Clean Up Government Act (CUGA) - A Proposal
The United States of America, at this writing (2019), has had a Constitution in effect continuously since 1788, some 231 years. Since its ratification, which included the first ten amendments we call The Bill of Rights, it has been successfully amended 17 times.
I cannot support the claims I've heard over the years that the Constitution is outdated, or that -- as amended -- it is inherently unjust. In fact, many of the world's national constitutions have been and are modeled on the US Constitution, regardless of their successes or failures in eradicating tyranny or establishing permanent, democratically-elected executive & legislative systems. I believe as a matter of faith and observation that our Constitution must exist and be followed as is until further amended. It is the best framework in existence which simultaneously balances power of the State with individual liberty and assures the proper relationship between a Federal Government and the governments of the separate, semi-sovereign political subdivisions within its national territory. However, it is not wholly effective in the prevention of tyranny without the statute laws to back it up. The Constitution defines no sanctions or enforcement powers other than those stated in Article I.
The powers, liberties, duties, and relationships of branches within the Federal system are set forth in the Constitution, if not literally, then by logical inference. For example, Amendment I starts with the phrase "Congress shall make no law...", yet the word "Congress" is not interpreted literally; rather, because the enclosing Federal Government and its institutions are limited, so are its subordinate political subdivisions and all institutions thereof. The concept of logical inference is important, and has been used by the judiciary to interpret the letter of the law itself.
A thorough reading of the first three Articles of the US Constitution will reveal that there is no statement of any "one citizen, one vote" principle made; only references to "elected by the People of..." (ref Article I, Sections 2, 3, and 4; Article 2, Section 1 as amended by Amendment XVII) exist. The qualifications of voters ('electors') are set forth in Article I, Section 1 to be "Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature". The Constitution has been amended several times (ref Amendments XIV, XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI) to prohibit denial of the right to vote to certain persons based on prejudiced standards that have nothing to do with individual character or behaviors. Notably, and for the first time in its text, Amendment XIV establishes United States citizenship as a qualification to vote.
It is a matter of widely held and defended belief that "one citizen, one vote" is the very basis of our system set forth in Articles I, II, and III. This proposal and petition depends upon the "one citizen, one vote" principle. If Constitutional amendment is required to enshrine the "one citizen, one vote" principle in law, then so be it; the sanctity and importance of this principle to the entire American Republic, its structure and operation should never be questioned. Furthermore, interference with this principle should be considered a perversion, an injurious offense to the citizenry of the United States, its Constitution, and the Republic it defines.
The Act I am about to propose is not to amend the US Constitution. Rather, it is a new set of statutory law which I'd suggest be added to the United States Code, Title 18 ("Crimes"). If it were possible -- it is not -- to legislate morality (such as, "only honest persons may hold Office"), that's what I'd propose. But legislating morality requires an Orwellian "thought police": how can it be proven, with certainty, what someone believes? Given that Amendment I to the US Constitution guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech (and therefore freedom of expression and freedom of thought), a pragmatist will not attempt to enact such legislation into law. Throughout history, idealists have attempted to regulate morality, but all such attempts ultimately fail to create enforceable, evenly applicable statutes.
Instead, statutory law can only regulate and sanction behaviors within limits established by our Constitution. The need for statutory law is made clear when we understand that the Constitution does not specify details of nor sanctions for behaviors that violate its principles.
What behaviors are those which cause a majority of Americans to suspect that their government is -- in whole or in part -- corrupt? How does the widely held belief that one's Senator or Representative is not listening to them come to be? These are perceptions, not necessarily true in all circumstances, but certainly true in others.
It is a matter of public record that large numbers of organizations exist for reasons as diverse as they are.
All of these organizations, regardless of their composition and goals, are pseudo persons -- "fake people", if you will -- which would not otherwise exist at all were it not for their membership. Some are heavily regulated, others have no regulation at all. Some are required to register as lobbyists, or as agents of a foreign power; others can exist the moment they declare themselves an organization.
Their membership may consist of individual US citizens with natural rights, but the organization itself has no such rights. Organizations do, however, have some limited statutory rights, among these are the rights to sue and be sued in any Court in the land, and the right to enter into contracts.
Apart from those rights specifically granted them by statute, these organizations (should) have no others. In a rather illogical 2010 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case known as Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, found that the plaintiff, an organization of corporations, had rights under Amendment I granting them freedom of speech as regards the right to advertise. It's my opinion that this decision is worse than faulty, that Congress should enact statutes (or even float a Constitution Amendment if required) post-haste declaring that no pseudo person has any natural rights whatsoever. This, and other perceived, non-existent "natural rights" have been conferred on no organization, yet attempts to exercise them have been abused time and time again, as well recorded in public sources. Tax-exempt status, the right to enter into contracts, the right to sue and be sued, and others like these are privileges, not rights, and need to be treated as such.
It is clear that the original authors of the Constitution of the United States expected Senators, Representatives, and other officials of the United States Government to act based on their constituents' demands and desires. This is the only vestige of pure democracy in a constitutional, representative Republic: first, the official is (in)directly elected by democratic, popular vote, then once holding the office, the official is expected to represent their constituency. If the representative, throughout their term, act as their constituents expect, the chances of reelection are good. Should that representative not uphold their duties to their constituents over the last term of office, it is expected that this officer will be replaced by another candidate.
This is the obvious way that the Founding Fathers expected this government's officers to succeed themselves; with changes in officials possible at fixed time intervals by popular vote, intending the possibility of conducting bloodless revolutions at the ballot box whenever called for.
Constituents who are members of any organization certainly have the right to contact their representatives and voice support for any or all of their organization's aims; there is nothing inherently wrong in doing so. In fact, this is obviously the way the Founding Fathers expected our representative republic to work on a day-to-day basis. However, organizations who claim to represent individual constituents of a representative should have no right to even voice an independent "organizational opinion": they are not natural persons. In absence of any other statute concerning their existence, they have the right to exist & operate, but that's about all.
Instead, what we see all too often are candidates for office either initially supported -- or later bought -- by some special interest organization, acting in support of this organization's aims (either overtly or clandestinely). Whether or not the citizens of the electing constituency approve of an incumbent's past behavior seems to have little bearing to reelection in today's system: money buys everything, especially media exposure and favorable propaganda. If reelection support can be delivered time and time again, we see certain politicians reelected accordingly -- not because they're "good reps" or have "brought the bacon home" for their constituency; but because the financial and media support is present, whether deserved or not.
Organizations which attempt to influence the acts and policies of Government are called lobbies. Agents of lobbies whose primary activities are contacts with and persuasion of our Governmental officers are called lobbyists. The actions of lobbyists are called lobbying.
There are laws sanctioning bribery (the act of "purchasing influence" with riches); yet these laws are barely enforceable: the elements of proof are nearly impossible to establish beyond a doubt in a criminal trial. Even blatant cases of bribery are rarely prosecuted.
There are laws governing the conduct of elections, acts of candidates and/or committees who back the candidacy, political parties, campaign contributions in money and in kind, even down to the details of who may loiter around a polling place.
Yet there are no laws directly regulating or sanctioning lobbying. It is my view that lobbying is a perversion -- a horrific criminal offense against the citizenry, Republic, and Constitution of the United States which sinks to the moral depths of treason or espionage. Lobbying provides zero benefit to the American people in general, perhaps only to small groups thereof, and even that's not guaranteed. For some unknown reason, it seems that lobbying is an expected perversion of the "one citizen, one vote" principle that is far too powerful, too entrenched to eliminate. I disagree.
Lobbying offers the fruits of material temptation to our Governmental officials, who are too often unable to resist. Once 'hooked' by the lobbyist, the money, influence, and power of the lobby can have disastrous effects in perpetuity: the crooked official now has no way to exit the relationship without being subjected to extortion, meanwhile the lobby does all possible to ensure that "their" representative is returned to office, and next time an issue of interest arises before this official, it's not hard to imagine a phone call reminding this official which side their bread is buttered on. And so it continues, a vicious, dynastic, cyclonic force destroying the democratic power of the American people, whose individual voices are drowned in a sea of cash as far as their representatives are concerned.
It's clear that we cannot legislate morality: he or she who would offer to perform public service will face incentives, if elected or appointed, to behave on the lowest moral plane possible. Not all politicians are crooks; but there are a surprisingly large number of them who, being fallible humans, fall victim to temptation. In the case of a candidate for public office, we resourceless individuals cannot afford to trust the honor of a person we are not acquainted with. Nor can we trust even moderately-sized organizations to represent the best interests of the American people -- their very existence is proof that they do not. The combination of these two entities: the fallible human versus the goal-oriented, motivated organization is a perfect storm which has been taking place for perhaps most of the last century, if not even longer.
Please read the linked petition here. You may reproduce it at will and are encouraged to circulate it for signatures, although there is no coordinated circulation effort active at the moment.
I am the original author of this work and the linked petition. I claim no copyright at this time; but reserve the right to do so should its authorship be falsely claimed by someone else.
Thanks for your patience, I know there's a lot here to read and think through. But it concerns us all, our children, grandchildren, and future generations of Americans. If we expect an honest, "clean" Government which functions as designed, we need to take action as soon as possible; this is merely my personal view of what needs to happen to begin the elimination of tyranny. Next stops?
I cannot support the claims I've heard over the years that the Constitution is outdated, or that -- as amended -- it is inherently unjust. In fact, many of the world's national constitutions have been and are modeled on the US Constitution, regardless of their successes or failures in eradicating tyranny or establishing permanent, democratically-elected executive & legislative systems. I believe as a matter of faith and observation that our Constitution must exist and be followed as is until further amended. It is the best framework in existence which simultaneously balances power of the State with individual liberty and assures the proper relationship between a Federal Government and the governments of the separate, semi-sovereign political subdivisions within its national territory. However, it is not wholly effective in the prevention of tyranny without the statute laws to back it up. The Constitution defines no sanctions or enforcement powers other than those stated in Article I.
The powers, liberties, duties, and relationships of branches within the Federal system are set forth in the Constitution, if not literally, then by logical inference. For example, Amendment I starts with the phrase "Congress shall make no law...", yet the word "Congress" is not interpreted literally; rather, because the enclosing Federal Government and its institutions are limited, so are its subordinate political subdivisions and all institutions thereof. The concept of logical inference is important, and has been used by the judiciary to interpret the letter of the law itself.
A thorough reading of the first three Articles of the US Constitution will reveal that there is no statement of any "one citizen, one vote" principle made; only references to "elected by the People of..." (ref Article I, Sections 2, 3, and 4; Article 2, Section 1 as amended by Amendment XVII) exist. The qualifications of voters ('electors') are set forth in Article I, Section 1 to be "Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature". The Constitution has been amended several times (ref Amendments XIV, XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI) to prohibit denial of the right to vote to certain persons based on prejudiced standards that have nothing to do with individual character or behaviors. Notably, and for the first time in its text, Amendment XIV establishes United States citizenship as a qualification to vote.
It is a matter of widely held and defended belief that "one citizen, one vote" is the very basis of our system set forth in Articles I, II, and III. This proposal and petition depends upon the "one citizen, one vote" principle. If Constitutional amendment is required to enshrine the "one citizen, one vote" principle in law, then so be it; the sanctity and importance of this principle to the entire American Republic, its structure and operation should never be questioned. Furthermore, interference with this principle should be considered a perversion, an injurious offense to the citizenry of the United States, its Constitution, and the Republic it defines.
The Act I am about to propose is not to amend the US Constitution. Rather, it is a new set of statutory law which I'd suggest be added to the United States Code, Title 18 ("Crimes"). If it were possible -- it is not -- to legislate morality (such as, "only honest persons may hold Office"), that's what I'd propose. But legislating morality requires an Orwellian "thought police": how can it be proven, with certainty, what someone believes? Given that Amendment I to the US Constitution guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech (and therefore freedom of expression and freedom of thought), a pragmatist will not attempt to enact such legislation into law. Throughout history, idealists have attempted to regulate morality, but all such attempts ultimately fail to create enforceable, evenly applicable statutes.
Instead, statutory law can only regulate and sanction behaviors within limits established by our Constitution. The need for statutory law is made clear when we understand that the Constitution does not specify details of nor sanctions for behaviors that violate its principles.
What behaviors are those which cause a majority of Americans to suspect that their government is -- in whole or in part -- corrupt? How does the widely held belief that one's Senator or Representative is not listening to them come to be? These are perceptions, not necessarily true in all circumstances, but certainly true in others.
It is a matter of public record that large numbers of organizations exist for reasons as diverse as they are.
- The wealthiest and thus the most powerful of these are corporate, representing a single, competitive, for-profit, privately-held economic enterprise or even a small group thereof with but one goal: the promotion of conditions which benefit their economic conditions, and suppression of those that do not.
- We note ideological organizations now generally called "political action committees", whose goal is the advancement of principles their membership believes in. This category includes political parties themselves, who have similar objectives, along with the election & reelection of party members in general.
- We observe the existence of trade unions, whose goals are the increased power and income of its membership, as well as the primacy of employees over the businesses which pay them.
- There are chambers of commerce, whose goals are favored treatment of enterprises in their geographic localities.
- We see special-interest organizations, whose goals often include the advancement of causes ranging from environmental concerns, to a religion, to the protection of certain persons, to preference of geographical regions, to often seemingly trivial causes too numerous to list. These kinds of organizations are typically known as NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) which can possess US tax exemption status and other preferences.
- We also note that foreign governments and their subsidiaries often have key interests in the foreign policies of the United States, often economic, strategic, or military.
All of these organizations, regardless of their composition and goals, are pseudo persons -- "fake people", if you will -- which would not otherwise exist at all were it not for their membership. Some are heavily regulated, others have no regulation at all. Some are required to register as lobbyists, or as agents of a foreign power; others can exist the moment they declare themselves an organization.
The one thing they have in common is that none of them are natural persons with natural rights granted by neither their Creator nor the Constitution.
Their membership may consist of individual US citizens with natural rights, but the organization itself has no such rights. Organizations do, however, have some limited statutory rights, among these are the rights to sue and be sued in any Court in the land, and the right to enter into contracts.
Apart from those rights specifically granted them by statute, these organizations (should) have no others. In a rather illogical 2010 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case known as Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, found that the plaintiff, an organization of corporations, had rights under Amendment I granting them freedom of speech as regards the right to advertise. It's my opinion that this decision is worse than faulty, that Congress should enact statutes (or even float a Constitution Amendment if required) post-haste declaring that no pseudo person has any natural rights whatsoever. This, and other perceived, non-existent "natural rights" have been conferred on no organization, yet attempts to exercise them have been abused time and time again, as well recorded in public sources. Tax-exempt status, the right to enter into contracts, the right to sue and be sued, and others like these are privileges, not rights, and need to be treated as such.
It is clear that the original authors of the Constitution of the United States expected Senators, Representatives, and other officials of the United States Government to act based on their constituents' demands and desires. This is the only vestige of pure democracy in a constitutional, representative Republic: first, the official is (in)directly elected by democratic, popular vote, then once holding the office, the official is expected to represent their constituency. If the representative, throughout their term, act as their constituents expect, the chances of reelection are good. Should that representative not uphold their duties to their constituents over the last term of office, it is expected that this officer will be replaced by another candidate.
This is the obvious way that the Founding Fathers expected this government's officers to succeed themselves; with changes in officials possible at fixed time intervals by popular vote, intending the possibility of conducting bloodless revolutions at the ballot box whenever called for.
Constituents who are members of any organization certainly have the right to contact their representatives and voice support for any or all of their organization's aims; there is nothing inherently wrong in doing so. In fact, this is obviously the way the Founding Fathers expected our representative republic to work on a day-to-day basis. However, organizations who claim to represent individual constituents of a representative should have no right to even voice an independent "organizational opinion": they are not natural persons. In absence of any other statute concerning their existence, they have the right to exist & operate, but that's about all.
Instead, what we see all too often are candidates for office either initially supported -- or later bought -- by some special interest organization, acting in support of this organization's aims (either overtly or clandestinely). Whether or not the citizens of the electing constituency approve of an incumbent's past behavior seems to have little bearing to reelection in today's system: money buys everything, especially media exposure and favorable propaganda. If reelection support can be delivered time and time again, we see certain politicians reelected accordingly -- not because they're "good reps" or have "brought the bacon home" for their constituency; but because the financial and media support is present, whether deserved or not.
Organizations which attempt to influence the acts and policies of Government are called lobbies. Agents of lobbies whose primary activities are contacts with and persuasion of our Governmental officers are called lobbyists. The actions of lobbyists are called lobbying.
There are laws sanctioning bribery (the act of "purchasing influence" with riches); yet these laws are barely enforceable: the elements of proof are nearly impossible to establish beyond a doubt in a criminal trial. Even blatant cases of bribery are rarely prosecuted.
There are laws governing the conduct of elections, acts of candidates and/or committees who back the candidacy, political parties, campaign contributions in money and in kind, even down to the details of who may loiter around a polling place.
Yet there are no laws directly regulating or sanctioning lobbying. It is my view that lobbying is a perversion -- a horrific criminal offense against the citizenry, Republic, and Constitution of the United States which sinks to the moral depths of treason or espionage. Lobbying provides zero benefit to the American people in general, perhaps only to small groups thereof, and even that's not guaranteed. For some unknown reason, it seems that lobbying is an expected perversion of the "one citizen, one vote" principle that is far too powerful, too entrenched to eliminate. I disagree.
Lobbying offers the fruits of material temptation to our Governmental officials, who are too often unable to resist. Once 'hooked' by the lobbyist, the money, influence, and power of the lobby can have disastrous effects in perpetuity: the crooked official now has no way to exit the relationship without being subjected to extortion, meanwhile the lobby does all possible to ensure that "their" representative is returned to office, and next time an issue of interest arises before this official, it's not hard to imagine a phone call reminding this official which side their bread is buttered on. And so it continues, a vicious, dynastic, cyclonic force destroying the democratic power of the American people, whose individual voices are drowned in a sea of cash as far as their representatives are concerned.
It's clear that we cannot legislate morality: he or she who would offer to perform public service will face incentives, if elected or appointed, to behave on the lowest moral plane possible. Not all politicians are crooks; but there are a surprisingly large number of them who, being fallible humans, fall victim to temptation. In the case of a candidate for public office, we resourceless individuals cannot afford to trust the honor of a person we are not acquainted with. Nor can we trust even moderately-sized organizations to represent the best interests of the American people -- their very existence is proof that they do not. The combination of these two entities: the fallible human versus the goal-oriented, motivated organization is a perfect storm which has been taking place for perhaps most of the last century, if not even longer.
Please read the linked petition here. You may reproduce it at will and are encouraged to circulate it for signatures, although there is no coordinated circulation effort active at the moment.
I am the original author of this work and the linked petition. I claim no copyright at this time; but reserve the right to do so should its authorship be falsely claimed by someone else.
- You may circulate the Petition for signatures should you desire to do so; I only ask that you observe all laws -- Federal, State, and/or municipal -- that regulate the circulation of petitions where you live.
- If you intend to circulate, please be prepared to certify that, to the best of your knowledge and belief, only qualified electors of the United States of America have signed this petition in your presence.
- An appearance (either in person or in writing) before a Governmental agency may be later asked of you, and you will have to do so at your own expense (sorry, I'm a common working slob, sometimes I can't even finance myself!).
Thanks for your patience, I know there's a lot here to read and think through. But it concerns us all, our children, grandchildren, and future generations of Americans. If we expect an honest, "clean" Government which functions as designed, we need to take action as soon as possible; this is merely my personal view of what needs to happen to begin the elimination of tyranny. Next stops?
- Repeal of the grossly misnamed Patriot Act
- Imposition of a two-term limit for all Federal elected offices
- Permanent prohibition of the Communist Party as a seditious organization
Comments
Post a Comment