The Pro-Democracy Amendment

Introduction

I hereby propose that the following amendment –  entitled The Pro-Democracy Amendment – be added to the US Constitution. I purposely chose this title to emphasize the fact that the US does not have a democratic form of government. Perhaps most would counter that we have a “representative democracy” – as opposed to a “direct democracy.” But given the uneven level of representation within the United States, we cannot in all honesty even make that claim.

The Pro-Democracy Amendment

Section 1.

This amendment shall be known as the Pro-Democracy Amendment and is to apply at the national as well as at all local levels of governance.

Section 2.

The practice known as filibustering, long an institution in the United States Senate, is hereby declared unconstitutional. No legislative body within the United States may require a supermajority for passage of any measure. Any current legislation containing this requirement is hereby deemed to no longer have that requirement; and no future legislation may have that requirement.

Section 3.

The practice known as gerrymandering is hereby declared unconstitutional at all levels of apportionment within the United States.

Section 4.

If a legislator, at any place or time, publicly declares his vote in favor of any measure pending or not-yet-introduced in his legislative body, his vote shall be considered valid toward passage, unless he should publicly withdraw his vote prior to passage. If the number of legislators making such publicly-declared votes in favor of any particular measure exceeds half the number of legislators in that body, the measure shall be deemed to have been passed by that body.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Focus on Section 4

Section 4, appearing immediately above, packs a lot of punch. With these 78 words, your legislator will be empowered as never before. He will not have to worry about the seniority system or a wide variety of petty rules and restrictions stopping him from casting a vote. He may simply declare, in public, “I hereby vote for such-and-such a measure.” This can be done without him having to be present during a legislative session, and can be done 24/7 – that is, even when his peers aren’t officially in session.

Why a Pro-Democracy Amendment?

The word “democracy” doesn’t appear even once in the US Constitution or within its amendments. Yet a key element of our foreign policy involves regime change (if necessary) to enable the development of democracy in previously autocratic lands. Didn’t we once fight in a World War to “Make the world safe for democracy?” However, in the past (especially) through the current era, there are powerful individuals in this country who speak against “too much democracy.”

It’s about time we introduced more democracy in this country, especially at a time when we’re witnessing an ever-increasing concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few.

Possible additional language

I did not intend the PDA, as cited above, to be in final form or to be considered all-inclusive. I invite refinements and debate on my wording. I can think of one possible additional source of material which could affect the final language of the PDA: Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution. Below, I will not quote the entire 177 words of Section 5, but any such portions quoted will be highlighted in yellow.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members

This gives each House too much power at the expense of the states and the people who elect those members. The PDA could contain this revised language:

Each State shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of members elected within that State, with ‘qualifications’ limited only to considerations of age, number of years of US citizenship, and whether an inhabitant of that State.

…and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business

Quorum will no longer be an issue, since – by virtue of Section 4 – it will not be necessary for a legislator to be present for his influence (that is, his vote) to be felt.

… may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Again, Section 4 makes compulsory attendance a moot point. Besides, I find the whole idea of “in such manner, and under such penalties” to be unconstitutionally vague.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

This entire sentence is morally repugnant. Allowing “each House [to] determine the rules” has allowed for the highly disenfranchising filibuster, supermajority rule, and seniority system.

As for “disorderly conduct” – what is “disorderly” is in the eye of the beholder. This could be a charge leveled, for any trumped up reason (serving only to harrass), against non Dem/Pub members – should any actually manage to get elected. However, Section 4, by allowing lawmakers to vote though not in attendance, would render this entire sentence moot.

As for expelling a member, highly undemocratic. If a lawmaker’s constituents elected him, only they should be allowed to recall him. Who is Congress to take it upon itself to overturn the results of an election?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate US President (in 2008 & 2012)

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“How could anybody possibly oppose a Pro-Democracy Amendment?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com