Q: Is this a big government pinko Liberal pipedream?
A: No. This document massively shifts power towards the states, expands freedom of speech, enshrines property rights, discourages reckless spending, and prevents Washington overreach. The Economic Security Amendment clarifies that States implement welfare programs, with the Federal government serving an oversight role. The Firearm Amendment doubles down on the Second Amendment, limiting Federal power to interfere with the State control of gun legislation. The Property Rights Amendment declares Federal land seizures without just compensation unconstitutional and outlaws unreasonable restrictions on the ownership and use of property. The Fiscal Responsibility Amendment forces Congress to justify every cent taxed and spent. There's a load more goodies for Conservatives in here. I'm like the Easter Bunny.
Q: What's the point of shifting welfare responsibility to states?
A: Consider social security. The truth is, there is no social security crisis. There are a lot of variables to tweak with social security that could render it solvent for decades, with minimal change to the actual service itself. Nothing happens, though. There are too many different directions to go in, in too big a country. In any other context, social security solvency would be a rather blase affair. However, the Federal Government, by design, requires near unanimity for any changes. America simply has too many people over too large an area for large shifts to occur without serious deliberation and compromise. This system would allow social security to be fixed, with far less political capital needed to make necessary changes. The Federal Government creates an outline for unity and efficiency, while allowing the states needed flexibility. Shifting the Federal Government towards a more proceedural role would also go a very long way towards mending political polarization.
If you're worried this might be too much responsibility for states, interstate compacts are always an option!
Q: Did you give the Federal Bureaucracy even more power?
A: No. Quite the opposite- bureaucrats and regulatory agencies are substantially weakened. The Federal Bureaucracy is still accountable to Congress and the President, and is now accountable to Executive Secretaries as well. These amendments end their legal gray area, creating a tracable path where they get their power from. It also forces merit based hiring practices, routine audits, and empowers inspectors general. The Constitutional Court and Congress can overturn regulations, Congress can rescind regulatory authority. Regulations requiring maximal transparency from the Bureaucracy are codified, and any agency delegated regulatory authority must consult with states, tribes, and hold public forums before anything goes through. If all else fails, the President still has their traditional role of declaring Emergency Powers, now accountable and unburdened by unilateralism. This shall secure economic stability, public trust, and will substantially decrease Federal waste.
Q: What's with Executive Secretaries?
A: In one draft, I tried toying around with a plural executive, much like what Texas and Switzerland have. So I ditched the President and made all the traditional positions, like a treasurer, an auditor guy, and some others, and made them directly elected independently of Congress. But then I thought that was stupid. It was overkill considering increased Congressional power, would be far too big a cultural shift, and a bunch of other downsides. I considered scrapping the concept, but then I realized that even if the idea of abolishing the Presidency and making them directly elected, the positions themsleves being independent and having unique executive authotity did make sense.
Executive Secretaries are both a means of reducing the power of the Federal Bureaucracy and ensuring trust in our economic and electoral systems. They have exclusive powers and authority that can't really be entrusted to anyone deep in the sauce of partisan politics, allowing the Senate to provide a check on the whole system. They can't really change or direct any policy, they're just there to light a fire under the government's ass. It also doubles down on the limits placed on the Federal Bureaucracy, being that their authority is intentionally rather broadly defined in contrast to the Federal Bureaucracy demanding specificity, guidelines, standards, and policy objectives.
Despite their authority being broadly defined, none of them are actors in and of themselves. By design none of them can promulgate regulations, and only the Attorney General has the capacity to interpret the law. The Attorney General is the only Executive Secretary whose role is not strictly administrative or informational in nature, yet he is still bound to the legal system of the United States, and they are all bound to Senate impeachment, and their continued re-election via the confidence of 2/3rds of the Senate.
Q: This Constitution goes into further detail protecting property rights and the freedom to associate, but it also specifies that artificial entities only have privileges. Is this not contradictory?
A: Not at all. Entities like corporations are not citizens, cannot be citizens, and therefore cannot have rights in and of themselves. They are still protected though, as they are protected so far as citizens themselves have rights to own and manage property, and to associate. This was a recognized Constitutional principle until very recently.
Q: WTF did you do to the Senate?
A: I think that I killed a lot of birds with one stone. First, it provides a healthy outlet for a very specific and controversial type of politician. This Senate is meant to consist of senior, well respected statesmen. People still want to see them in power due to them being trustworthy and tested, but might want to leave the driver's seat for up-and-comers. While I decreased gridlock by only giving them the ability to delay legislation, they would still play a big role in constructing policy and shaping public opinion. Its meant to take a sobered second look at policy, above petty partisanship. The places where it retains authority, mostly vetting various nominees and overseeing Executive Secretaries, are areas they specifically would excel at. While the House is where necessary messiness and boldness would go, the Senate shall still be equally as necessary as an institution of honor and dignity.
The most difficult decision to explain, of course, is ex-Presidents being on the Senate for life, though not counting towards the quorum. It is a bit strange, but I thought it would compliment both institutions. I thought that it would be difficult getting Americans to care about the Presidency after stripping much of its power, so this was an easy solution to raise the long term stakes. I thought it would also get more people to care about the Senate, and their decisions.
Q: Why does the President still have Sovereign Immunity?
A: Clamping down on Presidetial power inherently decreases the risks associated with sovereign immunity. However, the President is still meant to play a decisive and energetic role. I decided that due to the restraints placed on the Presidency, I reached a point where the reform of Presidential immunity would hurt far more than it would help. The voters will simply have to take qualified immunity into account during the election- at the very least more people will be aware of its existence.
There are a few important things to note, however. First of all, immunity is rescinded upon impeachment and removal. This is done specifically to encourage resignations, so the prestige and dignity of the Presidential office may be preserved. Think of it like pleading guilty. Second of all, the President cannot pardon for reasons related to their impeachment, nor can they pardon co-conspirators for crimes related to abuse of office, obstruction of justice, or violation of the Constitution.
Q: Can you please categorize these amendments for me?
A: Not a question, but I'll answer it anyway.
Structural & Proceedural Amendments: 6, 7, 10, 18, 21, 23, 26, 27, 37
Electoral Amendments: 1, 3, 8, 9, 20, 22
Clarifications & Codifications: 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 25, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36
Civil Rights Amendments: 2, 11, 16, 24, 30
Q: What's with the weird way this document references its own amendments?
A: Placeholder. It most likely wouldn't reference itself like that if this were actually in the constitution. Its purely for your sake.
Q: Why are there no term limits for members of Congress?
A: Due to the electoral reforms I don't really see a point. With the executive it makes sense, because institutions can become entrenched. A member of Congress doesn't really directly control anything other than their vote.
There's a reason why no other legislature on the planet has term limits. It just doesn't make sense outside of a very narrow American context, a context which is removed by The New Compact. Removing First Past the Post means far more elections will be competitive, and anti-lobbying measures will remove a lot of the risk factor. If you become so popular that you're on the Senate for 30 years in that environment, I say you've earned it.
Q: Why did you allow Congress to infringe on State authority over gun legislation via a three-fourths majority?
A: Normally, the Federal Government can only violate provisions of the Constitution if the President declares a National Emergency, which is now subject to strict oversight by basically everybody under the sun and must follow very specific guidelines. However, with the Firearm Amendment specifically, I didn't include a definition for firearm. It is (by design!) pretty loose. I think this creates potential for some very silly things to happen, in which case I think requiring near unanimity is fair. I'm not married to this provision, though.
Q: If there's a new Secretary of State, what do we call the old Secretary of State?
A: Foreign Secretary.
Q: Anything negative to say about this hulking thing?
A: Yeah. A few things, actually.
First of all, I'm not entirely certain what I did with the Senate would work as intended. Assuming my reforms will achieve the intended effect is a linchpin of a lot of the structural overhauls here. Giving States absolute control over the selection of their Senators was an attempt to improve how attractive it is to Conservatives, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't really appeal to anyone, and might result in some unscrupulous people getting elected by some real crappy people on there. The "Ex-Presidents are on the Senate for life but don't count towards the quorum" thing is an idea I really like in particular, but it would by far be the single most objectionable clause in this entire package. If enough people dislike the idea, I can take it out or replace it.
Second of all, I made the House of Representatives use Instant Transferable Vote, but I can't change the fact that some people just won't understand. Making the Presidency use score voting I think was a stroke of genius on my part, because that's something pretty much all Americans will understand. I might need to find another voting mechanism for the House of Representatives to achieve the intended effect, without confusing people. Using different voting mechanisms for elections that might be happening at the same time might just be a bad idea in general, also.
Third of all, a big stupid thing with electoral initiatives in pretty much everywhere is ballot splitting. I'm pretty sure this implies that all constitutuional referendums have to just be "yes" or "no", but I'm not sure about citizen initiatives. I'll have to check that.
Other than some syntactical and consistency errors, that's about everything off the top of my head. If you have any bright ideas, my e-mail is always free.