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 for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

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

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Are the Unborn Citizens?

Ex-Senator Rick Santorum was featured in a recent article posted on Yahoo News. I tried to post the following as a comment, but Yahoo wouldn’t let me:

QUOTE:       

The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”

Look at those first five words, and you’ll see that the unborn are not citizens. That’s the important part, at least constitutionally speaking. The question Santorum asks – Is that human life a person under the Constitution? – is irrelevant. What is relevant – again, constitutionally speaking – is whether the unborn are citizens. Which they are not.

Since the unborn aren’t citizens, they can’t trump the “privileges or immunities” of those who are. Laws which deny choice to women (who are citizens) contemplating abortion cannot be made or enforced since doing so (again, under Amendment XIV) would “abridge the privileges” (the right of a citizen to control his/her own body) in favor of a non-citizen who has no rights under the Constitution.

Sounds pretty awful to put it this way, but we are talking about the Constitution, right ex-Senator?

:UNQUOTE.

But taken to its extreme…

If my interpretation is taken to its extreme, abortion should be constitutionally permissible at any time during a pregnancy. Even on the day before natural birth, abortion should be legal. That would be pretty horrible, wouldn’t it? Or is there a way out? Perhaps we could look to the Ninth Amendment:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Perhaps one of these rights would be: The Right of Reasonable Expectation (a term of my own coinage, actually). To elaborate:

Maybe (just maybe) We-the-People have a reasonable right to be spared the spectacle of abortions the day before natural birth would have occurred.

This gets tricky because it could be argued that We-the-People have a right to live in a society in which abortions aren’t permissible on demand, as a form of birth control – not even during the first trimester. So…what do we do? Take a public opinion poll to determine what We feel is a Reasonable Expectation in this case, and recognize that as our constitutional standard? Do we repeat such a poll every five years, in case We change our mind?

Leave abortion standards up to the states?

Some Americans argue that each state should be allowed to determine under what (if any) circumstances abortions should be legal within their borders. Suppose 49 out of 50 states decide to totally illegalize abortion. Practically speaking, well-to-do women could simply go to that 50^th state to exercise choice. Wouldn’t that discriminate against poorer women who would find it hard to find the resources to make the trip themselves? To put a finer point on this debate, if abortion were to be completely illegal in the US, wealthy women could travel abroad for a procedure. What should we do in that case? Insist that any woman traveling abroad be given a pregnancy test – and insist she damn well better still be pregnant upon reentering the States?

Oh, that’ll go over big with the Tea Party!

 

Time to rewrite the US Constitution

These abortion-related issues represent only one area in which our Constitution is truly negligent or lacking in appropriate coverage. How much longer will the Supreme Court try to inject meaning into archaic language by means of lengthy and convoluted reasonings? Wouldn’t it be easier to simply write a new Law of the Land in plain and accessible modern English? A host of issues could be resolved, including a constitutional ban on the filibuster – which no one seems to have the courage to tackle. What about banning (or severely limiting the operating rules of) political parties – since the Dem/Pub axis has so thoroughly undermined what our Founding Fathers had in mind?

And what about the Second Amendment, which says:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second has the distinction of being the only amendment which not only states a “right” but gives the reason for it. If the reason is no longer valid, then the right should no longer be valid. To wit: It is no longer “necessary” to the security of a free state to have a well regulated militia. With the USA having the largest and best-equipped regular military forces in the world, state militias are no longer “necessary.” Not to mention: Gone are the days when state militias were deemed “necessary” in order to put down slave rebellions.

In short? Our Constitution is a mess that needs to be replaced – not merely amended. Let me at it! Let's do this!

 

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“People who insist our Constitution shouldn’t be tampered with are afraid of what We-the-People might come up with. Which says a lot more (that is negative) about those People than about We-the-People” - Steve