan committees (to which political parties and individuals may make suggestions and file complaints, but shall have no decision-making power).

The non-partisan redistricting committees must be fairly balanced between interested parties. Redistricting plans shall primarily be guided by geographic features: urban, sub-urban, farmland, mountains, coastal areas, rangeland, etc., have reasonably minimized perimeters, and must be approved by a three-member panel of Federal District Court judges drawn randomly from the Judges and Senior Judges in or nearest to the districts involved.

To a large degree, geography is politics. Agricultural regions tend to lean to the Right, while cities tend to lean to the Left. Using geography as a major guide in the creation of districts allows each of these groups a chance to elect Representatives of their choice. Voters should choose their politicians. Politicians should never choose their voters.

Many locations have successfully used non-partisan panels to come up with reasonable redistricting, and there is NO reason for elected politicians to be involved in any way, other than for “both sides” to keep an eye on the panel to make sure it IS non-partisan (or at least, balanced in a partisan way).

-Everett

Another major restructuring of government: breaking apart the Executive Branch to reduce the ability of the President to act with dictatorial power:

The Prosecutorial Branch Amendment

The Department of Justice shall be separated from the Executive Branch into its own co-equal PROSECUTORIAL branch of government. POLICING (physical & cyber security, military and foreign intelligence) functions shall remain part of the Executive Branch, while PROSECUTING (including investigating) functions shall be the duty of the independent Prosecutorial Branch of the government.

All Inspectors General shall be part of the Prosecutorial Branch, as well as any Special Prosecutors appointed. Congress shall structure the Prosecutorial Branch by law, much as it does the Court and the Executive branches, but may not impinge upon the Prosecutorial Branch’s core duties to investigate and prosecute.

The Prosecutorial Branch shall be run by the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, elected as a ticket for a single 10-year term by national vote (similar to the President and Vice-President). No person shall be elected or otherwise appointed to Attorney General who has already served a total of more than 5 years in that position.

The Prosecutorial Branch shall investigate CRIMES, not PEOPLE, and without Fear or Favor. The Prosecutorial Branch may call an Impeachment Court to attempt to impeach elected & appointed officials. The Impeachment Court shall consist of 9 randomly drawn Federal Appeals Court Judges. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the Impeachment Judges. Any thusly impeached official shall be tried by the Senate as if they had been impeached by the House.

Cooperation and coordination between the Executive and Prosecutorial Branches is required to coordinate policing, investigating and prosecuting. However, partisan coordination and influencing between those Branches shall be an impeachable offense by the House of Representatives, and may be made a crime by an Act of Congress.

Too many times in the past (Hoover and Nixon, Bondi and Trump, as just two quick and easy examples), the President and/or members of the Administration have coordinated with the Department of Justice to spy on, harass, intimidate, and even prosecute citizens who all too often have committed no crime. Having both policing and prosecuting powers under one roof seems to beg for abuse.

The Department of Justice has, at various times in the past, had a reputable, even honorable role in the functioning of our government and our society. Members of the department have held themselves to very high standards, and have behaved according to the morals and beliefs that a strongly democratic society would wish. But, alas, it’s a tool too easily abused by those with dictatorial leanings. The best way to avoid kings and “strong men” was recognized hundreds of years ago. Unfortunately, the framers of our Constitution put too much faith in the good will of those seeking office. They recognized the danger, but didn’t go far enough to avoid it.

Just as the powers of Congress are split into many (hundreds of) hands, the powers of the Executive Branch are concentrated in two few hands (usually, just two, both attached to the same body). To avoid a wannabe-king destroying our democracy, the powers of the Executive Branch should be similarly split into many (at least, a number of very independent) hands. In a few days, I’ll have more to say on this subject with one more “out there” idea for an Amendment.

-Everett

Most amendments that aim to restructure our government are going to be a bit more ‘radical’ than your average, run-of-the-mill amendment. Today, we tackle the Supreme Court:

The Renewing the Supreme Court Amendment

The number of Supreme Court Justices shall be one for every twenty million residents of the States, Districts, and Territories, rounded to the nearest twenty million, that number being calculated after each decennial census. If the number grows, additional Justice(s) shall be appointed for the next annual term of the Court. If the number shrinks, the longest serving Justice(s) must retire at the end of the current annual term of the Court.

The Supreme Court Justices shall be chosen from the ranks of active and Senior Federal Appellate Judges who have served at least eight years as a Federal Appellate Judge and have not already held a position as a Supreme Court Justice, and shall be selected by a series of votes by the active and Senior Appellate Judges until a nominee emerges. The President shall be able to veto the selection of a nominee if said nominee receives less than 2/3 of the votes of the Appellate judges.

The Supreme Court Justices shall be ruled by and abide by the same Code of Ethics, established by the Judicial Conference and/or legislative Acts, as all other Federal judges. Reported violations of the Code of Ethics by any Supreme Court Justice shall be handled by the Judicial Conference. If the reported Justice is part of the Judicial Conference, they shall be excluded from any and all investigations, hearings, deliberations, and findings on the matter. Congress retains the ability to impeach and remove Judges and Justices.

The Chief Supreme Court Justice, from the beginning of each session until the beginning of the next session, shall be the longest serving Supreme Court Justice at the beginning of the session.

Originally, there were 6 Supreme Court Justices (in 1790), and has been as high as 10 (during the Civil War), then settled at 9 (in 1869). Meanwhile, the population of the United States has gone from 3.9 million people in 1790, to 38.5 million in 1870, to 331 million in 2020. The Federal District courts and the Appellate Courts have grown in number and size, and the Supreme Court should be adjusted reasonably to handle the much heavier case load. At one Justice per 20 million residents (rounded up, in this case), that would equate to 17 Justices as of 2020.

More Justices would support better handling of the heavier case load, and would “average out” the “philosophical differences” between the Justices, avoiding wild swings to the Left or the Right. Drawing the Justices solely from the Appellate ranks with at least 8 years experience in Appellate work would guarantee that the the Supreme Court would be ‘stocked’ with mostly very well-qualified people. Further, having them selected by the “Appellate Court” (currently 179 judges, plus some number of Senior judges), would tend to remove the politicization of the Supreme Court that happens with Presidential nominations. Allowing the President some veto power acts as a counter-balance to a runaway Appellate.

As history has shown us, being a Supreme Court Justice does not inherently mean that it guarantees moral and ethical behavior. The unenforced ‘suggestion’ of a code of ethics that was adopted in 2023 is a sham, a toothless mouse trying to gum lions into submission. Just because they’re called ‘Supreme’ does not make them “supreme beings.” They are people. They may be well educated, they may be experienced (or not…), but that doesn’t make them infallible. They often hold the future (or, at least, the near future) of our country in their hands, and those hands should certainly be slapped when they fail our country.

The Chief Supreme Court Justice has a stronger role (somewhat) than the other Justices, yet is chosen and appointed (for life) exactly the same as all the other Justices, by whatever President that happens to be in office when the current Chief dies or retires. That seems, somehow, less than appropriate. By choosing the Justice who has been on the Supreme Court bench the longest, at least the period of “greater sway” is reduced for any given Chief Justice, and greater experience is ensured. How long a Justice should serve, is the subject for a later discussion…

-Everett

This one is pretty much a no-brainer for most folks:

The National Popular Vote for President Amendment

Presidential Electors and the Electoral College is abolished, and the candidates for President and Vice-President with the greatest national vote total in the General Election shall be elected.

Originally, the Electors system was set up to achieve two things: to avoid election by the general population because the general population was generally uneducated nimb-bobs (or so thought the educated, upper-class businessmen and/or slave-owning nimb-bobs who designed and wrote the Constitution), and to deal with the logistics of operating elections over great distances with no means of communication faster than a horse.

Education is now provided and available to most citizens. While many citizens are still nimb-bobs, many of our representatives are, too, so this should no longer be a valid argument for lessened levels of democracy in our government, merely an argument for wider, cheaper, and better education. As for speed of communication, we usually know the outcome of every election within hours of the polls closing, if not before. Speed, too, is no longer an argument for lessened democracy.

Either we believe that most people can be educated and trained to be responsible citizens, capable of making reasonably wise and balanced choices, or we should give up on the dream of democracy and settle for living under kings, dictatorships, and the rule of those able to grab the most reins of power.

The current Electors system favors Presidential candidates who pour all their attention and favor into a handful of swing states, ignoring all the others. In a National Popular Vote election, those candidates would need to pay attention to ALL the States and Territories, because EVERY VOTE WOULD COUNT. Now, in too many states, it truly does NOT matter who you vote for in Presidential elections, as most states so heavily lean one way or the other that the outcome is pretty much pre-ordained. Without Electors, even though the candidate for one party almost always wins the “winner take all” Electors in a state, there’s still a huge chunk of voters that vote for the another party’s candidate, and a sizeable collection of “swing voters” who can be swayed. In a National Popular Vote election, those “losing voters” would still get counted and added together with numbers from other states.

In a true democracy, every vote counts equally.

-Everett

I’ve grouped my proposed Amendments into three broad groups:

Restructuring Government
Power, Immunity, and Benefits – Limits and Guarantees
Transparency

and I’ll tackle them in that order. Any major restructuring of the government is a HUGE ask, but it’s certainly worth considering. To accomplish it (and many of the others), I think, will require the passage of this first one:

The National Initiative Petitions and Referendum Amendment:

When at least 1/2 of the states, either via legislative act or referendum or state initiative petition, request the same Amendment, or if a proposed Amendment is referred to the people by both houses of Congress via simple majority votes, that proposed constitutional Amendment shall be placed on ballots in all states during the next Presidential general election which occurs no sooner than six months thereafter, and shall pass and become part of the Constitution if at least 3/4 of the national popular vote is in favor.

When at least 1/4 of the states, either via legislative act or referendum or state initiative petition, request the same Bill, or if a proposed Bill is referred to the people by both house of Congress via simple majority votes, that proposed Bill shall be placed on ballots in all states during the next Congressional general election which occurs no sooner than six months thereafter, and shall pass if greater than 50% of the national popular vote is in favor. If the bill passes by less than 2/3rds of the vote, the President may veto the bill, in which case the bill shall be voted on again in the next general Congressional election, and if passed by 2/3rds, it will become law.

Oregon, my lifetime home state, has had initiative petitions and referendums since 1902, and while not all of the amendments and bills passed in this way have turned out to be wise and/or work well, the process has allowed for changes that would have been otherwise impossible due to recalcitrant lawmakers who almost always have their eye on re-election first and foremost, which often makes them reluctant to attempt anything too out of the norm, too daring. But the only way to improve society is to do things “outside the norm.” The ‘norm’ usually means “the way things are right now.”

I think anyone who pays much attention to politics and society would have little trouble coming up with situations where a significant majority of the U.S. population is in favor of A POLICY, but the elected politicians won’t enact A POLICY because they’re either worried about re-election in their specific district/state, or they’re taking money from lobbyists and special interests who are opposed to A POLICY. Banning assault weapons? A woman’s right to choose? Climate change? I could go on quite a while, but there’d be little point, because you (for any given one of you) probably wouldn’t agree with my entire list, and any given list is not the point. The point is that the closer the laws become to what the majority of the people want, the better the whole process will work, because we’ll be closer to a true democracy, and people will be more involved in the process.

Too many people don’t vote because they think, “Why should I? My vote doesn’t matter.” The reason they feel that way is they’re electing someone who will then go off to government and do whatever they want to do with little regard to what they PROMISED they would do. When people get to vote directly for specific laws, it gives more people a reason to vote, a feeling that they are having a direct effect on the laws and structure of society. It also encourages greater debate on specific issues

While “big money” frequently tips, toward their preferred outcome, initiative petitions and referendums, that’s not a good argument against initiative petitions and referendums, as big money is already tipping the government by pressuring/bribing our elected representatives. In fact, initiative petitions, on a national scale, could give us the opportunity to get “big money” OUT of our democracy.

-Everett

The Constitution of the United States of America was great and miraculous at the time of its creation, and has been updated a few times to improve and strengthen it. Its great strength was the compromises made to bring all the States together into a unified whole. Of course, that was also its great weakness.

The periods of U.S. history are generally bookended by Constitutional crises, periods where events and social pressures run smack into the grout between the Constitution’s bricks, and the Constitution says, “Ouch.” The most painful of these frequently result in new Amendments to the Constitution. Unfortunately (and, perhaps, fortunately), a great deal of pain usually is required. The people of the United States don’t move easily, but when the pain reaches a critical threshold, they can spin on a dime, and then you’d best not be standing in the way.

The last five amendments have been added during my life time, which seems close to par for the course, at least for a reasonably lengthy life. But, in my all-too-rapidly lengthening life, it’s become apparent to me that the Constitution is badly in need of some new guard rails. Too much of the Constitution has depended upon the good will and the social standards of the people elected and appointed to offices, and, as recent events have shown, that’s some weak grout.

Over the past decade or more, being of a philosophical bent, my mind has occasionally wandered (only occasionally…), thinking about how things could be improved. I’m not alone in that behavior, and better minds than mine have pondered similar subjects. But sometimes the only way to free up some space in an increasingly cluttered attic is to toss out some of the boxes.

So, over the coming weeks, I plan to write about Amendments that I think would improve the state and behavior of our constitutional government. I’m currently at 18 of them, and won’t be surprised if a few more pop into being before I write about all of them. Some will be better ideas than others. Some will be well worded, while others will be more like rambling thoughts. My goal is not so much to write them as “final drafts,” but rather more like “first drafts.” The point is, besides freeing some of my clutter, to encourage other to think about changes, too. We’re long overdue.

-Everett