New Constututional Amendments
My Constitution, Your Constitution, Our Constitution
At the time it was written in 1787, the United States Constitution was a new way to hold back the typical method of social structure, in which powerful persons at the top control the lives of all. I practically adore the Constitution. Law is part of human biology -- it is natural to obey the law, and having a clear written statement of rights and responsibilities is great.
We have been making a mockery of the parchment since at least 2001. But throwing this law away would be a huge mistake. Rather, we should salvage it, and be ever grateful for it. On this page I will list some things that could be fixed by Amendment. Not that we should have a constitutional convention any time soon. People would fall prey to trickery. But let's just do a make-believe list of A,mendments as that can reveal where we are failing today.
I'll omit consideration of amending any current Supreme Court interpretations of the constitutional phrases. But that, too, needs to be done. For example, in the 2010 case of Citizens United v FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that a PAC can give unlimited donations to political candidates, and that a corporation is to be treated legally as a person -- with rights yet! This would have to go.
Note: In parts of this exercise, I merely point to the fact that the three branches do not carry out their respective duties. If only they obeyed the Constitution, we would be safe!
The US Constitution grants power to Congress to deal with "naturalization." That is, Congress could decide who be eligible for citizenship. The matter of who could cross the border was not an issue for much of American history, as anyone was allowed to enter. The first restrictions came about after 1870 such as against prostitutes, convicts, paupers, and mental defectives. Passports did not come into existence until 1914.
In 1889, the Supreme Court had to deal with a case of an immigrant, Chae Chan Ping, who was kept out of the US by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. It found that the Constitution did not specify, but that Congress's law acted on an "incident of sovereignty." I agree that it must be the right of any country to decide who may come in. At the moment, neither Congress nor President Biden is exercising control over the US southern border. Some states on the border have claimed it is their right to exclude immigrants. This is correct. Texas has just passed a law to that effect.
I believe the US's signing of the Refugee Act in 1961 was appropriate to the time, but it should now be changed. Also, constitutionally, we should not be a party to international agreements on asylum, but can always exercise generosity voluntarily.
The Guarantee Clause
Per Article IV of the Constitution, the US "shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..." I believe Hawaii was invaded from the sky on August 8, 2023 and that the other 49 states are under obligation to help Hawaii sort this out. Although the Framers couldn't have foreseen anything like DEWs, a guarantee is a guarantee, is it not?
I propose, in fun, the following Amendment:
"The United States will not use Directed Energy Weapons domestically on any state unless a majority of resident of that state have agreed to such use."
Of course that is absurd, but it helps us focus in the true absurdity of what took place in Maui.
Ah, now there's a topic -- the "secrecy" to which many federal agencies claim a right. The current Constitution has only one mention of secrecy; it is in Article I:
"Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same [now known as the Congressional Record], excepting such Parts, as may in their Judgement require secrecy...."
Can you think of some wording that would temper the invocation of a right to secrecy by the CIA or the FBI -- not to mention the claim of a right to "plausible deniability"?
Can you in fact determine, from the current Constitution, whether the government is allowed to have a Federal Bureau of Investigation or a Central Intelligence Agency? (I say not.)
For that matter what, if any, are the law enforcement duties of the federal government? They can punish the few federal crimes listed in the Constitution such as counterfeiting and piracy. And the president is given a personal bodyguard known as the Secret Service. Federal Courts have protectors of their premises known as the US Marshals Service whose website says:
"The duties of the U.S. Marshals Service include protecting the federal judiciary, apprehending federal fugitives, managing and selling seized assets acquired by criminals through illegal activities, housing and transporting federal prisoners and operating the Witness Security Program."
Congress added to the law enforcement ability of the feds, or the military, to fight drugs. (Yet Congress did not stop the CIA form importing cocaine to the United States as part of the Iran/Contra affair.) This needs attention.
Recently, Congress has allowed for the distribution of guns, including automatic rifles, to 80,000 employees of the IRS. What for? The constitutionality of this could be outlined by an amendment. Indeed the constitutionality of the IRS's very existence is in need of discussion.
One of the ways in which the state is a powerful entity within the federal Constitution is that the means of electing all officials (including federal officials) is the bailiwick of the state.
One reason why state leaders today are, pardon me, perfidious, is that Congress crashes into state's territory by offering "federal funding" in exchange for allowing Congress to legislate where it has no grant of power to do so. (Absolutely all of Congress's proper powers of legislation for the citizenry are listed in article I, section 8, in plain English.)
But states also lost some of their moxie by virtue of the 17th Amendment which changed the basis of electing each state's two senators. Originally, they were to be "chosen by the Legislatures thereof." The 17th -- which I hope will be repealed -- created popular vote instead. See? The Framers knew what they were doing. I am very interested in the relationships of power within the parchment.
A war was fought in the 1860s over the right of any state to secede. (South Carolina was first to announce secession.) The Constitution is silent on this subject. Scholars differ in their opinion as to whether secession is permissible. Personally, I say the Constitution is a contract with its two parties being the states and the federal government. But if one party -- say, a state -- accuses the other of being in breach, the one doing the accusing can declare the contract null.
I do not think there is jurisprudence on that matter. It needs debate. And then we must make an amendment that either says "No state may secede." Or, if we say Secession is possible, then the particulars of how to go about it must be written into the Constitution. A New Hampshire man has proposed "When the federal debt reaches 40 trillion, we secede."
Punishments for Violating the Constitution
The balance of power, which is the nub of the US Constitution, seems to run on the honor system. Each of the five components -- Congress, Executive, Judiciary, States, and the People -- is supposed to protect its own turf. The Framers in 1787 made sure that each component had a means of protecting its turf -- Congress's ability to impeach members of both the Executive and the Judiciary is a key tool. The voter's ability to kick the lot of them out of office is another.
Yet we see terrible violations of the words and/or the spirit of the parchment every day. What can be done? 1. The People can see to it that the offending Congresspersons do not return to office. 2. The states can nullify a law, such as one in which Congress tries to control chldren's Education. 3. The judiciary, if it has a case before it, can rule on the unconstitutionality of any ultra vires government activity.
But 1, 2, and 3 almost never happen. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guardians? Provision for dealing with such laziness should be written into an amendment, perhaps making it a crime.
Related to the problem of officials not fulfilling their duty, consider the role of Inspector General of any of the many federal agencies. Such persons are required to notice and report malfeasance in the agency over which they are stationed. I consider the IG's job to be a sick joke; they routinely cover up, or ignore, the crimes of government. But imagine how it could change if the IG had to report publicly to the people and if, in an instance of her not fulling her job, she would be automatically indictable for treason.
No Entangling Alliances
The WHO's phony dictatorship during the Covid pandemic has alerted us to the way in which globalists can fool the American people -- though if Americans knew their Constitution this would not have happened. I believe we should be as independent of the rest of the world as is possible. Our foreign policy can include helpfulness to other peoples without getting us into legal obligations. And under no circumstances should we submit to any globalist ruler.
There are only two references in the parchment about our participation in the outside world. One is the President's Article II, which says "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senate present concur."
The other is a reference to "the law of nations." In the grants of power, we find that Congress "shall have power to define and punish...Offenses against the Law of Nations. That term is controversial, but an argument can be made that at the time of the signing, it referred to the law merchant and admiralty law. It may have meant some additional things from customary international law but since those aren't specified in the Constitution, we are not obliged to fulfill them. (I mean we do not have obligations to the rest of the world except by choice.)
In regard to asylum seekers, as referred to above: even if the US has signed a treaty, it can subsequently "denounce " that treaty and cease to participate.
NATO needs to be looked at during any proposal of constitutional amendments. In 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty organization was sold to the public as a way for the US to protect Europe from the USSR. This must have been a lie, as we had agreed at Yalta to let the Soviets take East Europe and when Hungary asked for our help in 1956, Eisenhower played silent. At times the Chief of NATO is not American; thus we have US soldiers answering to a foreign leader, for which there is no support whatsoever in the parchment.
The Military Industrial Complex
The president who left office in 1961 -- General Dwight Eisenhower -- warned of the dangers of the situation by which arms manufacturers were inclined to end up in control of America's foreign policy -- and maybe domestic policy too. Nothing has been done to make that warning have an effect.
I see it as part of the behavior of males, that members of our military will become fascinated by whatever technology can offer, related to the battlefield. They will feel silly if they don't agree that we should arm to the max.
Now consider also that Congress has surrendered its war-declaring power since 1950 or so. It quite simply fails to protest if the president orders military action abroad. That is, Congress fails to guard its constitutional turf. See my lawsuit Maxwell v Trump.
The losers are the foreigners who may get killed by us if the war is not justified. Soldiers lose too, as we have seen when they throw in their medals, with regret for having fought wrongly. Another loss is that of our country's reputation. We no longer inspire. (Sorry, but we don't.)
No corrective amendment is needed here, as the proper wording is already in both Article I and II. The president "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States, but only Congress can declare war. The Framers knew that it would be wrong to let a president decide to go to war as he may be doing it for a bribe or under a threat.
The Road to Fascism
The Constitution of 1787 does not address the matter of persons becoming billionaires. It was not a possibility at that time. And the Framers had no cause to predict the merger of corporations and the achievement, by any other name, of monopolies.
Yet those things are real and have turned our democracy upside down. The case of George Soros and Bill Gates alone make this easy to see. Then add in the power of media conglomerates. I have found as a candidate for Congress that there was no way to let the public even know of my existence. News coverage is decided from the top.
Business takeover of government is known as fascism. During the pandemic, media tech giants worked with government to suppress free speech. Courts have had the opportunity to put a stop to this, but so far they stay their hand.
We can't fault the Framers for not making any constitutional provision to help us with modern crises. They wrote the law for what they saw in their day. The main trouble they expected was from foreign nations, and also from rebels who did not appreciate the new system, and -- especially -- from a despot.
There is nothing in the Constitution on how to handle such emergencies as economic depressions, or epidemics, or natural disasters such as earthquakes. Being a strict constitutionalist (but with an openness to amending the parchment), I say that the lack of federal authority to take charge, means that only the states can do it.
There is a unique problem with giving the feds extra authority in a crisis: to wit, as far as I can see, they have in every crisis been the creators of that crisis -- for the purpose of gaining that extra authority. Let this backfire on them -- the Constitution is both shield and sword.
Anyway, the Supreme Court precedent, still standing from the Blaisdell case of 1931, is that emergencies do not alter the Constitution. Period. If you want it to be otherwise, you need to amend.
Here is one area where the Framers gave little indication of what to do. I believe that the spirit of the whole document is that of curtailment of power as used against citizens. Therefore, martial law is not allowed.
The word 'martial' means military. During the civil war, people in the US were under martial law, but the visible context was that of war. Again in 1942, in the three states of the West Coast, persons of Japanese descent were under martial law per FDR's Executive Order 9066 (approved by Congress) -- if they went outside after a certain hour they could be arrested by soldiers.
One who got arrested, Fred Korematsu, won a retroactive acquittal in 1984 based on a discovery that exculpatory evidence was hidden at his trial. But the judge said "The Supreme Court's decision [Korematsu's conviction] stands for the law." In other words, she did not make a finding that the martial law should not have happened, constitutionally. I think she should have made a distinction between dealing with a domestic enemy and all other situations.
Article I, section 9 says "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus ["Don't confine me to jail without due process"] shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Some scholars say that this suspending Habeas Corpus is tantamount to martial law.
Yet we have seen states organize a sort of martial law, as in Los Angeles in 1992. And in Watertown Massachusetts during a manhunt in 2013, people were told to stay home. Even the pandemic lockdowns were a type of martial law. This needs to have constitutional clarity. If it doesn't, one can harken to the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration, in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny others retained by the People."
I believe the Fourth Amendment is strong enough to protect privacy. I say we have a right not to be locked in our homes. And a right not to be forcibly vaccinated. As for the surveillance that has grown to extreme proportions in the 21st century, it serves no good purpose. Indeed it serves the purpose that the parchment as a whole is dedicated to holding at bay -- despotism.
As we all know by now (unless we were born into the cellphone age), conversations and one's own scribblings are not meant for anyone but the intended recipient. Keeping those things personal is a major way to maintain one's dignity and participate in intimate relationships. The attack on dignity and intimacy is not an accidental byproduct of technology; it is part of a plan to disempower all individuals. Remember the sword:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Why not wield it?
As an exercise in civics, why not compose a tentative amendment for each of the items discussed above, or any others that you wish. Where else do you think this effort will come from, if not from you?
To repeat, I have constructed this page to celebrate the Constitution and to show that we can handle legal issues intelligently in the spirit of 1787. Yet I dread a Constitutional Convention. There's a rumor that almost 38 of the states have agreed to hold one!
However, Article V of the parchment offers not just the Convention method of making an amendment. It also offers another way, involving Congress. I will call it the Congressional method. In fact, it's the only method that has ever been used for the amendments that followed the Bill of Rights. I quote Article IV:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, ... which ... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...."