I have a modest proposal. I propose that we submit and ratify three simple Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. All three are in keeping with the principles of Natural law as laid out in The Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, I believe these three simple Amendments would solve the majority of America’s political problems, not the least of which include the issues of term limitations, campaign finance reform, education and illegal immigration. If I may, I would like to submit my three proposed Amendments along with a short explanation of the reasoning for each.
I propose that we pass an Amendment that returns the nation to the original method of electing the President and Senators, but replace the method of selecting Congressional Representatives with a lottery system.
First, the Federal government was never intended to be a national government. It is designed to govern the States, not the nation. Therefore, the States should select the President — as they originally did. Furthermore, the States would have to submit two names for President: one from their own citizenry and one from another State. The Congressional Congress would then tally the names and announce the winner. Look it up, this is how the Constitution was originally supposed to work.
Then, the States would appoint their Senators, as they once did. This is because the Senate was intended to represent the States’ interest in the Federal government. Therefore, it made sense to allow the States to appoint them.
Finally, I propose we go to an election of sound-minded citizenry. Naturally, the Amendment would have to define what is meant by ‘sound-mind,’ and it would have to do so in language that will be difficult for ‘Progressive-minded’ individuals to pervert in the future. But, after this is accomplished, the 2-year terms of Congressional Representatives would be filled by random selection from the various Congressional districts. The selection would come from those members who had the ability to vote in State elections (notice that there would be no more national elections). This would have many benefits. 1 — It would make proper education mandatory, so that everyone would have the necessary knowledge to perform this duty. 2 — It would end problems with campaign finance and Party politics. 3 — It would provide an accurate representation of the given Congressional district (which could also be re-drawn to reflect much more realistic or rational boundaries, since Party Politics would no longer be an issue).
The vote would be restricted to those citizens who meet a given criteria. Now, this criteria would need to be debated, but I suggest it be very restricted. Maybe the Founders were correct: the vote should only be a privilege given only to those who either owned real property and/or had served in the military during time of war.
The reasoning here is simple. Under my first proposal, there would be no more National elections, and there shouldn’t be. This means that voting would not be eliminated, only restricted to the areas where it is proper in a Federal system. Under a Federal system, the proper focus of elections is and should remain the State and the immediate local district of the People of a given State. In other words, this would make politics ‘local’ again, which makes it easier for people to stay involved.
Next, under Natural Law, voting is a privilege. It is part of the Social Contract. So long as the foundation of the system of government is properly constructed, there is no need to require any sort of vote at all (which is what my first proposal establishes for the Federal government). However, in the interest of allowing the People to have an active voice in the governing of their public affairs, I propose that the States keep the vote, but limit those who are allowed to vote. To this end, I propose three criteria. Should this ever happen (and I doubt it will), this area can be debated further, but at the bare minimum, the vote should be restricted accordingly:
1 — Positive, picture ID and proof of eligibility to vote will be mandatory at the polling place.
2 — NO ONE who is on any form of ‘public assistance’ (i.e. draws $1+ tax dollars for any reason other than salary as a public servant) shall be allowed to vote in local or State elections for as long as they are on said assistance — NO ONE!
3 — Those citizens of a State that are not on public assistance and who have served in the military during time of war (i.e. declared by Congress) shall be allowed to vote in local and State elections.
4 — Those citizens of a State who own real property and who are not drawing any form of public assistance may be allowed to vote in local and State elections (mostly because these are the people who pay property taxes, are most affected by government action and, therefore, are most vested in paying attention to the doings of local and State governments).
I propose an Amendment that makes it illegal to give money or services in kind to any candidate or campaign for which the person giving the money cannot vote in the next election. Furthermore, any candidate found to have accepted contributions from a source that cannot vote for them in the next election will be immediately disqualified from that election and the candidate with the next highest number of votes will be seated. In addition, any candidate who is disqualified can be personally sued (i.e. them, not their campaign) by his or her constituents for reimbursement of any funds they donated to that campaign.
The reasoning here should be obvious. First, if you cannot vote for the candidate, then donating to their campaign amounts to meddling in that election. The principle here is no different than the current controversy over whether or not the Russians meddled in our last Presidential election. If Russia is a problem when they mess with a U.S. election, then Soros is a problem when he gives money to people in the other 49 States where he does not live, as are the Unions, Political Parties, PACs, etc who give money to campaigns where they cannot vote.
Notice how this resolves the problem with all these different special interests giving money to political candidates. This means that a candidate will only need or be able to draw funds from his actual constituents. It also eliminates the ability of people outside that political district to meddle with local elections. The only detail that needs to be worked out if how to handle when a candidate has received illegal donations from outside their district. Do you set a dollar number, percentage of their funding or number of donations before disqualifying that candidate? This can be worked out, but it will remove outside funding and give the candidate a strong reason to make sure they comply with this requirement.
There you have it: three simple ideas that could — if ratified — resolve a great many of our current political problems. And, in case you are wondering, the issue of illegal aliens will be resolved because A — they will no longer be allowed to vote and B — those people who can vote will be very unlikely to elect people who are going to give their money to illegal aliens. Even term limits will be addressed as, under my three proposals, if will be much more difficult for bad politicians to raise the money necessary to stay in office. In short, these three proposals are in keeping with the principles and ideals upon which this nation was founded and will, if ratified, largely resolve many of our current problems by eliminating the environment that has allowed our current corruption to thrive.
I have a proposal for a 4th Amendment.
All bills must address a single subject, and every bill must name what is being addressed and from which enumerated power Congress draws authority to address the subject/issue. Furthermore, all bills passed by Congress must apply equally, to every citizen in every State, or the bill is null and void.
The Federal government is a government to manage business between the States. It has specific enumerated powers addressing the specific areas over which its authority extends. By forcing every bill to address one and only one issue at a time and to name the specific enumerated power that grants Congress the authority to act in this area, this proposal will greatly reduce the corruption in both spending and pork-barrelling. Furthermore, by requiring that every Bill passed by Congress must apply equally to every citizen in every State, this will help to insure that Congress will not play special favors to special interest groups, nor exempt themselves from the laws they pass.
5 thoughts on “APPLIED NATURAL LAW: Three Amendments that Could Solve the Majority of America’s Political Problems”
Reblogged this on The Rio Norte Line.
Please, please, please add amendments to mandate judges return to original intent as their only authority to make judgments and mandate for a balanced budget that makes it very difficult to raise taxes and very easy to lower them. — Thank you.
I get it. I even agree with you. BUT, if we adopted these three Amendments, wouldn’t it become a lot more difficult for a political Party to gain enough of a foot-hold to appoint radical judges? And wouldn’t it get easier to impeach and remove those judges? Just asking. I’m not one to weigh down the Constitution with more than absolutely necessary, but if it is needed…
I guess I am just too tired of politicians spending more money to make more government. You have some quite good ideas but I really think we have to take power away from government officials by severely limiting what they are allowed to do. For all of history the vast majority of government has failed its citizens while enriching those in government leadership. They cannot be trusted.
Go back and re-read the post (specifically the end). I made one more suggestion that might help. Let me know if you think it does 🙂