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 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. There's also no limit to the amount of financial and technical assistance states can be given.
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 The Senior Officers of the Council of State 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 Council of State?
A: In one draft, I tried toying around with a plural executive, much like what State Governments have. 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.
The Senior Officers of the Council of State 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.
Q: Doesn't this destroy separation of powers?
A: A valid concern- but America's strict Separation of Powers is still fully in place. Formalizing the role of the Federal Bureaucracy reinforces the separation of powers far more than any resonable alternative. Administrative Courts are properly placed in the Judicial branch, autonomous of the executive. Parliamentarianism does not innately destroy the separation of powers, either. The Executive has no power to unilaterally create- only to uphold the laws and the Constitutional order as dictated by Congress. The President's delegation to the First Secretary is the ultimate refutation of the Presidential exercise of Legislative authority by ensuring that all Presidential action is sanctioned by and explicitly tied to the Legislature. Calling this a violation of separation of powers ignores the intended role of the Executive branch, and the innate advantage the Executive holds over the two other branches due to their monopoly on violence. The principle itself is no more antithetical than the Presidential veto or the Senate's advice and consent powers. While there are several areas where the fusion of powers occurs, they are both no more excessive than areas of fusion within the original Constitution and are largely cancelled out by other provisions.
To test whether separation of powers is adequate in the New Compact, let's look at what Montesquieu has to say about it:
"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner."
Lets say the House passes a tyrannical law. Would it be easier to enforce, now that the executive is more accountable to the legislative branch? First, it would need to go past the Senate. While their powers would be reduced, they would still have a significant role in shaping public opinion and policy, and potentially hold out until Congress is no longer in session, an election, or some other time sensitive event. Next it would need assent from the President, or the bill would have to reach near unanimous consent from both houses of Congress. Then, the Attorney General, who would be fully accountable to the States themselves by near unanimity to ensure nonpartisanship, would have to enforce the tyrannical bill. Then there might be at least a bit of drama with the First Secretary, even if they require the confidence of the House. Then it would have to suffer through numerous court challenges levied by a fully independent Judicial branch. Beyond all that, it would still need to contend with the principles of federalism.
While most lawful bills would have an easier time getting passed and enacted, controversial or potentially unlawful bills would not.
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: Why are you so concerned with the preservation of Presidential dignity?
A: I've always been of the opinion that Americans like the idea of having a royal family, but don't like the idea of monarchy. I think the way some people treated Kennedy, Reagan, and Obama, and of course the way many are currently treating Trump, makes this pretty clear. It goes all the way down to the way people select the President (I could have a beer with him!) and the way we treat the office- its rather atypical. All the way down to the attention and cultural importance we give to the "First Lady". Its a rather draconian concept to foreigners. "The President is a civilian with a job in public administration, why are you talking about his wife all the time? Its like talking about the janitor's wife." It makes perfect sense to Americans, though. This is rather emberassing to admit, but our Republican values are an outgrowth of the ideas of Monarchy, created by those who had sympathies to the enlightenment ideal of it only a few months prior to their declaration of independence. It was not a violent rejection of British constitutionalism- it was in many ways quite the opposite. A "revival" of British constitutionalism, refocused, refitted, and reaffirmed on a new central axis.
As a result, the Presidency has, since its conception, filled the same cultural role as a monarch. I assume this is part of the reason why landslides used to be more common than not. People were looking for someone who they felt shared the same cultural values as them. The President was a caretaker, negotiator, and a source of all executive authority.
Now, the Presidency has changed. Over a rapid period of time, it has transformed from caretaker to initiator. Our hundreds of years of cultural programming, however, have not transformed with the office. Microcultural values are hyperfixated on, as most seem conditioned to believe that the Presidency serves a primarily cultural role. I believe this is part of the reason for our political divisions- and why some view it more as a game of sports than anything.
I was never going to change hundreds of years of cultural programming, but I could make the Presidency fall more in line with our expectations. By necessity, the office of President has been strictly separated from the competencies that the Federal Government must take on in the modern era. It is now an office entirely dedicated to shaking hands, making inspiational speeches, and serving as a wellspring of legitimacy for the government.
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, 36
Electoral Amendments: 1, 3, 8, 9, 20, 22
Clarifications & Codifications: 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 25, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35
Civil Rights Amendments: 2, 11, 16, 24, 30, 37, 38
These are relatively loose categories. Some Amendments fit in more than one. For example, Amendment 1 is also a clarification amendment due to it specifying the (pre-existing) full scope of the equal protection clause.
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: If there's a new Secretary of State, what do we call the old Secretary of State?
A: Foreign Secretary.
Q: Wait, who handles elections?
A: Yeah... the details are rather scattered about. It could be tough forming a complete picture.
Elections are still conducted by States. The New Compact gives Congress the authority to regulate the following matters:
- The presentation, dissemination, and certification of ballot measures.
- Ballot access in Presidential elections, so no state just refuses to give politicians it doesn't like ballot access, or some other insane stuff happens.
- The length of the campaign season, which begins upon the issuance of the writs of election by the President. Its intentionally left up in the air what a "campaign season" is. If you don't know, most countries have laws about the length of the campaign season, and the US has a notoriously long one that keeps getting longer.
- The restriction of opinion polling for the Presidential election. Again, most countries restrict opinion polling a few days before the election occurs so a bandwagon or apathy doesn't interfere with the results too much.
- Campaign financing and lobbying for Federal elections.
- Ballot tallying for all Federal elections. Initially I just put Presidential elections, but its stupid for there to be two parallel balloting systems.
- Voter registration for all Federal elections. I was a bit hesitant to put that there but sure.
- Congress also has the power to ensure equitable access to voting and prohibit discrimination across all elections in the US.
The Secretary of State, being the chief election official, manages the registration of lobbyists, donation transparency, the coordination of ballot tallying across the country, and the enforcement of other election laws. Pretty similar to Secretary of States in State governments.
The Secretary of State also certifies all Federal elections (Including the Presidential Election. This is why the Secretary of State is the "Chief Advisor to the Vice President"). Presumably House elections will be certified after the appropriate state authority certifies them. The Electoral College, then, represents that process on a grander scale. Every Presidential election is first adjudicated by the Electoral Court, certified by the Electoral College, and finally certified by the Secretary of State. The Electoral College staying around as a certificative body is important for the ceremony and legitimacy of this whole operation.
The Electoral Court is the body where basically all cases related to Federal elections ultimately go unless they present substantial Constitutional questions. I intentionally left their original jurisdiction entirely up to Congress, and made it so unless Congress decides otherwise, only systemic or organized attempts to abridge the lawfulness of elections end up there. Maybe I didn't need to, because they'll probably just refuse to hear cases of random people voting twice anyway. All Presidential Elections are "adjudicated" by the Electoral Court to increase their legitimacy. Presumably they'll just quickly say "Everything looks fine." and pass it for certification unless something real wacky happens; I didn't specify what adjudication means in this context.
Maybe I should've included provisions somewhere for if an election is disputed for a prolonged period of time. That's probably better to leave blank for now, though. Anyway, that's the jist of it.
Q: Anything negative to say about this hulking thing?
A: Yeah. A few things, actually.
First of all, I was thinking of making the House of Representatives voting system far looser by allowing States adopt other forms of proportional representation. Currently, not many in the United States have an issue with proportionality. The country is so big that they're fine with focusing on only their local elections. However, this could change in time.
Second of all, I'm not sure I did nearly enough to defend the Fourth Amendment. While the Privacy Amendment covers quite a lot, there are quite a lot of widespread flagrant violations that aren't covered there. Mainly concerning law enforcement. Note that explicitly defining when and how Constitutional rights can be violated probably does some of my work for me.
Third of all, I was originally going to use this whole thing as a means to fix the central banking system of the United States and inject financial markets with some more confidence, but I realized that is most likely outside of the scope of the New Compact, and would make an already contentious document even more contentious. Click here to view the Third Bank Amendment. Yeah I kept it vague but it gets the point across.
Some other provisions I'm looking into adding are some provisions about government debt and budget balancing, a way to forcefully "graduate" representatives to Senator status (that would be difficult to implement), some provisions about human dignity, additional legal proceedural rights, linguistic/cultural rights outside of those established for Indian tribes (Louisiana sends their regards), establishing a duty for the United States to keep the economy competitive and fair (already implied in some areas), explicitly stating the Declaration of Independence as a Constitutional document, and some unamendable provisions (e.g. the republican nature of the state [as in the form of government not the party]). I need to think long and hard about the implications of doing all that stuff. Additional protections against human rights violations are something garuanteed to be integrated into this.
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.