When I first began thinking about this idea and embracing the concept that we are all equals, and should all count the same, I initially thought the Senate was a problem.  I wondered whether it should still hold a place in our new form of government, seeing as how it doesn’t really fit with the theme of equality. I mean why should the roughly 39 million plus people of California get the same two Senators as the residents of Wyoming with a population of less than 600,000?  This is nothing against anyone from Wyoming, but from a pure mathematical perspective, those folks hold exponentially more power compared to Californians and many others across the country.

In the course of discussing these musings with a friend of mine, he astutely pointed out that what we have in the Senate is the result of the Great Compromise.  After googling ‘Great Compromise’ and wishing I’d paid closer attention in history class, I found out that I was in pretty good company with my original opinion. Apparently, both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were initially opposed to the idea of the Senate as well, and believed that a single-house legislature, with representation based solely upon population, was a better means of governing.  This shouldn’t be completely surprising though, as they came from Pennsylvania and Virginia, the two biggest States at the time. Eventually, however, Franklin and Jefferson came around to support the Senate, as it was the middle ground needed to get the smaller states to join with the larger states and ratify the Constitution.

As I continued my research into the history of the Senate, I too came around to embrace its role, but only after stumbling onto the story of the Senatorial Saucer.  According to legend, Jefferson and George Washington were sitting at a breakfast table discussing the merits of the Senate one morning when Washington asked, “Why did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking?”  When Jefferson replied, “To cool it,” Washington made his point by explaining that “We pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

Though I found the story amusing, the real value of the anecdote didn’t hit me until I watched news coverage of the 2016 national vote held in the United Kingdom to decide whether the country should remain in, or leave the European Union.  I was shocked to see how many of the U.K. citizens being interviewed were asking if they could vote again, once they found out that the measure to “Brexit” and leave the EU had passed by a slim margin. It was then I realized that, even if flawed, our Senate and a two-chamber legislature can serve a very valuable purpose in the context of an evolved democracy.  It gives us the chance for a do-over if we don’t like the results the first time around. Particularly in a system where the collective is in control, it seems vitally important that we have a mechanism to keep our initial reactions from being controlling. Upon further reflection, or in the face of new information, we sometimes change our minds for the better. And through a second legislative chamber, it specifically helps to ensure that we’re able to defer to our better judgment, rather than our first impressions.   

Additionally, keeping the Senate intact preserves the original compromise struck between the large and the small States, and keeps the idea of a democratic evolution simple.  For most of us, our natural instinct is to gravitate toward what’s comfortable and safe. If an idea is too radical, it’s more likely to be dismissed or invoke a sense of fear.  And so it doesn’t seem there’s much to gain by stirring up old debates settled long ago, and proposing drastic measures like eliminating an entire chamber of the legislature. Instead, by limiting the changes to only those specific areas needed to solve legitimate problems, and leaving the rest alone, it helps to keep things familiar, and increases the likelihood that more people will be open to a new way of doing things.  Ultimately, if this idea is ever going to come through to reality, it’s going to take fellow citizens from all of the states, large and small.

The 2016 election marked the fifth time in U.S. history that a President was elected to office, but failed to win the popular vote, this time by more than 2.8 million votes.  As expected, the outcome stirred a national debate over the merits of the Electoral College, just as it had in the past when similar results occurred. There is, after all, something very un-democratic about an election which results in a winner who receives less votes than their opponent.  

Of all the arguments offered in support of this method, the only one that ever seemed to make any sort of sense to me was the one based on population disparity.  The argument suggests that without the Electoral College, Presidential candidates wouldn’t bother to campaign in the less populous States or rural areas, and would focus all of their attention on the large cities.  In theory, this argument seems to have some merit, but as we now know it was the Senate that was devised to balance the interests between the large and the small States, not the Electoral College. When you further consider our modern day media and availability of information, the argument becomes even less compelling, as there’s simply no longer a need for a candidate to be physically present in a State in order to reach its voters.    

It’s often stated that the concept of the Electoral College initially arose out of concerns that citizens from one state wouldn’t be familiar with candidates from another state.  Keep in mind the historical context, and the lack of communication amongst the population in the late 1700s. To address the issue, the framers put the selection of the President into the hands of Electors, who they presupposed would be involved with government and politics, and would have knowledge of the candidates, unlike the ordinary citizens of the time.  Underlying this solution, however, is an elitist mentality that influenced much of our early government. As Alexander Hamilton blatantly put it in the Federalist Paper No. 68, “the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

It wasn’t until well after the Electoral College was first created that the people were given any rights in the process, when the states, on their own accord, held popular elections to determine which candidate would receive their electoral votes.  At a federal level, the selection of electors is left entirely up to the states, and those electors, as far as the Constitution is concerned, are free to vote however they choose. In fact, many states don’t even formally require their electors to vote in accordance with the outcome of the popular election.  Although infrequent, there have been several instances throughout our history of so-called “faithless” electors, who have cast electoral votes for candidates other than the ones to whom they were originally pledged, and contrary to the outcome of their state’s popular vote.

In 1961, the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution was ratified and provided that the District of Columbia would always receive the same number of electoral votes as the least populous state.  With an estimated 2018 population just shy of 700,000, D.C. ranks just ahead of Vermont and Wyoming, the two least populous states, and only slightly behind Alaska and North Dakota, each of which were allocated three (3) electoral votes in the last election.  

The rationale behind the 23rd Amendment was pretty clear, as it sought to extend the right to participate in the election of the President to a large group of American citizens who were left out of the process, simply because where they lived wasn’t considered in the original plan.  So would it surprise you to know that there are currently over 4,000,000 American citizens living in the American Territories who still have no right to participate? Cumulatively, the populations of fellow citizens living in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands would rank no. 28 if measured alongside the states, just ahead of Oklahoma and just behind Oregon according to 2018 population figures.  Something seems patently unjust about a system that leaves such a large group of citizens out of the process of electing our nation’s highest official. After all, one of the main reasons America sought independence from England was a lack of representation in the process of government. Yet here we are in modern times, with a group citizens larger than the populations of Iowa, Kansas and Mississippi, left without any say in the one national election we have.  If it was important enough to enact a Constitutional Amendment for 700,000, why wouldn’t over 4,000,000 be given similar consideration?

Of all the reasons which justify a change to the manner in which we elect our President, however, perhaps the most compelling is that the real origins of the Electoral College are rooted in slavery, and the north versus south divide that permeated the early years of our nation.  Supported principally by the southern States, the Electoral College allowed slaves to be counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of allocating electoral votes. The direct skew of slavery on the system is best evidenced by comparing the two largest states at the time, Pennsylvania and Virginia.  Following the first Census, those two states had nearly identical populations of free persons, yet Pennsylvania received 15 electoral votes and Virginia 21. This also helps to explain why 8 out of the first 9 terms of the office of the President were served by individuals hailing from Virginia, the most populous slave state at the time.  If the Senate was the compromise between the large and the small states, the Electoral College was the equivalent between the slave-holding south and the opposing north.

So why exactly then are we preserving a process that yields undemocratic results, lacks any formal rights for the people, excludes millions of citizens, and was conceived out of the most vile and disgusting part of our history?  When it comes to the process of electing our nation’s top official, the person who represents America to the world, and who sets policy for the entire country, we deserve better. We deserve a true democratic election that is fair, just, and aligned with our current values, instead of a deeply flawed system that’s a byproduct of a bygone era filled with bigotry and hatred.  Every other election in America, at all levels of government, determines the winner through a democratic popular election, and so it only makes sense that our most important election would be conducted the same way, particularly when there’s no good reason to do so anymore.

   The overall concept of involving people directly in the process of government is generally referred to as pure or direct democracy.  It’s not an entirely new concept to the American political system, as many state and local governments currently utilize referendums, propositions, and initiatives to allow the general voting public to determine certain matters. These types of measures, however, are often used inconsistently and infrequently across state and local levels, and have no role whatsoever within our federal system.  

From a historical perspective, the most prominent example of a direct democracy in action was ancient Athens, where all adult male citizens were allowed to vote on all major issues of government at an open air assembly, with results determined by a show of hands.  The Athenians were also known to take great care to ensure the judges and jurors for their court system were selected at random from the eligible population, primarily in an effort to avoid corruption and abuse of power. But even such a progressive system, with an emphasis on equality and impartiality, was not without its flaws.  As critics like Aristophanes and Plato pointed out, the people often lacked enough information to make well informed decisions, and the agenda and outcome of the assemblies were heavily influenced by the elite. These shortcomings of Athenian democracy in some instances led to inexplicably bad results, like the executions of six generals who actually won the battle of Arginousai, and the death sentence handed down to the famous philosopher, Socrates.

The notoriety of the failures in Athens cast a shadow on direct democracy that persisted well beyond the time of the Greeks.  Centuries later, the Federalist Papers cited to the Athenian example in support of the idea that a republic, rather than a pure democracy, was a superior form of government, and better suited for the American union.  Hamilton and Madison argued in these Papers that pure democracies lead to the oppression of minority groups by overbearing majority factions, but that in a republic, “enlightened statesmen” would prevent such outcomes.  Ironically, as we know now, our republican form of government hasn’t protected against the oppression of minority groups, but instead it condoned it for much of our history.

This notion that putting the people in charge leads to bad outcomes is an outdated concept that stemmed from the practical imperfections of an ancient system.  But we no longer live in ancient times. We are not forced to decide matters on the spot by a show of hands, and we are not an uninformed group of citizens. Rather, we are living in the dawn of a new digital age of information, and we are a nation of educated people, fully capable of understanding things when someone takes the time to explain them to us.

A more contemporary example, and really the only example of a modern direct democracy is Switzerland.  The Swiss system makes extensive use of referendums across all levels of government, and even incorporates formalized opinion polls of its citizens ahead of prospective legislation to ensure it has adequate support.  In fact, all laws passed by the national legislature are subject to a potential repeal by a majority vote of the people via a referendum, provided at least 50,000 or more citizens petition for the referendum within three months of the law being passed.  There’s even a requirement placed on the Swiss federal government that it must recognize and hold a referendum concerning any proposed change to the national constitution which is supported by a petition of least 100,000 citizens. It’s quite a stark contrast to the American federal system, to say the least.    

The Swiss system, developed primarily throughout the 19th century, has proven that a direct democracy can be both sustainable and successful.  There has been no oppression of segments of the population, or downfall of the system because the people were given a legitimate role, but rather it’s been quite the opposite, as the country has enjoyed stability and peace.  The Swiss, of course, have famously maintained a state of neutrality since 1815, despite two World Wars ravaging the continent around them. Though geography and other factors contributed to their ability to remain neutral through those wars, it’s no stretch to conclude that a government controlled by its people is less likely to put its fellow citizens in harm’s way.               

The revised form of government being proposed in this book seeks to blend the traditional elements of our representative republic with the core concepts of direct democracy, and through the combination, minimize the flaws of each.  Our federal government was built upon a foundation of checks and balances in order to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. This idea of an evolved democracy is a direct extension of that tradition, but with the people acting as a check on the power of the government itself, so as to prevent individual officials from becoming too powerful.  By making these changes, the hope is that we’re able to achieve a more appropriate balance of power in our nation.

The Preamble to the Constitution provides that the purpose of the federal government is to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common [defense], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty. . .”  From there, it goes on to enumerate the various powers granted to the branches of government in order to effectuate this purpose. Specifically, the first clause of Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States . . .”  

Generally referred to as the Commerce Clause, this singular provision has acted as the basis for thousands of laws across a wide range of topics.  Drug regulations, civil rights, labor relations, and even more recently health care, all have come under the umbrella of Congress regulating commerce amongst the states.  Though some may view the Congressional power to tax or provide for the national defense to be more important in the grand scheme of things, the Commerce Clause is the one most frequently invoked to pass legislation, seeing as how nearly every matter can usually be connected back to national commerce in some way.

Commerce in America means capitalism, and although there is no direct mention of it in the original text of the Constitution, our economic system is a huge part of our identity.  For most people outside of our country, America and capitalism go hand in hand, and as Americans, we take great pride in our brand of economics. After all, there’s something to be said for making your own way in life, with effort and talent, instead of having things predetermined and controlled by the government.  Thus far, history has proven that capitalism and free market economies are superior to rival systems like communism. In China, however, where communism continues to be the prevailing form of government for over a billion people and a growing economy, they are challenging this traditional notion. The primary problems with communist forms of government like China, however, are that they tend to breed corruption and suppress individual liberties and freedoms.  Despite its economic success, China may be the most poignant example of modern day governmental oppression, through its control of information and its citizens. But despite the superiority free market economies and democratic systems have in these respects, they’re not immune to corruption either, and capitalism is generally regarded as a cold and unfeeling system, which rewards greed and selfishness.

In a capitalist economy, the entire premise is that we are not created equal.  There are winners and losers in business, and the name of the game is to succeed over your competitors and earn profits.  All of it, every bit of it, comes down to making money. There’s rarely any love, compassion, or sympathy for others in capitalism, nor should there be, as these concepts run opposite to what capitalism is all about.  That is, however, exactly why we need to solidify and reinforce the concept of equality into our form of government. If we ever hope to strike a healthy balance between the commercial and societal interests in our nation, we need to start treating government and business differently, not the same.

The flaws and failures of communism have shown that a group-centric system, with equitable intentions, is ultimately impractical and unworkable from an economic standpoint, as it’s simply not possible to spread wealth equally amongst billions of people.  But just as communism’s attempt to impart equality into economics is what ultimately dooms the system, the invasion of commercial interests and inequality into American government is primarily what plagues ours.

The purpose of government isn’t to enable commerce to the detriment of the people, but rather it is supposed to be there to protect our welfare by establishing the baseline rules upon which commerce is conducted.  For too long now, these roles have been reversed, with commercial interests guiding our government and influencing our laws, instead of the other way around. But through an evolution of our democracy, we can begin to swing the pendulum back to the middle, where the interests of citizens are given equal consideration to the interests of corporations and politicians.    

A major part of integrating equality into government is making sure that we all count the exact same.  The fact that we vote someone into office shouldn’t suddenly make that individual more important than the rest of us.  Rather, it should only mean that the office itself is important enough to warrant an election to determine who will fill it.  At the end of the day, the elected official is still just one person. And when it comes to government, no individual person should be any greater than the rest, regardless of position, power, money, or influence.  One person, one vote, no more, no less. There’s ample room for inequality based on wealth and status in the economic world of capitalism, but when it comes to establishing justice, and providing for the liberty and the welfare of the people, the true purpose of our government, we need to ensure that the core concept of equality permeates throughout the entire system.    

To that end, once we’ve taken the measures necessary to place the outcomes Congressional votes into the hands of the people, we can’t simply let those votes be undone by a Presidential veto.  After all, a system predicated on equality can’t allow one single person, in a nation of more than 300 million, the ability to override what a majority have already decided. Instead, the President will be given the opportunity to call for a national re-vote in the event he or she disagrees with the results reached by the people and Congress.  Like the new process with Representatives and Senators, the President will be the first to vote, and will be expected to explain to the nation why he/she believes the legislation is not in the best interests of the country and why a veto is necessary.

Unlike the current process, however, where a two-thirds supermajority of Congress is needed in order to override the President, in an equality-based system, the President’s vote will count as one, and a simple majority of the popular vote cast nationwide will decide whether the bill becomes a law or is vetoed and returned to Congress.  This revised approach, though a clear departure from the past, preserves the original intent of the veto power, which was to allow the President an opportunity to interject an opinion concerning legislation, but to prevent that opinion from being controlling in the face of adequate support to the contrary. Specifically, by changing to a simple majority, from the current 2/3 supermajority, it reinforces the concept that no individual is greater than another, including the President.   

Beyond controlling Congressional votes and Presidential vetoes, the other process of government where involvement of the people is needed in order to achieve true equality is the confirmation of Justices to the Supreme Court.  Like other Presidential nominees, the nine Justices comprising the Court require confirmation by a majority of the Senate. But unlike other executive appointees, once confirmed, these Justices sit on the bench for life, typically serving well beyond the terms of the President and the Senators who put them in power.   

Ultimately, these nine individuals wield great authority in our country, deciding what is and what isn’t constitutional, and functioning as the primary check on the powers of Congress, the President, and the States.  In many respects, the Court acts as the last line of defense for the American people, stepping in when our Constitutional rights are infringed upon by our governmental institutions or elected officials.

The lifetime terms granted to Supreme Court Justices were meant to insulate them from the political process, and help ensure that decisions could be made impartially, free from the pressure of the President and Congress.  When being sworn in, each Justice recites an oath to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich . . . and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [them].” But despite the very clear mandates of neutrality and impartiality attached to the role, the process of appointing Justices to the Court has proven to be one of the most highly politicized in the federal system.  

One of the more famous examples of politics impacting the Court took place in February 1937.  While leading a country ravaged by the Great Depression, then President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) announced plans to introduce legislation to add to the number of Justices making up the Court from nine (9) to fifteen (15).  FDR’s proposal was widely viewed as a blatant attempt to pack the Court with Justices favorable to his New Deal legislation, which up to that point, had been struck down by a sitting conservative majority. Though these efforts to increase the size of the Court eventually failed, the open announcement of his intentions seemingly had a major impact.  

Justice Owen Roberts, previously a conservative, changed allegiances following FDR’s announcement, and began to decide cases in line with his liberal counterparts instead.  As a result, key New Deal initiatives, including the national minimum wage, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social Security Act were declared Constitutional by the Court, and remain in place to this day.  Justice Roberts’ change of heart is often referred to as the “switch in time which saved nine,” since it caused Congress to lose interest in increasing the number of Justices, once the New Deal legislation was allowed to stand.  Although the size of the Court remained unchanged, the story evidences both the influence politics, as well as the impact that a single Justice can have on our entire nation.

An even more recent example of the influence of politics on the Court has been on display since March 2016, when a Republican majority in the Senate refused to hold confirmation hearings for then President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland.  Specifically, Garland was slated to fill the vacancy left behind by the death of the notoriously conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Even though there were still more than nine months left in Obama’s term at the time, the nomination was ignored, and the seat left vacant for an unprecedented length of time, all in the hopes that the next presidential election would yield a Republican victor.  The Republican majority’s refusal to consider Garland had nothing to do with his judicial qualifications or ability to decide cases impartially, but rather their only issue was that he was nominated by a President of the opposite political party.

This defiance was eventually rewarded when the 2016 election produced a Republican President, and a new nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch, was eventually put to the Senate for confirmation.  Although still holding a majority by the time Gorsuch was nominated, the Republicans lacked the 60 seats needed to get a confirmation vote to the floor according to Senate rules. This allowed the Democratic minority the ability to prevent a vote through the use of a filibuster, effectively stalling out the process.  Not willing to accept defeat, however, the Republican Senators took what many referred to as the “nuclear option,” and voted to change the longstanding Senate rules and remove the filibuster, which had been in place for more than 200 years. With history shoved aside and the rules conveniently changed, the vote made it through to the Senate floor, and the Republican agenda finally came to pass when Justice Gorsuch was confirmed in April 2017 by a final tally of 54 to 45.  

Fast forward a year and half, and the “nuclear option” would once again pay dividends for the Republican Party when Justice Bret Kavanaugh was nominated to replace the retiring Justice Kennedy, who had traditionally been a swing vote on the Court.  Despite seemingly credible accusations of sexual misconduct, openly partisan and argumentative Senate testimony, and even a call from the National Council of Churches and civil rights groups to step aside, Justice Kavanaugh still managed to be confirmed by a vote of 50 to 48, showing that the #MeToo movement apparently hasn’t reached the U.S. government.

As I watched the Kavanaugh confirmation saga unfold with the rest of the country, I couldn’t help but wonder if the outcome would have been different had the American people been allowed to decide the matter.  Currently, just over 50% of the U.S. population is female, yet despite being the most gender diverse class in history, women still only hold 21 of the 100 seats in the Senate. Unsurprisingly, however, gender played little part in the actual confirmation vote, as all but one Senator voted according to political party lines.       

These recent events and the overall history of our nation’s highest Court show quite clearly that politics have played a monumental role, despite the fact that Justices are supposed to be neutral and impartial.  So how do we remove partisan politics from the equation? We let the people decide who will serve in this critically important role. It only makes sense that the people should have a say in who is looking out for our rights and liberties, particularly when the protection being sought is from the other parts of government.  By letting the President pick, and the Senate confirm, it creates separation in the process, but it doesn’t do enough. It’s like saying the fox and wolf will work together and split duties over who’s watching the hen house.

To ensure the process works fairly, confirmation votes must be mandatory for all nominees, so as to prevent inappropriate stall tactics.  One of the principal purposes of giving justices lifetime terms is to create a degree of randomness in the appointment process. Once a vacancy arises on the Court through death or retirement, and the President has submitted a nomination to the Senate, it should automatically trigger the need for hearings, followed by a confirmation vote.  Like the new legislative process, the Senators will vote first, openly and publicly, and explain their reasoning. It will then be up to the people to vote, and provided a minimum of 1/3 of a State’s registered voters participate, then the majority will control how both of their Senators vote on behalf of the State in Congress.

This proposed new process for confirmation of Justices isn’t completely perfect from an equality standpoint, however, seeing as how it will continue to be the Senate, rather than population-based House of Representatives, in charge of confirmations.  But again, in the interest of preserving familiarity, we’ll keep the changes limited to only what’s needed to solve the problem, and not re-open the large versus small state issue. In doing so, we’ll still take a big step toward removing the influence of party politics, and returning impartiality into the institution which has “Equal Justice Under Law” inscribed on the face of its building.  

It might be best to think of this overall idea for a democratic evolution like a remodel or a renovation project, as opposed to a tear down and rebuild. We’re creating something new, but utilizing the existing structure.  And like any major renovation project, we’re going to need a plan and a blueprint to be our guide. Blueprints and plans are critical to coordinating efforts and keeping everyone involved on task, so that a common goal can be achieved, and the integrity of the structure is preserved.  For our purposes, the blueprint for equality consists of three new Constitutional Amendments:

 

AMENDMENT XXVIII

SECTION 1: The election of all members of Congress and of the President and Vice President shall be conducted via a digital federal voting system operated and maintained by the Government in conjunction with the several States.  Congress shall provide the funding necessary for the development, operation, and maintenance of the system as a component of the national defense budget, and shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.  

SECTION 2: The operation and security of the federal voting system created by this article shall be the responsibility of the National Security Agency (“NSA”).  The President may appoint a successor or supplemental agency to replace or assist the NSA in this capacity, provided such appointment is confirmed by a majority of both houses of Congress.  

SECTION 3:  The registration of citizens to the federal voting system and the administration of system credentials shall belong to the several States, Territories and the District of Columbia, pursuant to procedures established by the NSA or other federal agency designated as responsible for the operation and security of the system.  Each State, together with the District of Columbia shall appoint an official auditor, whose responsibility it shall be, together with the other auditors (collectively the “Audit Board”), to review and certify election results conducted via the federal voting system. In the event the Audit Board concludes that election results were altered or compromised by an illegal actor or actors, or that a systemic issue adversely impacted the reliability of election results, a simple majority of the Audit Board shall decide whether or not to void the election results and re-conduct the election in whole or in part.             

SECTION 4: Any intentional alteration or attempted alteration of the records of the federal voting system established by this article shall be considered an act of Treason against the United States.  A conviction under this article shall not require the Testimony of two Witnesses, provided credible digital evidence exists, which can be corroborated by two independent expert Witnesses, only one of which may be an employee of the Government.  

SECTION 5: All future voting matters designated as belonging to the citizens of the United States, whether through Congressional legislation or Amendment hereto, shall be conducted via the federal voting system established by this article and shall be subject to the oversight and regulation of the Audit Board, as set forth in Section 3 above.

     

AMENDMENT XXIX

SECTION 1: Prior to any official vote in either House of Congress to: (i) enact a Bill into Law; (ii) declare war or authorize use of military force in a foreign nation; or (iii) confirm any Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court, all such matters shall first be subject to a vote amongst the citizens of the various Districts and States, as the case may be.  

SECTION 2: All votes required by this article shall be held on no less than 24 hours’ notice to the public, and voting periods shall be uniform across the States and Districts.  The specific timing and duration of citizen voting periods shall be determined by Congress, conforming to the minimum requirements established by this section.

SECTION 3: All Senators and Representatives shall participate with their constituency in the votes required by this article.  The individual votes of the Senators and Representatives shall be published in the federal voting system in advance of the vote by the citizens.  If any Senator or Representative does not publish a vote in advance of the vote by their constituency, due to incapacity, abstention or otherwise, a vote shall be cast in Congress on behalf of said official’s State/District which conforms to the decided majority of the citizen vote, and Sections 4 and 5 below shall not apply.  

SECTION 4: Provided at least one-third (1/3) or more of the total registered voting citizens of a District or State, as the case may be, participate in a vote required by this article, then the corresponding Senator or Representative for such District/State shall cast an official vote in Congress which conforms to the decided majority of the citizen vote.

SECTION 5: In the event less than one-third (1/3) of the total registered voting citizens of a District or State participate in a vote required by this article, then the corresponding Senator or Representative for such District/State shall have the option to cast an official vote in Congress which: (i) conforms to the decided majority of the citizen vote, or (ii) conforms to the initial vote published by the Senator/Representative in accordance with Section 3 of this article.

 

AMENDMENT XXX

SECTION 1: The President and Vice President shall be elected jointly by the direct vote of the citizens of the United States, without regard to whether the citizens are residents of a State or the District of Columbia. The persons having the greatest number of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected.  The provisions of this section shall supersede all conflicting provisions concerning the election of the President and Vice President appearing in Article II and Amendments XII and XXIII of this Constitution.

SECTION 2: The War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, codified in the United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48 is hereby adopted and made part of this Constitution.  

SECTION 3: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.  If the President approves, he or she shall sign it, but if not, the President may initiate a vote amongst the citizens of the United States to veto the Bill. The President shall participate in all such votes, and a simple majority of the participating citizens, inclusive of the President, shall determine whether the Bill becomes a Law or is vetoed and returned to the House of Congress from which it originated.  

All votes initiated by the President pursuant to this article shall be held on no less than 24 hours’ notice to the public, and the specific duration of the voting period shall be determined by the President.  Provided, however, if any Bill is not vetoed and retuned to Congress within ten Days of presentation to the President (Sundays excepted), the Same shall become a Law, in a like Manner as if the President had signed it.  

The provisions of this section shall supersede those previously set forth in Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2 of this Constitution.   

SECTION 4:  Upon receipt of a nomination from the President to fill a Vacancy on the Supreme Court, the Senate shall be obligated to commence confirmation hearings on such nominee within thirty (30) days thereof, and shall be obligated to conclude such hearings and the corresponding vote by the citizens the United States, as required under Amendment XXIX of this Constitution, within sixty (60) days thereof.  

 

Ultimately, these three Amendments provide the blueprint needed to achieve a true and lasting equality amongst us all, and to evolve our democracy into an improved version of itself.  It should be noted, however, that there is an intended order in which these Amendments ought to be enacted. Specifically, Amendments 29 and 30 are meant to be enacted as a pair, but only after the digital federal voting system created by Amendment 28 is established and in place.  Without the digital voting system created by no. 28, the expanded citizen voting announced in nos. 29 and 30 would simply be too impractical to administer. First we need the technology, and then we can put it to use. And so we must exercise patience, and keep the end goal in mind, since it won’t happen all at once.  Specifically, this segmented approach is what makes having a blueprint to work from so critical, as it’s necessary to ensure that the finished product turns out as we intended while we work through the various stages of progress.

In order to enact Amendments, the Constitution provides for a two-step process which includes: (1) proposal, and (2) ratification.  First, an Amendment can be proposed by either (a) 2/3 of both Houses of Congress, or (b) via a national convention called for by 2/3 of the State legislatures.  Thus far throughout our history, we’ve never used option (b), as all of our Amendments have been proposed directly by Congress. Like they say, however, there’s a first time for everything.

These days, getting 2/3 of Congress to agree on what to order for lunch would be a miracle unto itself, and so asking 2/3 of them to agree to Amendments which would directly limit their own powers seems like an unlikely, if not impossible task.  If this is going to happen, it will most likely need to be a movement rising up out of the states. Eventually state support is needed anyways, as the second step of ratification requires approval by either (a) ¾ of State legislatures, of (b) ¾ of ratifying conventions held in the states.  

Given these requirements, it’s clear that we’re all going to have to come together in order to actually make this happen.  If we unite behind this plan, we can manifest a new destiny for our nation, and we can do more than just survive, we can thrive.  We can revolutionize the way our government is run, and we can establish a new hierarchy, where people are no longer governed, but instead we govern ourselves.     

Before we finish this blueprint, however, there is one final matter to attend to.  In all governments and countries around the world, symbolism is of great importance.  Flags bear unwritten messages through their visual symbols, and so too do the buildings and traditions of governments.  Since its conception, the primary symbol used in connection with the American form of government has been a tree with three branches, representing the legislative, executive, and judicial components.  Underlying the symbolism of the tree is a doctrine that separates power amongst the branches, to ensure that no single branch can become too powerful. It was the French philosopher Montesquieu who originally came up with this concept in his 18th century work “Spirit of the Laws,” and inspired the framers of the Constitution to adopt it for America.  But in this symbol of a tree, with its outstretched branches sprawling toward the sky, where exactly are the people?       

It seems most likely that we’re the trunk and the roots, stuck toiling in darkness while the branches tower and flourish above.  Sure, some of us may be lucky enough to get a glimpse of light here and there at the right time of day, but most are buried deep underground, never aware of what’s actually happening above.  The thing about trees and branches though, is that they can become overgrown if left alone. In fact, sometimes they can even threaten our progress and wellbeing, like when they start growing too close to power lines or our homes.  And when that happens, you can either cut down the tree, or cut off the branches. From a symbolism standpoint, a tree without branches doesn’t say very much, and so in the tradition of our very first President, I say let’s chop down the tree and adopt a new symbol altogether.  We’re going to need something that better represents our new form of government. Something that puts the people first, now and always.

Looking elsewhere in the symbology of American government, we find numerous examples of Greek influence.  Being the birthplace of democracy, ancient Greece provided inspiration to nearly all of our prominent government buildings, including the Supreme Court, the Capitol, and the White House, each of which incorporate column architecture, reminiscent of the Parthenon and Greek building style.  At the center of these most important buildings in our nation’s capital sits the Washington Monument, an obelisk. Although obelisks were Egyptian creations, the English word for these structures originates from the ancient Greek ‘obeliskos’ and the classical writings of Herodotus, who first described them to the western world.  Originally used by the Egyptians to symbolize the creation of the world and stability, the obelisk at the center of our capital memorializes our first President, the revolution he led, and the creation of our nation. At the apex of this iconic Monument, are four isosceles triangles, which define its unmistakable shape. In the Greek alphabet, the isosceles triangle is the symbol used to represent the letter delta, and in mathematics, delta represents the difference or change between two numbers.  

Like the tree before it, the Greek letter delta is also a familiar symbol, it’s three-part in nature, and it has the ability to convey a message without words.  Delta signifies change, and so it seems like a natural fit to forever memorialize the changes we’ll make through this modernization and reformation of our government.  But unlike the tree which had three equal branches, this new symbol reflects a clear hierarchy amongst the component parts of government. The legislature, due to its control by the people, is placed in a superior position relative to the others.  Instead of staring up at the branches towering above, in an evolved democracy, the people sit atop government, and are supported by a foundation of the executive and judicial functions. Just as the Great Compromise once achieved equality amongst the states through the establishment of an institution designed to be unequal, this new form of government allows us to achieve equality amongst all American citizens through its purposeful inequality.         

 

                             Legislature

                                      Δ

                  Executive       Judiciary