“Politics is a dirty game,” they’ve always said. But it doesn’t have to be filthy, and it doesn’t have to endanger our democracy.

The No Lies Amendment

Political speech, when that speech can reasonably be expected to be distributed in any fashion to large numbers of people, is subject to all laws regarding slander, libel, and fraud. Speaking within political offices and chambers is unfettered debate and should be protected, as long as it’s not broadcast to the general public. When people with a megaphone are speaking to the voting public, lying, deceiving, and derogating your opponents may be restricted, overriding their First Amendment rights.

This shouldn’t need an amendment. Fraud is already illegal and First Amendment rights are not protection from fraud (see Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump for Jan 6th). But the courts have been reticent about (i.e., will have NOTHING to do with) anything but the most egregious lies and fraud.

We should and can hold our politicians and media people with large followings to higher standards, hold them accountable for spreading lies and conspiracies theories with very little (and usually NO) evidence. The more ‘power’ you wield, the more responsible you should have to be with your speech, by law (since nothing else will work).

-Everett

This is more on the need to control spending on candidates and elections. Unrestricted money is to democracy like salt is to good farmland.

The Controlling Money In Politics Amendment

Any recognizable “group of people,” however organized, and for whatever reason, is not a person. They do not vote in elections, they do not have a limited lifetime, and they are inherently different and frequently wield much greater power and potential sway than people. Therefore, those groups shall be limited in contributions and expenditures to the same amount as individual people.

No person and no group may avoid the limits of donations by paying inordinate amounts, providing inordinate services, or otherwise benefiting a candidate, office holder, or ex-office holder. No multi-million dollar payments for books that have no chance of “earning out,” no ridiculous speaking fees, no free travel and vacations, no forgiving ‘loans’. If it looks like a bribe, donation, or reward that violates this limitation, it’s verboten. If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck…

Governments wield power, power is money. They attract each other like iron and magnets. To mix analogies, money flows like water: if there there’s a crack, crevice, or hole, the money will flow. And money in politics is corrosive like a strong acid. A well functioning democratic government, if it wants to survive more than a handful of human lifetimes, MUST be protected from special interests, and money is every tool in the tool chest of special interests, the hammer, the crowbar, and the wood chipper.

-Everett

As many times as Congress has tried to get campaign spending until control, eventually enough Justices get on the Supreme Court to rule that ANY curtailment of ANY amount of money in political campaigning is okay. That leads to the wealthy, including corporations, having SO much more power than the average person that their megaphones drown out everyone else’s speech. Freedom of speech is worthless if you can never be heard. So:

The Money Is Not Speech Amendment

Money is not speech. Annual contributions, expenditures, and transfer of any items of value, per person or group, for any political purpose, in excess of ONE QUARTER of the most recent median per capita income may be regulated in a fair and equal fashion (no playing with words to give an edge or favor to any person, group, or party).

Just because a person has become wildly successful in business should not give them the right or the ability to drown out all other political discussion by flooding the discourse with hundreds of millions of dollars. Likewise, wealthy persons and corporations shouldn’t be able to buy politicians and their votes with enormous contributions to “their campaign funds,” or other (wink-wink) ways of funneling cash to candidates, their spouses, etc.

We should all have the freedom to speak our minds, to talk to others, to influence the future of our society. But if one person’s “freedom of speech” becomes inordinately greater than others’ freedom of speech, then the freedom of speech of the others actually becomes diminished. In order to guarantee ANY freedom for the members of society, the Constitution must guarantee the BALANCE of freedoms.

-Everett

Too many politicians want to strip Americans of their social benefits, benefits which THEY pay for through their taxes, while the politicians get far better benefits which they’ve voted for themselves and their successors.

The Equal Benefits Amendment

All persons elected or appointed to public office shall participate in the same retirement and health benefit programs as all other citizens, and shall receive no additional retirement or health benefits at government expense.

If politicians are forced to participate in the same health and retirement programs as everyone else, with no sweetheart deals just because they managed to get elected to do a job, then they’ll be far less likely to strip the rest of the population of their benefits. Further, if they must depend upon equal benefits with everyone else, they’ll be more likely to improve those programs instead of trying to destroy them.

-Everett

Congress Critters have a long history of profiting from knowledge of upcoming legislation and passing legislation that will profit themselves, friends, or family members. It might be difficult to keep them from helping friends and family members, but this is an attempt to block self-dealing by our supposedly trusted elected officials, while at the same time protecting them from being harassed by others.

The No Self-Dealing Amendment

No person holding elected or appointed governmental office may hold ownership, interest, or investment, in any way, in any financial instruments except via a double-blind trust, for the duration of their time in office.

Exceptions are the ownership of one home and monies held in a simple interest-bearing account.

Any elected or appointed governmental office holder found, by a jury trial, to have violated this stricture, immediately loses that office and may never hold another office. Such suit may be brought at any time, not only after the person leaves office.

Any person found, by a jury trial, to have frivolously or with malice intent to have brought such a charge falsely against an office holder, or who breaks the double-blind trust of an office holder to the office holder or anyone not involved in the running of the trust, shall lose their citizenship and be expelled from all US territories for life.

-Everett

Some people will always try to “play the system.” As they say, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” In the vein of “all citizens are equal under the law,” we need something along the lines of:

The No Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Amendment

Office holders may hold temporary legal immunity while in office, but shall remain liable for their actions taken while in office, and their time in office shall not count with regards to statutes of limitation.

If a person has been convicted of a crime before entering office, no legal immunity shall ensue after entering office with regards to further proceedings and outcomes as a result of that conviction. The case against the person must proceed with no regard for the fact that they became an office holder.

While in office, no office holder shall hold any immunity against suit that they have violated regulations and laws regarding gifts, income, investments, or flagrant constitutional violations while in office. Anyone bringing such suit against an office holder may be punished by law if the suit is found by the court to be frivolous.

While there is SOME need to protect office holders from harassment, while in office, by political opponents, there must also be balance, ensuring that no one uses that as a way to avoid society’s laws and legal proceedings. It’s as simple as that.

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