I am a Canadian and have watched in horror, the damage that has been done to the reputation of the United States around the world. It seems obvious that your proposed addition of the 28th Amendment should have been done decades ago rather than waiting until the country was on the brink of authoritarianism. The idea that "voter suppression" is described as "antics" by the press in a democracy, is preposterous as it should be indisputably illegal. The rule of law has been undermined by pervasive conflicts of interest and political pressure created by political appointments of the AG, the head of the FBI, Judges, Inspector Generals etc. and the power of the President to fire anyone for any reason? The ability to interfere with criminal charges, pardon criminals, create unfounded investigations to discredit political opponents in plain sight with no way to stop these actions as the Senate can be controlled by the President. Now the Supreme Court may become a weapon used to bypass the legislative branches of government entirely to implement the President's demands.
I hope that every democrat goes to the polls to vote early or drops off their ballot in person early to avoid the counting controversy that seems inevitable as it has been threatened for the past few months. Not sure why every democrat would not vote early? Over 22,000 lies have been told by the current occupant of the Oval Office. What reason could there be to wait until November 3rd? The choice is crystal clear as the candidates are in no way similar so what is there to wait to hear in these last few days?
This is a very important initiative to get fundamental political reform on the agenda and keep there. There is one critically important omission. Getting rid of Buckly v Valeo. More than anything else the decision that money is speech and so can not be constrained is at the heart of the commodification of the whole electoral process in this country. Since then any effort at reform has focused on trying to control supply - which has never really worked - because the demand has turned out to be infinite. As a result, as Adam Sheingate has shown, unique among liberal democracies, the electoral "means of production" been transformed into a more than 12.6 billion political marketing industry. So every electoral crises turns into a reason to make the practitioners of that industry richer....and the greater the campaign spending the more money they make. In this way a politics based on people - always very imperfectly to be sure - has been transformed entirely into a politics based on money, augmenting, rather than moderating, the more widely acknowledged, if not addressed, radical economic equality,
I like both, but I would aim for section one as a stand-alone amendment first. I get that the aims are linked but I don’t think there is the same collective understanding re the UDHR at this moment whereas there is a significant and growing awareness and distaste for the structural inequalities engendered by the electoral college and apportionment of legislative representation. For what it’s worth, my two cents as a former Brooklyner.
Authentically humane and certainly revolutionary. I'll stop there, because the accomplishment will take getting pancaked in the face with at least 90 million cast iron skillets.
Why doesn't Brooklyn just tone it down to addressing; the insertion of economics influencing the written law - to include each and every citizen equally (economic equality)? A sales pitch that hard liners from both sides of the isle can buy into.
Article V of the Constitution requires unanimous consent of the states to change the Senate. You cannot make it proportional to representation through the regular amendment process.
Is it a good idea? 100% yes. But it would likely take a new constitutional convention to do it.
Good intentions of librarians and literary celebrities should be commended, but coherence is not guaranteed. The Electoral College is indisputably undemocratic. At least the current mandates of some States should be extended to all, somehow. Senate representation may be problematic, however it is not in the same category of class legally.
I am a Canadian and have watched in horror, the damage that has been done to the reputation of the United States around the world. It seems obvious that your proposed addition of the 28th Amendment should have been done decades ago rather than waiting until the country was on the brink of authoritarianism. The idea that "voter suppression" is described as "antics" by the press in a democracy, is preposterous as it should be indisputably illegal. The rule of law has been undermined by pervasive conflicts of interest and political pressure created by political appointments of the AG, the head of the FBI, Judges, Inspector Generals etc. and the power of the President to fire anyone for any reason? The ability to interfere with criminal charges, pardon criminals, create unfounded investigations to discredit political opponents in plain sight with no way to stop these actions as the Senate can be controlled by the President. Now the Supreme Court may become a weapon used to bypass the legislative branches of government entirely to implement the President's demands.
I hope that every democrat goes to the polls to vote early or drops off their ballot in person early to avoid the counting controversy that seems inevitable as it has been threatened for the past few months. Not sure why every democrat would not vote early? Over 22,000 lies have been told by the current occupant of the Oval Office. What reason could there be to wait until November 3rd? The choice is crystal clear as the candidates are in no way similar so what is there to wait to hear in these last few days?
This is a very important initiative to get fundamental political reform on the agenda and keep there. There is one critically important omission. Getting rid of Buckly v Valeo. More than anything else the decision that money is speech and so can not be constrained is at the heart of the commodification of the whole electoral process in this country. Since then any effort at reform has focused on trying to control supply - which has never really worked - because the demand has turned out to be infinite. As a result, as Adam Sheingate has shown, unique among liberal democracies, the electoral "means of production" been transformed into a more than 12.6 billion political marketing industry. So every electoral crises turns into a reason to make the practitioners of that industry richer....and the greater the campaign spending the more money they make. In this way a politics based on people - always very imperfectly to be sure - has been transformed entirely into a politics based on money, augmenting, rather than moderating, the more widely acknowledged, if not addressed, radical economic equality,
Terrific...finally something down in black and white that speaks to healing some of the most heinous crevasses of structural misrepresentation.
Wonderful - How can this information get out to more people?
Visionary! Let's make it happen.
Awesome, fair, direct and effective. Just what we need. Great job "Founders"!
It's a great idea.................which is why no Republican will ever support it. They won't agree to anything that dilutes their minority rule.
Love it! How do we go about getting this done?
YES!!!! If this amendment is added to the Constitution we might actually become a democracy! Great work!!!!
Keep focusing on solutions and collaboration and democracy. Thank you.
Maybe respond to people who invest their time in reading and supporting your ideas too sometimes. That always helps grow a community.
I like both, but I would aim for section one as a stand-alone amendment first. I get that the aims are linked but I don’t think there is the same collective understanding re the UDHR at this moment whereas there is a significant and growing awareness and distaste for the structural inequalities engendered by the electoral college and apportionment of legislative representation. For what it’s worth, my two cents as a former Brooklyner.
Authentically humane and certainly revolutionary. I'll stop there, because the accomplishment will take getting pancaked in the face with at least 90 million cast iron skillets.
Why doesn't Brooklyn just tone it down to addressing; the insertion of economics influencing the written law - to include each and every citizen equally (economic equality)? A sales pitch that hard liners from both sides of the isle can buy into.
Every word is perfect. Thank you for putting this out there. Go Brooklyn!!
Article V of the Constitution requires unanimous consent of the states to change the Senate. You cannot make it proportional to representation through the regular amendment process.
Is it a good idea? 100% yes. But it would likely take a new constitutional convention to do it.
Good intentions of librarians and literary celebrities should be commended, but coherence is not guaranteed. The Electoral College is indisputably undemocratic. At least the current mandates of some States should be extended to all, somehow. Senate representation may be problematic, however it is not in the same category of class legally.
I love the proposed Amendment and would work hard to get it passed when the time comes!