The Third Constitution Of The United States

800px-Constitution_We_the_People

The Third Constitution of the United States

Preamble

We the People of the United States establish this Third Constitution of the United States of North America to promote human rights, social justice, ecological wisdom, peace, and egalitarianism for the citizens of our country and ultimately to all citizens of the world.

Neighborhood togetherness and community solidarity shall be valued above individual and corporate aggrandizement that jeopardize the participatory democracy of We the People. The Earth and the world will be viewed as one organism, like the human body: the cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems have to cooperate together or else the whole organism suffers and dies. (The first U.S. government was under the Articles of Confederation. The second was implemented with the presidency of George Washington in 1789.)

Human Rights

1. We the People have a right to participate in a government that is built from the bottom-up, something that has never been tried before, instead of the usual, bureaucratic control from the top-down. However, the government built from the bottom-up, at higher levels, may make laws that affect lower levels.

2. The people have a right to change their federal government through amendments added to this Third Constitution, and the people have a right to make an entirely new constitution fairly easily, which would then be the basis for a fourth federal or national government.

3. All individuals have freedom to speak and write about their personal, political, and spiritual beliefs. They may worship God through the religion of their choice, or they may choose ethical behavior or spiritual disciplines not based on any religion.

4. Government has powers granted to it as determined by the people’s democratic decision making. Government protects the rights of individuals.

5. Individual citizens have a right to keep and bear arms if they are registered by the county and state where they live. Federal lawmakers will determine the guidelines and the maximum amount of firepower an individual may possess. A county government may further limit the federal allowances or even abolish an individual’s right to own weapons.

6. Involuntary servitude of law-abiding citizens is prohibited. Thus, if the government declares a war that an individual deems unethical, the individual has a right to refuse service in the military.

7. Government authorities must have a probable cause to search our homes, cars, or any other property.

8. Property owners are entitled to a generous compensation if through eminent domain the government needs to seize the property for a higher, socially justifiable purpose, such as necessary road construction, for example.

9. No person shall be tried for a serious crime unless there is a Grand Jury indictment that states valid reasons for the upcoming court trial.

10. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property unless there is due process (or fair procedures) in carrying out the law.

11. In all criminal cases and prosecutions:

A. The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the district where the crime was committed.

B. The accused must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

C. The accused has a right to a counselor who may or may not be an attorney. The accused, or a counselor of the accused, may confront (or cross examine) all witnesses testifying against him or her.

D. The accused may require witnesses to testify if the witnesses have important information to share in the case.

E. Unless it is a minor charge (or a misdemeanor), citizens have a right to a trial by jury. Juries may determine a person’s guilt or innocence, and if a person is found guilty, the jury may determine the sentence of the accused, as advised by the judge.

F. Excessive bail shall not be required of a person, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.

12. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes or bedrooms that does not infringe on the property or the rights of others should not be the concern of government. Thus, individuals have a right to privacy.

13. Hemp shall not be declared illegal to grow for medical, agricultural, industrial, or recreational purposes.

14. A citizen may choose where he or she wants to live. Moreover, citizens may visit any country they choose, including Cuba. If they choose to move to another country, they will not be dispossessed of their personal assets by the government.

15. We the People have a right to a job in this nation.

16. We the People have a right to earn enough to pay for nutritious food, clothing, and recreation.

17. Every small, organic farmer will have financial incentives to raise and sell his products without restrictions or unfair competition from large agricultural monopolies that overly use artificial chemicals, radiate our foods, and genetically modify them without our knowing it.

18. Every entrepreneurial business person will be free of unfair competition and domination by monopolies, domestic or abroad.

19. Every citizen will have a right to a decent home.

20. Every American will have a right to adequate medical care and will be educated, encouraged, and rewarded for engaging in good health practices.

21. Citizens, both young and old, will not have economic fears of age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.

22. Every citizen will have a right to a good public education from preschool to as far as he or she can advance. The philosophy, curriculum, and administration of a public school will be decided by the neighbors who live within the boundaries of that particular elementary, middle, or high school.

An Overview of the Third Constitution of the United States: Its Precinct Empowerment System of State Government Organization

Under the Third Constitution of the United States, there will be 435 federal legislators (the same number that was in the House of Representatives under the previous government), based on districts of equal population. The United States Senate of the former government is eliminated, making the legislature unicameral, not bicameral. This one-house legislature will have 100 less federal legislators than before. All federal legislation, in the one-chambered legislature, must be passed with a 51% majority, based on a system of Proportional Representation.

The Third Constitution maximizes local community self-determination, whenever possible. Each metropolis or county can choose community regulated capitalism, democratic socialism, or a mixture of the two economic systems. In dealing with matters such as rivers, power lines, fire and police protection, for example, the preferences of precincts could be overruled by township government boards, the preferences of townships could be overruled by county government boards, and the preferences of counties could be overruled by state government boards.

Medicare or Single Payer Health Insurance will be extended to all citizens, not just to the elderly or disabled (this will eliminate most medical insurance companies). The government will be the single payer. Social Security will be continued, and its revenues cannot be used for other purposes. A national banking system controlled by Congress (not the former Federal Reserve), shall be established. Instead of private banks making money from providing loans, the government can assume that role to increase its revenues. Utilities such as water treatment, electrical power, telephone, and waste management will be publicly owned.

The military budget will be cut by 75%, and the savings from that reduction could be used for health care. A steep progressive income tax on the super wealthy will help pay off the national debt in ten years.

A government built from the bottom-up better reflects the will of the people. If, however, the people want a strong federal government that makes uniform policies for all the states, then that is what the people can implement. The Third Constitution of the United States not only gives third parties a greater voice at the federal level, it shows how state governments can build government from the bottom-up, a revolutionary concept that has never been tried before. Governments throughout history have had top-down control of the masses.

All citizens of the United States can vote yes to approve this newly proposed federal constitution that eliminates the U.S. Senate, establishes Proportional Representation in the election of federal legislators, drastically reduces military spending, establishes Medicare health care benefits for all Americans, takes all money out of politics, gives Congress greater control of the Supreme Court, makes the Constitution more democratic and easier to understand, and promotes honesty and transparency at all levels of government. Or a U.S. citizen can vote no to reject the Third Constitution. And since this new federal constitution also proposes a new method of state government organization, called the Precinct Empowerment System—a citizen of a state can vote yes or no on this method of reorganizing their state government.

Theoretically, a citizen could vote no on this proposed federal constitution, but vote yes on its proposed method of state government organization for his or her own particular state. Or an American voter could vote yes on the proposed federal constitution, but vote no on its proposed method of state government organization. Moreover, another possibility would be a citizen could vote no to both the federal and the state government proposals, or yes to both.

If 51% of the citizens of a state have already voted yes to approve the newly proposed method of state government organization, then the new method could be implemented two years later to allow two years for the state to get the new infrastructure in place when the new system begins. If 51% of the citizens of a state vote no to reject the newly proposed method of state government organization, then the current state constitution and government will remain in effect.

The new method of organizing state governments under the Third Constitution is called the Precinct Empowerment System. Essentially it controls higher levels of government from the bottom-up. Here is how it works:

Each neighborhood precinct will choose one representative to serve on the township board. The township board will have legislative powers and make judicial and executive appointments that pertain to that particular township.

Each township board will vote (among themselves) and send one representative to the county board. The county board will have legislative powers and make judicial and executive appointments that pertain to that county. Each county board will vote (among themselves) and send one of its board members to the state government board. The county board could also choose one of its members to serve as mayor of the city/county government. The state government board will have legislative powers and make judicial and executive appointments. The state government board could also choose one of its members to serve as governor of the state.

In the past, many Americans voted a straight ticket for several political officials about whom they knew very little. Therefore, citizens will no longer vote for a county recorder, state auditor, and numerous similar officials. Experts who work in these fields will help county and state boards as they select the right persons for these types of positions.

Members of a precinct can replace their representative who represents them on their township board if they are not happy with that person’s voting record and performance. The township board can choose to elect a different person to sit on the county board for the same reasons. The county board also can choose a different person to represent it at the state level.

To explain this new structure of state government, take the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, for example. The city of Indianapolis and Marion County largely have geographical boundaries that coincide. There are about 600 precincts in Marion County (each precinct has about 500 adult voters).

There are 9 townships inside the county. That means each township board will consist of 66-67 precinct representatives (600 precincts divided by 9 townships equal 66.6). Each of the 9 township boards will elect one representative to serve on the county board, which will thus have 9 members, at least in Marion County of Indiana.

There are 92 counties in Indiana, so therefore there would be 92 members on the State Government Board, which would replace the current Indiana House and Senate state legislators. Each state legislator previously represented about 600,000 or more adult voters, a number that was way too large because legislators could not get to know their constituents on a personal level.

A precinct delegate to the township board, on the other hand, could easily become acquainted with all of the 500 voters in his or her precinct.

The following scenario will help clarify how this Precinct Empowerment System works under the Third Constitution of the United States. Though it may seem difficult to read at first, it is worth understanding because it builds government from the bottom-up, empowers precincts, which existed before only for voting purposes, and creates neighborhood togetherness. Without a violent revolution, we can make a happy society in ways that never seemed possible before.

A precinct can only have one representative in the state government system from the township level up to the state level. A precinct will have, at the least, one representative on the township board (The 67 precinct representatives who manage the township board (which is a geographic subunit of the county) could each work closely with a few neighborhood block captains to coordinate bartering based on a skills and needs assessment, using closed circuit TV for the residents).

But then from the township board, a particular precinct representative could advance to the county board, and then possibly from the county board to the state government board, the highest level of the state government system. To repeat, each precinct will only have one person represented in elective state government; some precinct representatives, however, will advance farther to higher levels of government than other precinct representatives in this state government system.

Wayne Township is one of the nine townships in Marion County, which is one of 92 counties in the state of Indiana. Mrs. Smith lives in Precinct #539 which is in Wayne Township. Let us say Wayne Township has 67 precincts (Precincts #533-600 of the 600 precincts in Marion County). Precinct #539, where Mrs. Smith lives, is the precinct that elected Mrs. Smith to serve on the Wayne Township Government Board where she now serves. But then the Wayne Township Board later elects Mrs. Smith, who is also still representing Precinct #539, to serve on the 9-membered, Marion County Government Board. In so doing, Mrs. Smith will replace Mr. Jones from Precinct #581, who previously had represented Wayne Township at the Marion County Government Board. So now, Mrs. Smith, and not Mr. Jones, will represent Wayne Township on the Marion County Board.

When Mr. Jones from Precinct#581 of Wayne Township was voted off the county board, at that moment, there was no one from Precinct#581 in the state government system. Therefore, the residents in Precinct#581 will need to select a representative to serve on the Wayne Township board, the second step in the ladder of progression from precinct, to township, to county, to state government.

When Mrs. Smith advanced from the Wayne Township Board to the Marion County Board, the Wayne Township Board had one less member at that time. When Precinct#581 (where Mr. Jones, who was voted off the county board, is from) elects someone to serve on the Wayne Township Board, then the total number of representatives will be restored.

Now, let us say Mrs. Smith gets promoted to the Indiana State Government Board. She will need to communicate with and satisfy the members of the Marion County Board, the Wayne Township Board, and the residents in Precinct #539 where she now lives, because any of these government groups or levels, which she represents, could vote at any time to remove her from government completely.

If that happens, then the voters in Precinct #539, where Mrs. Smith came from, would need to vote for someone to serve on the Wayne Township Board because at that moment that precinct would have no one representing it in the state government system.

The members of the Marion County Board (who previously had promoted Mrs. Smith) will have to choose someone who is currently on that board to serve on the Indiana State Government Board because now Marion County does not have anyone representing it at the Indiana State Government Board.

It may be the Marion County Board was happy with Mrs. Smith’s performance at the Indiana State Government Board, but since either the Wayne Township Board or the residents in Precinct#539, from which Mrs. Smith arose, gave her a vote of less than 51% confidence (or approval), that would mean that the Marion County Board would have to choose one of its current members to represent it at the Indiana State Government Board.

It turns out that the Marion County Board picks Mr. Davis to represent Marion County at the Indiana State Government Board. Mr. Davis advanced from Precinct#32, which is located in Perry Township, one of the 9 townships in Marion County. Perry Township consists of Precincts#1-67 of the 600 precincts in Marion County, which largely includes the city of Indianapolis.

Under the previous federal government system before the Third Constitution was adopted, the bicameral Indiana State Legislature consisted of 50 representatives in the Indiana Senate and 100 representatives in the Indiana House. If Indiana chooses the Precinct Empowerment System of state government organization under the Third Constitution of the United States, then the Indiana State Government Board, consisting of one member from each of the 92 counties in Indiana, would replace the former 150 state legislators.

Formerly, Indiana had 10 federal legislators who served in the US House of Representatives and also 2 US Senators (like every other state). Since the US Senate is eliminated under the Third Constitution, Indiana will have 10 federal legislators to serve in the new, unicameral US Congress, which will have 435 members under a system of Proportional Representation. Hypothetically this national Congress could be represented by the following national parties: 32% Republican, 28% Democrat, 10% Libertarian, 10% Green, 10% Constitution Party, 5% Socialist, 4% Communist, and 1% Anarchist.

So, if the citizens of Indiana with a 51% majority choose the Precinct Empowerment System of state government organization, that would mean that an Indiana citizen would vote for one person from his or her precinct to serve at either the township, county, or state government level, depending on how high that representative advances.

Moreover, that Indiana voter will also vote for a president of the United States and for one federal legislator (after analyzing various political party candidates from her district ) to serve in the US Congress. That makes a total of three elected officials to closely monitor, as opposed to voting a straight ticket for countless township, county, and state officers whom the voter knows nothing or very little about. (End of scenario)

Under the Precinct Empowerment System, a state will grant its counties with a maximum degree of self-determination, and each county will grant its townships with a maximum degree of self-determination, and each township will grant its precincts with a maximum degree of self-determination. All levels will have self-determination that encourages independence and inter-dependence and not mere dependence on the top-down, hierarchical control system of a national government.

After adopting the Precinct Empowerment System, a state government board with a 51% majority vote could decide that it no longer wants the Precinct Empowerment System. In that case, it would have to organize a state constitutional convention, in which each county would send a representative to the convention, based on an Instant Runoff Voting method as described later in ARTICLE XXI of this Constitution. After the state constitutional convention creates a new state constitution, it will then need to be ratified by the citizens of that state with a 51 percent majority.

When this Third Constitution of the United States is implemented, each precinct could elect a Precinct President and a Council of Neighborhood Block Captains . These positions could be voluntary. Retired senior citizens could make excellent public servants.

Precinct representatives could bring county government closer to home and more personalized. This system will promote neighborhood togetherness and will build cooperative communities largely through voluntary means.

Precinct representatives would become informed about what was going on at the township level above and they would also provide resources, counseling, tutoring, and anything else that the neighbors need. Precincts could even become tribal as neighbors get to know one another intimately, but ideally not with the narrow-minded hostility toward outsiders that is typically associated with tribes.

The Township Council (whose members could be salaried or voluntary workers), consisting of all the 67 precinct delegates, has the job of allocating a block grant of public funds given to them by the County Council. The Township Council will make legislative, executive, and judicial decisions or appoint people to make those decisions.

The County Council, consisting of one person from each township, shall make legislative, executive, and judicial decisions or appoint competent people to make those decisions. Serving on the County Council will be a full time salaried position. The county will generate some of its own revenue, possibly through taxes and user fees, and can receive a block grant of public funds from the state government.

The State Council, consisting of one representative from each county, shall make legislative, executive, and judicial decisions, or appoint competent people to make those decisions pertaining to the entire state. The state will generate its revenue through income taxes and user fees, as the State Council determines. (End of the Overview of the Precinct Empowerment System of State Government Reorganization)

ARTICLE I: The Legislative Branch of the Federal Government
Section I
All federal legislative powers shall be granted to the Federal Congress of the United States, which shall be a unicameral body consisting of Federal Representatives, also called Federal Legislators. There will be 435 separate congressional districts in the United States based on equal population. The unicameral Congress will be based on the system of Proportional Representation. The Congress may pass bills with a 51% majority. The selection of Federal Legislators will be based on the Instant Run-Off Voting and the system of Proportional Representation as described in ARTICLE XXI of this Constitution.

The founding fathers of our second US Constitution wanted to make it difficult to pass laws by requiring that all laws be passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. But this measure is a mixed blessing because it also makes it difficult to change poor laws and amendments as well once they are passed.

For several years now, many Americans have become alienated by a government that is not responsive to their needs. A government that can change or adjust quickly is better than a government that is too cumbersome and slow to make improvements. For this reason a unicameral legislature has been chosen instead of a bicameral legislature.

Section 2
All Federal Representatives of the United States Congress will be chosen for four-year periods that coincide with presidential terms of office.

Section 3
Each state will have at least one Federal Representative. The District of Columbia will also have Federal Representation based on its population.

Section 4
When vacancies in the Federal Congress occur because of sickness, death, or resignation, the residents of the pertaining district can vote for a new Federal Legislator.

Section 5
The Federal Representatives shall vote for their Speaker of the House at the start of every new term, based on the Instant Run-off voting method among members of the Federal Congress. This Speaker of the House shall choose the Chairpersons for the established committees. The Chair Persons, in turn, shall select committee members.

Section 6
The Representatives will be allowed to try, impeach, and remove any
high-leveled federal officer in the legislature, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government. Any officer impeached is also liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to the law.

Section 7
The supervision of federal government elections shall be determined by the county government of each state. Since the method of registering voters and counting votes should be uniform throughout the country, the Federal Representatives shall decide the standard methods.

Section 8
The unicameral Congress will assemble the third Monday in January of every year. Members of Congress do not have to be present at the Capitol Building in Washington DC to vote on bills, unless the Speaker of the Congress deems it necessary. All such debates will be televised for public viewing, so that citizens can be equally informed as lawmakers on all the issues. All bills must be written by elected members of Congress, not lobbyists. All bills must deal with one issue only. Every lawmaker must read every bill in its entirety.

The best arguments for and against a bill must be expressed in writing from opposing political parties, and they must be made available to the public at least two weeks before there is a vote on a bill. Citizens of a district may electronically register their vote on a particular bill, and Federal Representatives should wisely consider input from their constituents. The results of all citizen input on every bill must be made public.

Representatives who do not abide by the will of their constituents may be replaced during their term of office if 2/3 or 67% of the constituents have registered that the Representative should be removed. In that case, the residents of the pertaining federal district can vote for a replacement.

Section 9
The salaries of Federal Legislators will be determined and paid by the state governments that the Federal Legislators represent. Legislators cannot accept from corporate lobbyists any money, gifts, or fringe benefits at any time before, during, or after their tenure in office. Such money or gifts would bias their opinion on an issue.

Section 10
Once Congress passes a bill, it shall be sent to the president for approval. If the president disapproves a bill, he or she can veto it, or lines of it, within seven days. However, a 67% majority in the House can overrule the President and make the law official against the president’s wishes.

Section 11
Congress must balance every budget and not engage in deficit spending,
unless there is a national emergency deemed by the president.

Section 12
In all elections of Federal Legislators, the top 5 third parties (based on membership) will have the same requirements, privileges, and media access as Republicans and Democrats had under the former government. Since the elections of all Federal Legislators are based on Instant Run-off Voting and Proportional Representation, the citizens of a federal legislative district must officially register with a political party if they desire to vote. The top 7 political parties of that particular federal legislative district (that is those having the highest number of registered members), will put their chosen delegate’s name on the ballot (after they have their own internal primary or caucus).

The Instant Run-off Voting system is better than the former voting system because the candidate must be approved by at least 51% of the voters. Under the previous plurality system, if one candidate gets 34% of the votes and the other two candidates each get 33%, then the new leader would not represent very many voters.

An objective panel of computer experts must examine the electronic machines used for tabulating Instant Run-Off voting, or any other electronic input from the people to avoid any foul play or tampering of the votes. Counting paper ballots could also be an option.

Section 13
Federal legislators may be elected for more than one term to provide continuity and experience in government.

Section 14
Money contributions from individuals and corporations shall be totally removed from all political campaigns and advertizing. All speeches and debates of the candidates shall be held at community or publicly owned county radio and television stations, whose Board of Directors will equally represent the top seven political parties of that district.

ARTICLE II: The Executive Branch of the Federal Government
Section 1
Executive power shall be invested in a President of the United States. His or her term of office will be four years, the same 4-year period in which Federal Legislators are elected. The President will choose a Vice President to work and serve with the President.

Section 2
Presidents will be selected through the Instant Run-off Voting method. The 7 largest national political parties will have primaries beforehand in order to pick a presidential candidate. Presidential voting should occur over a weekend on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday to make it more convenient for voters.

Section 3
If a president resigns, dies, is impeached, or is unable to hold the office, then the Vice Principal will replace him. If the Vice President is unable to serve at that time, the order of succession will be the Speaker of the House and then the Secretary of State.

Section 4
Members of the federal legislature can increase or decrease a President’s salary. The president cannot accept money, expensive gifts, or fringe benefits from citizens or corporate lobbyists before, during, or after his or her term of office. Such money or gifts would bias his or her decisions.

Section 5
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States and also of the National Guard of each state. The President cannot execute troops on a moment’s notice unless there is a national emergency.

Section 6
The President cannot make a declaration of war, unless a 2/3 majority of the Federal Congress approves. All past executive orders or presidential directives made by presidents must be fully disclosed, simplified, and clarified. Then they must be approved by a two-thirds majority of Congress. It will now be considered unconstitutional for a President to implement executive orders or presidential directives, unless the members of the Federal Congress examine and rewrite them and approve them beforehand with a 51% majority. Then they shall be added to the federal statutes.

ARTICLE III: The Judicial Branch of the Federal Government
Section 1
The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in a Supreme Court, which shall consist of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Judges. The nine Supreme Court Justices will vote to choose their own Chief Justice among themselves every three years or sooner if a Chief Justice leaves office. Supreme Court Justices will serve for 9-year terms and will be chosen by Congress when a vacancy occurs using the Instant Run-off Voting method. Supreme Court Justices under the previous Constitution may remain in office if they have not yet served 9 years. The Congress may remove any Supreme Court Justice at any time with a 2/3 majority vote.

Section 2
Currently there are over 850 federal judgeships in the United States. Federal judges may serve indefinitely. State legislatures or state government boards will select and remove federal judges in their state.

Federal judges not assigned to a particular state will be selected by the Federal Congress. Federal judges may be impeached and removed by the legislative body responsible for selecting them with a 2/3 or 67% majority vote.

Section 3
There will continue to be two distinct federal and state judicial systems as before. Each state will continue to have its own separate judicial structure. The national judiciary will have federal courts across the country as it does now.

Section 4
In addition to the 12 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal based on geographical areas, there will also be, as already established, The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Circuit (also called the Federal Circuit), which will have national appellate jurisdiction over certain types of cases, such as those involving patent law and those in which the United States is a defendant.

The Court of International Trade, The Court of Federal Claims, and similar courts may appeal to this Thirteenth Circuit Court.

Section 5
Most of the time the Supreme Court will work as an appellate court, but in some cases, when it chooses, it may exercise original jurisdiction which means it can act as a trial court if, for example, a state is a party, or in matters concerning foreign diplomats.

The federal Supreme Court also can review and cancel State Supreme Court decisions and state laws if the federal Constitution is violated.

Section 6
States cannot be sued in federal courts by a foreign country. Every individual shall have equal justice under the law. Supreme Court decisions can be abolished by a 2/3 majority vote of the Federal Congress.

Section 7
The Supreme Court may make modifications in the structure of the federal court system. Its job is to make judgments based on the Constitution and federal statutes, not to change or make new laws. Congress, however, will determine how much of the federal budget is needed to finance the federal court system.

Section 8
Every individual must do what he or she promises to do by contract. An important role of the judiciary is to determine that legal contracts are honored.

Section 9
Government officials will not have immunity from prosecution while they are in office.

ARTICLE IV: If a State Wants to Withdraw from the Country
A state cannot withdraw, or secede, from the rulings and protections of the United States government according to the guidelines of this Third Constitution. Too many problems would occur if various states started becoming sovereign nations.

ARTICLE V: Federal Protection of the States
Only Congress has the power to admit new states to the country, or to provide total sovereignty to any of its protectorates, if ever that becomes an issue. The federal government must protect the people of the states when there is an attack by foreigners, or if and when the state governor deems that its National Guard cannot handle an emergency situation.

ARTICLE VI: The National Debt Problem
The national debt can be paid off in ten years, largely through a 75% reduction in military spending and a progressive income tax that can ultimately reach 90%. When nations repeatedly have annual deficits, it causes the national debt to skyrocket, which then puts a large burden on the taxpayers of future generations.

ARTICLE VII: The National Census
The US Census will continue to be taken every ten years, as it is currently being done. Accurate statistics enable the government to do better planning.

ARTICLE VIII: Approving Corporate Charters
Counties have the right to grant or approve corporate charters, and to impose taxes on corporations operating within their boundaries.

County or municipal governments may revoke the charters of any private corporation in their districts if they determine that a particular corporation does not serve the community or benefit the environment. A corporation is not a natural person and should not have the same rights as a natural person. A corporation cannot make financial contributions to any local, state, or federal government election campaign.

ARTICLE IX: An Alternative to the Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve System of fractional reserve banking must be eliminated. Banks will no longer be able to lend money that they do not have, and they will be controlled by the US Treasury, which shall be organized, supervised, and audited by the US Congress. Instead of private banks making money by providing loans, the government will provide public banks to raise public revenues. The government can engage in deficit spending only if there is a national emergency.

ARTICLE X: The Primary Role of Government
The primary role of government is the protection of its citizens. Actions such as, murder, rape, robbery, pollution, theft, embezzlement, fraud, arson, kidnapping, battery, trespassing, harassment, and nuisance–violate the right of others. The government should investigate, prevent, and have consequences for these types of illicit or illegal actions.

Privately owned prisons shall be abolished. Nonviolent drug offenders shall no longer make up half the prison population; such individuals will receive medical care instead.

ARTICLE XI: World Trade Agreements

Formal trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will be canceled.

ARTICLE XII United Nations and Democratic World Government

Giving each country in the United Nations an equal vote will be advocated. Our foreign policy should be non-interventionist, so that other sovereign nations do not develop hostilities toward us, as they have in the past.

However, if other nations develop democratic governments built from the bottom-up, using precinct empowerment systems at state and local districts, it is conceivable in the distant future to vote for a democratic world federal government using the systems of Proportional Representation and Instant Run-off voting.

ARTICLE XIII: Abolishing the CIA
The Central Intelligence Agency has operated with a secret budget and has engaged in the trade of illegal drugs in order to finance its covert operations that it does not want the American people to know about.

Moreover, it has sabotaged democratically elected, pro-socialist government officials of various countries so that government officials who are more favorable to American corporations get installed instead. Moreover, it has supported dictators in foreign countries as long as they allow our corporations unlimited freedom to exploit the resources of those foreign countries. This immoral behavior causes the animosity and terrorist activity toward our country to increase, which then is used to justify extra spending for the military, industrial, and homeland security complex.

Therefore, the CIA must be disbanded. The Department of Homeland Security as an umbrella organization of other security departments shall be closely monitored by Congress, so that it does not exercise undue powers of surveillance and wire-tapping, powers that often violate the rights of law-abiding citizens because of their political affiliations.

So often when Americans hear that important information cannot be revealed to the public, it is because very secretive organizations such as the CIA do not want their above-the-law illegal and immoral actions to be unveiled. The era of government secrecy must end. Government at all levels must be open, honest, and transparent. If their intentions and actions are noble and just, they will have nothing to hide from the American people or foreign countries.

ARTICLE XIV: The Posse Comitatus Law
Section 1
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 limited the powers of the
federal government in using its military for local and domestic
law enforcement. This Act still must be enforced. The president and the US military should allow the National Guard under the authority of the state governor to intervene in domestic issues. The governor can request Federal Emergency Management Assistance (FEMA) to act when there is a natural disaster, epidemic, public health emergency.

ARTICLE XV: The Need for Habeas Corpus
Habeas Corpus is a concept of law in which a person may not be
held by the government unless the government has a valid reason for putting the person in jail or prison. Even in a national emergency, the right to Habeas Corpus should not be violated. Prisoners of war or alleged terrorists, foreign and domestic, must be given a fair trial.

ARTICLE XVI: The Need for Social Security
The national Social Security program will not be cancelled. Some American citizens (because their employers did not offer pensions, or because of misfortune or unwise financial planning) will need monthly Social Security payments (money that they themselves paid into Social Security throughout their entire working history) in order to survive financially in their old age.

ARTICLE XVII: Decentralizing Elements of the Federal Government
The budgets of some current federal departments and agencies can be reduced, as state, county, township, and precinct levels of government are given more autonomy and local self-reliance. Responsible individuals and local communities in a free society should be allowed to make their own choices, as long as other individuals and communities are not harmed in the process.

ARTICLE XVIII: Parents Have the Greatest Influence on Children
Parents–not the federal, state, county, township, or precinct governments—will be primarily responsible for their children’s education. Compulsory education at every level of government shall be abolished. It should be abolished because parents, not the government, should make those educational decisions. Neighborhood school boards should control neighborhood public schools, and public schools must be allowed to suspend and expel a student from the preferably small classroom setting if he or she is constantly unruly. If that occurs, other alternatives can be explored such a counseling, tutoring, or home schooling to help the unruly student.

Neighborhood school boards should be selected by the adult residents who live within the geographical boundaries of a particular school. The county government can determine the amount of money granted to a school, based on the number of students enrolled. This policy of neighborhood control of neighborhood schools will encourage neighbors to get to know one another better as they work on achieving a mutually accepted, educational philosophy and curriculum for the children and adolescents of their district.

The neighborhood school board can employ teachers and tutors who live within the boundary of the school. The forced busing of children on a bus for 45 minutes across town to achieve forced integration does not create a bond between parents and the schools in the neighborhood.

Article XIX: Keeping the Best of the Former Government
This Third Constitution does not attempt to totally eradicate the federal government, we had under the previous Constitution, with all its former federal statutes. Old policies, statutes, and regulations can be changed, simplified, and reduced gradually to reflect the new mood and philosophy of our day. Income tax laws should be simplified in ways that do not allow clever people to cheat the government.

ARTICLE XX: The Tragedy that Occurred on September 11, 2001
Because of a growing number of questions, doubts, and suspicions about the events that occurred on 9/11 and the official report itself, there must be a new, independent investigation (not from government insiders as before) that examines the extensive research of authors such as David Ray Griffin and organizations such as the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This investigation should begin immediately.

ARTICLE XXI: A New Era of Honesty and Transparency
The wealth of individuals and of corporations must not be used to influence the political decision making of voters. A new era of openness, honesty, and transparency in government, private business, the media, and in our interpersonal relationships is vital to our survival.

ARTICLE XXII: How the Federal Government Can Be Amended After the Third Constitution Has Been Implemented and How the Third Constitution Can Be Abolished When a Fourth Constitution is Desired.

The United States government can be modified through amendments added to its current Constitution (and also by federal laws passed by the US Congress). But the federal government can also be changed completely as the result of having a Constitutional Convention in order to totally rewrite the US Constitution.

To change the federal government by merely adding amendments to the current Constitution, there are two ways that this can be done:

In the first way, the Federal Congress must pass their proposed amendment with a 2/3 majority. Then 2/3 of the state legislatures, in their separate locations, have a year to ratify any amendments recommended by Congress. Ratifying with a 2/3 majority, instead of the ¾ majority that was required in the past, makes it easier to change the government. Citizens will feel helpless and hopeless, or politically alienated, if it is too difficult to change the government when they desire it.

The second way to add amendments to the current constitution is for 51% of the state legislatures to call for a national Amendment Convention for any reason. This second way to amend the current Constitution will bypass the Federal Congress altogether. Once a state makes a request for a convention, it can be rescinded. Each state legislature shall choose one person to attend the national Amendment Convention.

The state delegates at the national Amendment Convention will discuss, rewrite, and vote on any amendments proposed by state legislatures. Any amendment proposals that the state delegates approve with a 51% majority will then be submitted to the state legislatures in their separate locations. Then afterwards the 50 state legislatures must ratify any proposed amendments made by the national Amendment Convention within a year after the date the Convention started.

A new amendment will not be added to the current Constitution unless 2/3 of the state legislatures ratify it. If a state legislature casts its vote it may change its mind if a 2/3 majority vote has not been achieved. Once an amendment has been passed it becomes official, and at the point, a state may not cancel its vote regarding the amendment issue.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. As mentioned in the first paragraph of this Article XXII, a radically new constitution and government can be formed through a Constitutional Convention. It can be achieved in a fair, safe, and orderly way. The American people have a right to make a new government based upon a new constitution.

Therefore, the decision to create a new supreme document will be considered by the American people at every presidential election. If at least 51% of the American voters request a constitutional convention at that time, then the Constitutional Convention will start meeting one year later. Each state will thus have less than a year to pick one delegate to attend the Constitutional Convention.

Each state shall send one delegate to participate in the Constitutional Convention based on the Instant Runoff Voting method. Voters of each state will rank 7 candidates in the order of their preferences. The seven most numerous political parties of a state will offer the voters of that state a proposed constitution and a potential constitutional delegate, who might be the one selected by the voters of the state to represent it at the Constitutional Convention. For example, here is how one voter from Indiana might rank her votes, after examining the different US constitutions proposed by the seven most numerous political parties in Indiana:

1. Republican Party 2. Constitution Party 3. Libertarian Party 4. Democratic Party 5, Green Party 6. Socialist Party 7. Communist Party.

If no candidate in Indiana gets a 51% majority, then before the second round of voting begins, the candidate who had the least amount of votes in Indiana would be dropped from the list of choices (making the total now 6). If after the second round of voting, still no candidate has a 51% majority, then the candidate who had the least amount of votes would be dropped (making the list of choices now 5). If after the third round of voting, the Republican Party (which may have proposed to not change the current Constitution) received at least 51% of the votes, then its candidate would be the delegate to represent Indiana at the national Constitutional Convention.

The 50 Constitutional Convention delegates will first meet the first Tuesday of November, one year after the previous presidential election date. The Colorado State Legislature (chosen because of its somewhat geographically central location) will choose beforehand a meeting place and the initial chairperson (who will not have voting privileges) of the Constitutional Convention. The delegates may later choose one of the attending delegates, who would have voting privileges, to be the chairperson of the Convention. Formal discussions and debates of the Convention will use parliamentary procedure. The 50 state legislatures will assist with the costs of the Convention, which should be kept at a minimum. If the Colorado State Legislature does not want its designated responsibility, then it is imperative that it ask another state legislature to do the job.

The Convention delegates will work on several revisions if necessary of the newly proposed Constitution in the constant effort to get 51% of the American people to accept it, as expressed in public opinion surveys. Since the delegates have a maximum of one year to work, they can work to get a higher percentage of approval than 51%. They can work to become reconciled with the 49% that oppose the new document. Two years after the previous presidential election, the American people will vote on the latest, proposed constitution.

Without a 51% majority vote of approval by the American people, the proposed constitution will be null and void, and the current Constitution will continue as before. If the proposed Constitution is ratified by the American people, it will not be implemented until two years later, unless the state legislatures want to implement it sooner.

In summary, there will be one year to pick delegates and another year for the actual constitutional convention. Then two years later the new Constitution will be implemented at the beginning of the next presidential term of office. This allows two years for federal and state governments to establish the infrastructure for the new government that would be implemented when a new president takes office.

The much greater fairness that Instant Run-Off Voting provides in the selection of Constitutional Convention delegates is why only a 51% majority is needed to ratify the newly proposed Constitution.

The spoken and written words of the delegates must be publicized, and citizens will be allowed to voice their own opinions in the process. The US Congress, the President, and the US Supreme Court will not have the right to control a Constitutional Convention nor an Amendment Convention. They can, however, express their opinions and recommendations in the process.

This method of creating and then ratifying an entirely new federal or national Constitution is unique because it bypasses both the Federal Congress and the state legislatures and empowers the democratic decision making of the people. [End of the Third Constitution of the United States]

To implement this Third Constitution of the United States, there first needs to be passed a Twenty-Eighth Amendment to our current Constitution that shows how we can have a Constitutional Convention in a fair, orderly, and nonviolent way. A proposal for a Twenty-Eighth Amendment and the reasons why we need a new U.S. constitution can be found at my website, as part of a book I am writing. If you have comments or constructive criticism, email me at Roger.Copple@gmail.com. My Twenty-Eighth Amendment proposal and this Third Constitution are constantly being revised. Please share with family members, friends, favorite websites, and your federal and state legislators. Thank you.

Roger Copple retired from teaching third grade in a public school in Indianapolis in May 2010, at the age of 60. Interested in political theory, he has tried to integrate the best of Libertarian, Green, Socialist, and Anarchist viewpoints.

Interesting Websites

Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/key-information-for-new-readers/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/why-the-cia-is-the-worlds-number-one-terrorist-organization-with-video/
http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/why-the-cia-is-the-worlds-number-one-terrorist-organization-with-video/

The Money Masters Documentary Video: How International Bankers Gained Control of America
http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/documentary-the-money-masters-how-international-bankers-gained-control-of-america-210-min/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#

America’s Freedom to Fascism Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#docid=-1656880303867390173

Video: Alex Jones’ TerrorStorm: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947#

Twenty Facts That Will Make You Mad
http://www.prisonplanet.com/20-facts-that-will-make-you-really-mad-if-you-stop-and-think-about-them-for-a-while.html

Twelve Reasons Why Ron Paul Would Make the Best Republican Candidate in 2012 http://www.prisonplanet.com/12-reasons-why-ron-paul-is-very-different-from-most-of-the-other-contenders-for-the-republican-presidential-nomination-in-2012.html

America’s Addiction to War (Read entire book online)
http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html

Articles by Howard Zinn:
http://www.howardzinn.org/zinn/articles

Articles by Michael Parenti:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/articles.html

Articles by Ralph Nader:
http://www.nader.org/

Articles by Ron Paul:
http://www.ronpaul.com/

Common Dreams Website (Progressive)
http://www.commondreams.org/

Critiques of Libertarianism:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Libertarian website:
http://www.libertarianism.com/contents/issues

Types of socialism from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Ludwig Von Mises Institute on Socialism:
http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

Video: What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire:
http://www.filmbaby.com/films/2206

An Anarchists FAQ Website:
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

Lew Rockwell: anti-state, anti-war, pro-market:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/

Anarcho-capitalism
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/anarcho-capitalism

The School for Cooperative Individualism: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/dodson_course_1.html

Facts on Media in America
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4923173

Media and Democracy: The Big Six Corporations
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

Three good websites about 9/11:
David Ray Griffin’s website
http://davidraygriffin.com/
http://www.911truth.org/
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

G. Edward Griffin is the authority on the Federal Reserve:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891691870450#

Noam Chomsky is considered by many as an expert on US Foreign Policy. Go to youtube.com and enter his name in the search window and you can watch many videos. Below is Chomsky’s own website:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles.htm

Shadow Government: How the Secret Global Elite is Using Surveillance Against You by Grant R. Jeffrey is a book from a Christian perspective that you may find very interesting:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XgkpYGk_shoC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=shadow+government&source=bll&ots=Qs1TnbCqiS&sig=QGaNZeQRuwnfv_3BnnKyNQAJXwM&hl=en&ei=lypTTcWxM8_PgAfD27C7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12&ved=0CH8Q6AEwCw#v=onepage&tq&f=false

Shadow Government (the video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjMin39vQK8

Directory of US Political Parties
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

US National Political Parties
http://www.greyhawkes.com/ps/parties.html

Life in a Garmet Factory in Bangladesh:
Hidden Cost of Globalization:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947#

Obama Can Shut Down Internet Under New Emergency Powers Act
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-can-shut-down-internet-for-4-months-under-new-emergency-powers.html

, ,

61 Responses to The Third Constitution Of The United States

  1. Draken BlackKnight February 7, 2012 at 1:58 am #

    Change up #5. The fact that the citizenry has been disarmed is what’s contributing to the current mess the US is in in the first place. Other than that, good job.

    • Jin The Ninja February 7, 2012 at 5:30 am #

       in what way has the american citizenry been dis-armed? and in what way, would an armed citzenship “rectify” the current economic, social, and political situation?

      • Andrew February 7, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

        By killing the rich and taking their stuff.

        • Jin The Ninja February 7, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

          all the guns in the US-people could do that now.

          • Weknow February 8, 2012 at 11:13 am #

            mee hee haw haw   you is so clever in your anti-gun paranoia har har. Obviously gun owners are not all sociopaths like you /Sociopaths always assume everyone else is as evil as they are. They aren’t but they will shoot you Jin when you break into their childs room at night. We know.

          • Jin The Ninja February 8, 2012 at 9:41 pm #

             You’re sick.

      • Upyours February 7, 2012 at 3:53 pm #

        Go to Illinois, a gun control state. Highest crime, highest police corruption.

        • Jin The Ninja February 7, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

          the ability to purchase rifles, shotguns, and handguns without registration (needing only a FOID card) is not exactly “gun control.” actually most industrialised countries would consider it quite the opposite.

          if the ability to buy guns at a local store at convienience (within 3 days) is your only obstacle, i am failing to see that as restrictive in any sense- particularly for a gun whose usage requires little more than a trigger finger, a semi-steady hand, and some metal pointy bits o death.

          • Upyours February 8, 2012 at 10:55 am #

            Jin you don’t know shit about Illinois law. Don’t google our state and pretend you know jack. This is the only state with no carry, NO tasers, no pepper spray, you aren’t even allowed to record a cop or citizen in public with a camera. NO FORM OF SELF DEFENSE either information wise or phsyically. You need to to shut your ingonorant mouth poser.   This has nothing to do with purchasing power on guns even though many normal weapons are illegal in this state.

          • Jin The Ninja February 8, 2012 at 11:29 am #

            “ingorant mouth poser”

            you mean ‘ignorant mouth poseur’ right? and ‘physically’ not ‘phsyically.’ perhaps learn to write before you casually throw terms you don’t quite comprehend.

          • Upyours February 8, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

            Exactly, don’t address the facts that you know nothing about Illinois law and you made comments about it. Your a joke. 

          • Jin The Ninja February 8, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

            You mean, ‘You’re a joke.’

            And I know that most of the industrialised world laughs at american gun laws, of any state, because the ease of availability. If 3 days is too long, or a card to hard to attain, maybe dare say, you’re on the no-buy list? bitter much?

          • Upyours February 10, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

            Maybe I’m bitter and I have a hard time typing because I was shot when I was being mugged in Illinois. 

          • Jin The Ninja February 11, 2012 at 2:46 am #

            Obviously accessibility (legal and illegal) of guns is a major american social and legal problem.

          • Keith February 27, 2012 at 10:01 pm #

            That would be “obvious” based on what?  Your unfounded fear of firearms?  The fact that the less strict the gun control laws, the lower the crime rate?  The more restrictive the gun control laws, the higher the corruption of the law enforcement int he area?  Or is your “evidence” just that you think you’re right all the time, regardless of the evidence against your irrational thoughts?

          • Jin The Ninja February 27, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

            can you cite those statistics from a viable source for me?

          • Upyours February 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm #

            He sure as hell wasn’t carrying a legal concealed weapon..

          • Jin The Ninja February 11, 2012 at 2:47 am #

            Is that a fact? Most illegal (unlicensed) handguns on the market were intially purchased under legal pretense.

          • Keith February 27, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

            And your proof would be…..?

          • Jin The Ninja February 27, 2012 at 10:06 pm #

            the current state of the union- thus the state of the entire world- social, economic, political and military conflicts (war).

  2. Hadrian999 February 7, 2012 at 2:13 am #

    that thing is a total clusterfuck waiting to happen

    • Eysball February 7, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

      You obligated by oath to kill this thing in its crib… that didn’t expire when you ets.

  3. Ryan Joseph Obeso February 7, 2012 at 3:12 am #

    It sounds plausible. I  actually like most of it… except I have to agree with ‘BlackKnight’ and say change up #5. The section stating that “a county government may further limit… or even abolish an individual’s right to own weapons.” should be deleted from this Third Constitution.  Only convicted felons should not be able to own a firearm and for just that reason obviously. Other than that no person should be able to tell another if, how and when they can defend themselves if that person is a law abiding citizen who’s never been convicted of a felony.

    • marklar_primus February 7, 2012 at 3:35 am #

      Correction, violent felons. I can’t see taking away someone’s right to keep and bear arms because they cheated on their taxes or were convicted of some other non-violent felony.

  4. marklar_primus February 7, 2012 at 3:30 am #

    I can see many problems with this document personally, but for brevity’s sake I’ll confine my criticism to a few general points (a thorough critique would likely be longer than the document itself).

    1. Many of these articles are simply not fit to the character of a constitution, such as ARTICLE XX: The Tragedy that Occurred on September 11, 2001 for example. While I can agree fully with the spirit and intention of this article it simply does not belong in a constitution since it is a transient subject. A constitutional article should concern a subject that is likely to remain relevant for decades if not hundreds of years in order to secure a just and orderly society in the long term. I feel that subjects of a transient nature such as this would be more appropriate to another document, one that addresses issues of a more temporary rather than long term nature. Perhaps it could be called the Articles of Transition?

     2. The biggest problem with our current constitution is that it does not give itself any teeth. There should be a body of government which examines each piece of legislation passed and which refers it’s authors and those voting for it to the Supreme Court for criminal prosecution if deemed necessary. This would assure that legislators err on the side of caution in regard to violating it. For instance when Obama (and others) voted for the legislation to grant the telecoms retroactive immunity from their domestic spying activities under the direction of the NSA he should have been prosecuted for such an action as it directly violates the constitution which explicitly states that congress shall not create ex post facto (retroactive) law. The crimes, of course, had already taken place when the retroactive legislation was passed. When the constitution has no teeth such constitutional violations are invited.

    3. Some provision should be made for avoiding situations like the current abuse of the commerce clause. It is a subject that very few understand but has very deep and far reaching implications.

  5. marklar_primus February 7, 2012 at 3:31 am #

    Draken is correct as well.

  6. Mr Willow February 7, 2012 at 5:31 am #

    How exactly is this bottom-up?

    I understand that it is designed to be a more thorough form of representative democracy, in which there are more localised bodies for which we vote upon members, but that is also its inherent weakness. The entire reason our representatives are not representing the public interests is because they were purchased by private interests, and despite the inclusion of language prohibiting ‘money, gifts or fringe benefits’ from corporate lobbyists what eventually will happen is the gradual corruption the likes of which we see today—everyone knows that it is occurring (even people who indulge in the corporate media, I know plenty), everyone is disgusted by it, but everyone has been conditioned to accept it. They will find a loophole, the gifts will be given to a friend or family member, who will then influence the opinion of the candidate. 

    Not to mention the very complex method of changing and replacing legislators deemed incompetent, or other wise unwanted, the retainment of elected representation is, in my opinion, part of the problem of how our current representation became so corrupt, as with each successive elections, it gives private interests a catalogue of individuals to bribe either directly or indirectly. Because of this I have always favoured the use of sortition in choosing legislators, who then propose ideas, which is ultimately what the public vote upon. 

    In such a scenario, however many individuals are selected at random to sit on a council, or form the administration (or whatever terminology you would like to use), these members speak amongst themselves, discussing what would be beneficial to the nation or state or county they have been selected to represent (which will be more organic, considering they come directly from the community, and because of the randomness, there would be a mixture of social backgrounds, racial groups, religious affiliations, etc.), in so doing writing legislation, which would be presented to the public, over which would be held an election (perhaps with the inclusion of public debates over the merits and faults of the legislation if there are disagreements between delegates). If the law is accepted—as in, receives more than 51% positive votes—it is enacted, if it is rejected, it is placed for public review in any and all public spaces (including the internet) for a span of time, after which it is re-worked by the administration (if the public didn’t simply rejected it wholesale) and presented again in another election. 

    In this method, it involves the public as an entity, and in its entirety, in the legislative process. They aren’t passive spectators after the election of ostensible representation.

    Ultimately, though, all this is doing is adding a couple of proverbial steps in the hierarchy (precinct and township), when what would be useful is to decrease hierarchy. That, however, and perhaps regrettably, will not come through the legislative process. The decrease (and ultimate abolition) of hierarchical structure will come through a coöperative process based upon principles of mutual aid, free association, and free exchange of ideas. 

    To achieve this, in addition to the governance by public vote of Law described above, there must be a democratic process instated within places of business, and the ‘respect of property’ language used in this document makes this impossible, as the owner of the business will not relinquish his position atop the microcosmic hierarchy of the modern corporation voluntarily, because it is comfortable. Such individuals would need to be removed from their positions either through peaceful protest, a refusal to work until such a position is removed, or violent revolt. 

    I admire the inclusion of free healthcare and education—each a human right, in my opinion—but I presume that these entities will still operate in the same manner as they do currently, wheräs I believe it necessary to restructure them altogether. 

    Healthcare should be oriented toward prevention of illness, healthy outcomes, and patient morale—which would extend to the morale of the general public, meaning if there are fewer sick people, doctors would be doing their jobs effectively—instead of the amount of procedures performed by doctors.

    Education should be oriented in the instruction of critical thought, along with the usual teaching of history, arithmetic, reading, etc., and encouragement of creativity and curiosity, inquiry, and the application of practical skills, as apposed to the method of instruction based upon memorisation and testing. Elementary schools teaching basic knowledge (reading, mathematics, art, etc.), middle schools strengthening the basics while moving into abstract and practical things (philosophy, reasoning, engineering, carpentry, sculpture, etc.) along with gauging interests, which they are free to pursue more strenuously and directly (though not restrictively) in high school, with universities being more open-forum style gathering places for discussion, experimentation, the sharing of findings and ideas, debate, and display of artistic expression. 

    Your effort is appreciated, especially in your attempt to integrate so many ideologies into the document, but I think where it falls short is that in trying to appease several different groups, it becomes overly complex, probably because several key points of the various points of view conflict one another.

    • Jin The Ninja February 7, 2012 at 5:45 am #

      great comment, and i am not even a huge fan of sortition, but you kinda sold it.

      • Mr Willow February 7, 2012 at 6:24 am #

        An entirely consensus-based model would be more desirable, in all honesty, but it would be difficult to implement on a national scale, so unless the nation is to be rent apart—and government were to exist on a strictly localised basis—or we were to decide national policy on the internet (or by some similar means), I consider it a nice compromise. 

        So long as the public has the final say and is active in the decision-making process, I see no problem with it. 

        • Jin The Ninja February 7, 2012 at 6:39 am #

          i completely agree. i think localisation of political entitites is desirable, but not without it’s own variables and problems. democracy should be indigenous (quote unquote) and organic. Sortition makes sense to streamline the process of consensus. if the nominees are solely delegates, i can see it be very successful.

        • Keith February 27, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

          My problem with an “entirely consensus-based model” is that it promotes a mob mentality and is destructive to civil rights.  Just look at the farce that was Prop 8 in California.  A bunch of xians don’t “approve” of a “lifestyle”, so they decided that, in the name of some fictitious sky fairy, they would outlaw a segment of people the ability to pursue their own happiness.  That’s why we are not a democracy in the first place and the whole point of a representative republic.  “Mob rules” is great, until you find yourself outside of the mob.

          • Mr Willow February 27, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

            Are we aware of our obligations to a mob? It is the mob that labour in your fields and serve in your houses—that man your navy, and recruit your army—that have enabled you to defy the world, and can also defy you when neglect and calamity have driven them to despair. You may call the people a mob; but do not forget that a mob too often speaks the sentiments of the people — Lord (George Gordon Noel) Byron 

            Civil rights would not have been instated were it not for ‘the mob’.

          • Jin The Ninja February 27, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

            …crickets…;)

          • Mr Willow February 28, 2012 at 12:12 am #

            One of my favourite quotes. The great irony is that it was a member of the actual aristocracy—a baron for gods’ sake—who said it. 

            ^__^

          • Jin The Ninja February 28, 2012 at 12:52 am #

            those victorians- it’s how it goes when reading history, as they were an over-educated bunch who did formulate good critiques of society… since they ran it…lol

  7. v2 February 7, 2012 at 8:59 am #

    I think FDR had a good idea: 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

    “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”

  8. Shawnbelangerny February 7, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

    Firstly, #5 is bullshit. Secondly, the rest of this piece, while undoubtedly well intentioned is extrordinarily biased toward a left leaning political view. While there are many points that are valid and well stated, a conservative viewpoint needs to be better represented if you wish to speak for the entire American public. Just because we are conservative doesn’t mean we are wrong. We mean best for the country too and our philosophies are valid, and should be more closely listened too. Overall though, quite a piece of work with a lot of heart in it. Well done, and keep up your impassioned work. 

    • Jin The Ninja February 7, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

       ”Just because we are conservative doesn’t mean we are wrong.”

      actually, yes, yes it does.

      • Keith February 27, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

        @Jin – Ya, that’s a “fair and balanced” argument.  So, basically you are saying that if a person isn’t socialist, their viewpoint is invalid?  Nice!

        • Jin The Ninja February 27, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

          No, actually what i’m saying is that if a person’s politics do NOT account for democracy, civil rights, environmental protection, anti imperialism (anti war, pro sovereignty), and personal liberty- their viewpoint is invalid. i’ve nary met a self-identified conservative who valued all of those things, and yes, a holistic conception inclusive of those things is largely a leftist view. Who mentioned anything about ‘fair and balanced?’ that’s faux news propaganda b.c. obviously cons and neo cons have difficulty with the actual truth.

          • Keith February 27, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

            And it would be your opinion that the conservative view of how the government should control us doesn’t take into account civil rights?  This just shows your lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the conservative ideas. 

            Note: I’m not talking about the crazy republican far-right-wing nut cases that preach small government and personal liberties and then legislate against the same.  I’m talking about true, rational conservatism that actually is the embodiment of anti-imperialism, personal liberties and civil rights.

            You really might want to actually learn a few things about things that you want to debate about…

          • Jin The Ninja February 27, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

            “You really might want to actually learn a few things about things that you want to debate about…”

            i’d like to echo the same comment to you.

            and can you name ONE candidate or GOP member (current) who embodies those values? and PS repealing the 1964 civil rights act is not a protection or valuation of civil liberties.

    • Mark A February 7, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

      Hey gun nuts, why would we mention guns in the Constitution at all? We don’t mention swords or tasers or cars (the deadliest weapon of all), so why guns? I don’t mind dudes having guns, but why do you have to be such jerks about it? And if you pull a gun out in a public place or threaten someone, I support the right of the police to arrest you for the enemy of human rights that you are.

      • Keith February 27, 2012 at 8:58 pm #

        Why mention guns?  Because if not for that, the government would remove our right to have them in a heartbeat.  And, by the way, it is already illegal to brandish a weapon (gun, sword, or knife) in a threatening manner, so your snide comment is completely unnecessary.   I don’t really see how it is being a “jerk” to limit the government from infringing on our civil rights.  Gun rights are no different than any other rights.  Just because you don’t like guns, doesn’t make that right any less necessary.

        By the way, swords are illegal in most settings.  Why?  Not because they are any more deadly than cars (as you point out), but because the government wants to limit the ability for people to defend themselves, both to promote the necessary for police, but also limit their ability to defend themselves against an oppressive government.

        I suggest you research just why we have a second amendment (or pretty much anything else) in the first place instead of just relying on your own flawed speculations before you start spouting ignorant assertions.

  9. Xen Scott February 7, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

    “Everyone has a right to a job”

    I would predict that within a year this clause would make us the least productive nation on Earth.

    “Mr. Scott, I think we’re going to have to let you go. Your half hour marijuana breaks in the bathroom are becoming a real problem.”

    “That’s ok. The gov’t will pay me to sit on my ass while they find me another job.”

  10. Pb February 7, 2012 at 4:59 pm #

    tl;dr

  11. Michael W. Dean February 7, 2012 at 5:57 pm #

    The problem with crap like
    this is the basic suppositions of “we need leaders at all” and “if we
    write things down, the slavemasters will whip us more gently.” Those
    were the problems with the original document in the first place. It
    makes sense that it was written by people who owned slaves!

  12. Michael W. Dean February 7, 2012 at 6:03 pm #

    This “New Constitution” is a total product of the indoctrination slopped out by public schools. I thought it was written by a high school student, but it was written by a teacher. Makes sense. You cannot “combine the best of libertarianism and socialism”, libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle, socialism is government at the barrel of a gun. Saying you want to mix “the best of libertarianism and socialism” is like saying “I follow the Ten Commandments, except every few years I murder someone.”

    Since libertarianism is “catching on”, watch for public schools to quit ignoring it and start co-opting it and perverting it. They’ll try to call socialism “libertarianism.” Obama czar Cass R. Sunstein already tried to do this with his theory of “libertarian paternalism.” (now THERE’S an oxymoron!) 

    • Might not like it, but . . . February 7, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

      LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: Type of moderate Anarchism. While traditional anarchists would believe in a revolutionary need for the overthrow of government and would shun the idea of participating in political parties, libertarian socialists feel that government can be overthrown in a less violent manner and that some political parties are productive. Most libertarian socialists would like to see the modes of production in a post-capitalist society organized in a manner similar to Guild Socialism. In America, the foremost theorist of Libertarian Socialism is well-known lingual scientist Noam Chomsky. Many punk rock bands, including Anti-Flag and Chumbawumba could be classified as libertarian socialist.

      • v2 February 7, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

        ^quote^, didn’t make it up. Of course, there are some obvious problems with an anarchist constitution . . .

    • Jin The Ninja February 7, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

      actually libertarianism (in it s american incarnation) is historically and academically descended from libertarian socialism, so in fact one might posit american libertarianism is the bastard step child of hyper individualism and cowboys.

    • Mr Willow February 7, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

      The term ‘libertarian’ was created in the 1850s by European anarchists, and was first used in America by the anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque in the journal La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social, first published, in New York, in 1858. (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Collective__150_years_of_Libertarian.html )

      Anarchism, as a political philosophy, is socialist in nature, but it rejects the idea that the State would be needed once public ownership of production was implemented. The term arose to differentiate the ideology from Marx. His form of socialism, and communism, and by extension all other forms of socialism being authoritarian (the need for a state), as opposed to social-anarchism (and anarcho-communism) being libertarian. 

      The term’s usage in the United States—highlighting the importance of private property in regard to one’s inherent liberty and advocating laissez faire, free-market capitalism—is unique it the US, where its original meaning was inverted (most will say perverted) by Murray Rothbard,, in the mid to late 1900s, who coined the term anarcho-capitalism. It came out of the Austrian School, mostly through Ludwig von Mises, who was the teacher of Rothbard.

      One of the principle criticisms from anarchists of the term’s misuse—one that I agree with—is that libertarianism, as it was originally conceived, is the advocacy of a society without any hierarchy or pervading authority, but capitalism is inherently hierarchical (there has to be a boss at the company) and authoritarian (he who has the gold makes the rules). Ergo, anarcho-capitalism, or a ‘libertarian’ advocating capitalism is contradictory. 

      *to go along with Might not like it’s mention of Chomsky*

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wriQGI5NGOM 

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xEivNvs-sg&feature=related 

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el1CdxiDo6M&feature=related

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JroogX7zBek&feature=related

  13. Beneaththebs February 7, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    Whether or not there exist 1 or 100, of these  documents, has anyone given thought too and/or the realization, in the wake of the ending result that in all it’s glory the tragedy of intended purposes has been long since forgotten, & the only unwritten fact as it pertains is that “Freedom Is Not Free” some paying a higher price for it than others. Ergo,”We The People”, w/ the exception of the 1%, are nothing more than “Food for the Gods” 

  14. Neema Vedadi February 8, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    How is this any different than the horribly oppressive state we have today? 
    Here’s my constitution. “I am only subject to my own will. I have the right to do anything that pleases me and keep all the money I make. If my actions offend somebody they may speak with me about it. If my actions harm somebody they or their representative may petition me for redress.”

  15. rcopple7 February 9, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    Our current constitution is 223 years old since it was implemented in 1789. Constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson says it is the most difficult to amend of any constitution existing in the world today. At the Disinformation website, Majesty’s article ”The waning influence of the US Constitution” makes reference to a NY Times article by Adam Liptak called “We the People Loses Appeal with People Around the World.”  Adam Liptak argues that though the US Constituion may have inspired 160 constitutions over the years, it has had a waning influence in roughly the last 20 years, possibly due to the waning influence of the United States.  Majesty’s article poses the question, if the US adopted Roger Copple’s Third Constitution of the United States, might the American model become more
    popular? 
     
    The Third Constitution makes reference to a needed Twenty-Eighth Amendment proposal that revises the tortuous, confusing, and vague language of Article V of our current constitution.  Article V only tells how to amend the US Constitution, but not how to have a Constitutional Convention.  
    The Twenty-Eighth Amendment proposal shows how we can have a Constitutional Convention in a fair, safe, orderly, and nonviolent way. 

    Thomas Jeffe!son in the Declaration of Independence said that we have a right to abolish our constitution.  His philosophy was that every new generation needs a new constitution!   The Third Constitution in its present form is the work of just one person.   If the majority of Americans believe strongly that they should have few restrictions on their right to bear arms, which the Third Constitution does not endorse lavishly as much as several commentators thought it should, then such issues would be worked out at the Constitutional Convention. 

    At my website http://www.NowSaveTheWorld.com I present my 72-page book I am trying to get published.  The book is called “Converting Precincts into Tribes.”  In that book I share my Twenty-Eighth Amendment proposal and “The Third Constitution of the United States.”  I appreciate everyone’s input here at Disinformation. 

  16. SPET67 February 11, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    Propose whatever you want.  The current government won’t accept any restraints on it’s power. 

    For them “Do what thou Wilt” is the whole of the law. For us “Do as I say” is the whole of the law. 

  17. Keith February 27, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    I agree with almost all the Human Rights except #5.  The whole point of the second amendment is that people are allowed to defend themselves against an oppressive government.  When the government is allowed to disarm their citizens, those citizens become serfs.  I am so amazed that people just simply refuse to see that.  The government doesn’t give a damn about people being able to defend themselves, they only care about how they can oppress their citizens.  Gun ownership is about two things: being able to defend yourself against criminal attack and keeping the government at bay.  There is no down side to gun ownership.  This has been proven over and over and over again.

    • Andrew February 27, 2012 at 11:42 pm #

      I support gun ownership, but there is nothing has no down side.

  18. Keith February 27, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

    For more on the myths that the gun control lobbyists promote, but are completely wrong about, this article might shed some light: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/ 

  19. StephenNewdell June 7, 2012 at 8:36 am #

    This is fantasy land stuff. The Reality is, The Great Powers are going to become a world wide dictatorship while smart peons sit around and argue politics over coffee, just as Stalin became a dictator whilst smart people sat around arguing politics around tea and Vodka.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Waning Influence Of The United States Constitution | Disinformation - February 7, 2012

    [...] United States Constitution’s global popularity in the New York Times. (If the U.S. adopted Roger Copple’s Third Constitution might the American model become more popular?) The Constitution has seen better [...]

Leave a Reply