Congress shall make no laws excluding public participation.

posted by davidfarrar on August 11, 2023 - 8:19am

I make a motion to adopt as a plank in Unity08's political platform that...

All legislation pertaining to health care and retirement benefit packages for federal elected officials must also apply to the public at large and funded directly by participants.

All legislation pertaining to wages, including "Cost-of-living" adjustments (COLA), for federal elected officials must be approved by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

Can I get a second?

Or if you have an additional friendly amendment, please publish it here for discussion and possible adoption into the main motion.

If you support this motion, as amended, please mark the five stars to register your support for this motion.

ex animo

Average: 3.2 (5 votes)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We elect representatives to laws. That election is your part and the only one the Constitution allows. I don't see Unity08 take this road to anarchy much less the country.

Bill"for what we are together"

You are right. Unity08 deserves its own constitutional amendment as part of its political platform.

Very well. I amend my motion to adopt as a Constitutional Amendment: Congress shall make no social laws for itself excluding the public at large from participating.

ex animo

If it were anything less than a Constitutional Amendment, then the next Congress could just repeal it, or replace it with a new statute. Only by making it a Constitutional Amendment do you take the power to change it out of the hands of Congress.

Just because empire is an ugly word doesn't mean you don't live in one.

The Constitution is amendable, and was always meant to be. We elect Representatives to make statutory laws, but Constitutional law requires broader participation, albeit usually just state legislatures in addition to Congress. However, there is nothing to prevent us from amending the Constitution to make our nation more democratic. The role of the people does not necessarily have to end at voting, and if we achieved such democracy, it would not be anarchy, except in the most idealistic definition, that of having no rulers above us, but instead to be self-governing. That is the goal of both democracy and anarchism in their most ideal forms, but I get the impression you were not using it that way. Please forgive me if I am wrong about that.

Just because empire is an ugly word doesn't mean you don't live in one.

This is not well thought out. How would the general public possibly vote on such legislation?

--Think also of the comfort and rights of others

It isn't very well thought out. But it is a powerful issue. And as Bill73 rightly pointed it, it probably should be in the form of a constitutional amendment, which is even better.

I don't think it's right for Congress to vote itself a raise without public authorization. In this same amendment we could also forbid Congress from raising its own salaries. The issue could be placed before the People at the ballot box at a general election.

ex animo
In addition, as I pointed out in my motion, I am open to friendly amendments.

ex animo

I don't think he was trying to suggest that the people should vote on such issues, but rather that people, that is all Americans, should benefit equally from the health care and retirement plans that Congress grants itself.

Just because empire is an ugly word doesn't mean you don't live in one.



Do your homework before you comment ..

(a) The members of Congress Dont VOTE On Pay raises : "They made it so that when legislation comes up for a vote on pay raises IF NOBODY VOTES ON IT - THE RAISE IS AUTOMATICALLY PASSED ... you see David, this way EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS CAN TELL THEIR CONSTITUENTS "THEY DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE PAY RAISE !!

(b) The object of the Law you want "That Congress Can't Pass Any Laws Without Our Participation" is Commendable but impractical, THAT SAID .. WITH A LITTLE CREATIVITY YOU CAN ACHIEVE WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR - with my plan you so despise ..

I assume your goal with the Law you want passed is TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM DESTROYING THIS NATION & US WITHOUT US HAVING A CHANCE TO STOP THEM - RIGHT ? we already have that right Granted By The Founding Fathers & Confirmed By The United States Constitution & Bill Of Rights !!


Under Inalienable Rights : We The People Are Charged With The Legal Right and Responsibility To Control The Conduct of Our Government .. Government Operates Under An "Entitlement" Granted To Them By WE THE PEOPLE - IT IS OUR LEGAL RIGHT & RESPONSIBILITY TO MONITOR THE CONDUCT OF OUR GOVERNMENT - TO MAKE SURE THEY DONT VIOLATE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION & OUR BILL OF RIGHTS "BY ACCIDENT OR DESIGN" ...

Under "Pete's Plan" : We The People Discharge Our Legal Rights & Responsibility Through UNITY08 Before The Elections of 2023 to accomplish two things ..

1. Identify where and how Congress may have Violated Its Entitlement and brought about the Social and Economic Problems We Now Face - Any such violations involving legislation enacted Without Our Express Knowledge, Advice and Consent - IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNENFORCEABLE : to name just a few - EARMARKS, ACCESS PROVIDED TO LOBBYISTS, DECISION TO PRIORITIZE INVESTMENTS IN SPACE OVER INVESTMENTS IN AN AGING AND DETERIORATING INFRASTRUCTURE, THE EXPORTING OF JOBS & TECHNOLOGY NEEDED TO SUSTAIN THE HEALTH & WELFARE OF OUR OWN SOCIETY !!

This is a no brainer : The Freedom Of Information act provides access - a 7 Day examination of the Congressional Record and 24 Hour Reading of Dick Morris's Book OUTRAGE will produce ALL THE EVIDENCE NEEDED !!

2. Call for the implementation of Management Practices accepted by all recognized experts - AS ESSENTIAL TO ELIMINATING THE PROBLEMS WE NOW FACE - AND MINIMIZING THE DANGERS OF FURTHER CATASTROPHIC FAILURES IN OUR GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS .. ie Upgrading Our Procedures For HIRING & FIRING PEOPLE TO MANAGE OUR LIVES & AFFAIRS. !! The Right Procedures Are Readily Available, Can & Must Be Implemented BEFORE THE ELECTIONS OF 2023 !!

The Founders and Delegates of UNITY08 - have it within their power TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN - all it takes is to put aside our differences and Focus on Bullseye : To take back control of our lives and affairs from Crooks in Congress and their Cronies in the outside world !!

David, criticize this - and you will lose what little credibility you've got left.

Peter K (popo) Evans

My only concern is how you want to go about getting it adopted by Unity08. As long as you place whatever your plan is before the delegate-membership of Unity08 for their support or rejection, I'm okay with it. It's just that simple.

Now, as to my motion: I am not quite sure I understand your amendment. Would you, or anyone, word it in a more concise manner so we can perhaps incorporate it into the motion?

ex animo


The Founders and the the whole world on my blog ..

The problem with this whole situation is Everybody's attention is being focused on the Symptoms - Not On The Disease ..

Your motion is a classic example - please don't take the following as if I'm talking down to you : this is to make a point ..

THE STATE OF THE NATION STINKS - Socially & Economically, Our Lives and everything we own is at risk right now - THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY THIS COULD HAPPEN -- If those in control of our lives and affairs were incompetent and/or corrupt - AND WE DIDN'T RECOGNIZE IT OR DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT !!

To Get What You & The Rest Of Us Want - A Suitable Vehicle such as UNITY08 that has both Political & Legal Clout : Must Come Out With An Agenda That Will Resonate With Millions of Frustrated & Angry Americans !!

Your attacks upon the founders are unfair and counterproductive - I wouldn't be here if I hadn't made it my business to check things out ...

They've been right on target with what Doug Bailey told me would happen with the two major parties and their candidates : my only concern has been - getting a UNITY08 Plan OUT THERE THAT WILL GRAB THE HEADLINES AND EXCITE SOME GOOD CANDIDATES & MILLIONS OF DELEGATES - IN TIME FOR US TO ACHIEVE OUR OBJECTIVES ..

That is still my concern - that's why I am and will continue to PUSH FOR UNITY08 To Adopt "Pete's Plan For Political & Management Reforms" .. THAT SAID, this I promise you - if someone comes up with something "CLEARLY BETTER", I will support it.

David, let me close this by saying - WE, meaning all the hardworking Americans & Taxpayers CAN HAVE THE GOVERNMENT WE NEED - IF WE FIGHT FOR IT BETWEEN NOW & The Time Of The General Elections - that's the only way it can happen.

Peter K (popo) Evans

As I have told you in the past, Peter; I'll be glad to consider any motion you make to adopt any agenda you are willing to propose, as long it is placed before the delegate membership of Unity08 for their support or rejection.

I will not support, however, any so called, "America Agenda" created by the leadership of Unity08 and placed before the delegate membership for their approval. The reason why I take this stand is because the leadership of Unity08 has absolute control over the email communication of the delegate membership at large, whereas you do not. They have the enormous advantage of manipulating virtually every aspect of Unity08 through their control of the delegate membership email list.

It has long been the practice of the other two major political parties to dominate their membership by similar methods, by controlling their own membership mailing list. I would hope that the true difference between Unity08 and the other two majority parties will be in the way Unity08 arrives at its political agenda. Will that process be controlled by Unity08's leadership or will it be a true expression of the collective wisdom of the delegate membership themselves?

I don't know about you Peter, but I believe the only true way to arrive at an "Agenda That Will Resonate With Millions of Frustrated & Angry Americans" is by allowing the deleates of Unity08 the simple freedom of creating their own political platform, plank by approved plank.

ex animo

David, I'm not petitioning you to support anything - never have, I developed a plan I posted here and on my blog, the delegates and the visitors to my blog are invited to examine my ideas - adopt them OR COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER ..

You simply turn everything into an opportunity to critisize the founders or me .. WHY DIDN'T YOU START AN ORGANIZATION OF YOUR OWN .. if I felt as you do I wouldn't be a delegate of UNITY08..

For some unknown reason you keep repeating in your comments about me not going to rhe delegates with the idea WHEN YOU KNOW DAMN WELL - I HAVE ..

You talk as if I should have come to you personally for your blessing - why in the hell would I do that, you haven't given me any reason to value your opinion about anything.

When you start to display somekind of respect to the people that created this opportunity for us, I may start responding to your comments again.


to adopt your plan? Was it seconded? I would very much like to read the language of your motion. It just goes to show you how easily things can get misplaced in a forum that is not really designed as a deliberative setting.

Please let me know where your motion is, Peter.

ex animo

The XXVII Amendment to the Constitution says: No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

I already suggested in another message thread (not sure where it is now) that an amendment be proposed at a constitutional convention of state legislatures that would take congressional compensation out of the hands of Congress and require the States to approve any changes. Do you get to determine your own pay?

This would resolve the issue of the people's input regarding compensation for representatives in Congress. I believe we have better access to our state reps.

(Edit note - The pay raise to which Popo is referring is the automatic Cost-of-Living (See this Link) increases built into Congressional compensation packages. Lower courts have ruled that Cost-of-Living increases are not actual pay raises and thus do not violate the XXVII Admendment. The Supreme Court has not ruled on this specific item. Representatives must vote on any other proposed pay raises --- they are not automatic! However, since an intervening election must take place, representatives can still claim they did not vote for their own pay raise - the raise applies to the next session of Congress.)

I make a motion to adopt as a plank in Unity08's political platform that...
All legislation pertaining to wage, health care, and retirement benefit packages for federal elected officials must be approved by two-thirds of the state legislatures before it become law. If not approved within a two year period, the current wage, health care, retirement package remains in force.

Can I get a second?

Or if you have an additional friendly amendment, please publish it here for discussion and possible adoption into the main motion.

If you support this motion, as amended, please mark the five stars to register your support for this motion.

ex animo

I'm not so sure it is as simple as us agreeing to the concept behind our discussion here for it to make sense as a plank in our platform. I'm not trying to be an obstructionist here, I am asking that we reflect on what we are saying and how it relates to the Presidential elections.

To me it would be a great idea, and it would be good for America, if the states were to decide to convene and to pass such an amendment to the Constitution. However, it has never been done. I'm not so sure I understand how anything that the States might do, independent of the Presidential election, is something that we would want as a plank in our platform. The two just seem to be two different animals.

I think it is fine that we fully discuss such things so we know their rightful place and how they tie into the overall picture of what's wrong with government and how it can be fixed. Maybe others can shed some more light on this.

Just because we create a preliminary draft plank in Unity08's political platform doesn't mean it is written in stone. Adoption in itself doesn't mean the final word has been spoken on the subject. But it does allow for a more focused discussion and, hopefully, a better resolution.

This issue has been raised before, by you at: Bill of checks and balances, and with: Congressional Compensation. In addition, Mary Ann posted a very good posting directly on point at: Mary Anna, as well as germanious with: Make Government changes in 2023.

What a second will bring is an acknowledgement that this issue will be part of the delegate's political platform and discussion when, and if, such an opportunity occurs -- which I, for one, seriously doubt.

ex animo

It must go beyond just the presidential election. True the president is incredibly powerful in our system, and can influence much of what happens in our government, but trying to get a mass movement together, then telling people that it is only for one limited purpose, and that anything beyond that is out of bounds is a good way to get people to determine that Unity08 is insufficient to fix the mess we are in, and to look elsewhere.

While Unity 08 may not run any candidates in any other race in this cycle (and should probably consider changing its name if it intends to be an ongoing movement/party), it doesn't mean that the party platform can only contain planks that relate directly to that race.

I propose that the name Unity08 be changed to Unity Party USA, and that we consider supporting/endorsing candidates in other races, as well as supporting a broader party platform that may involve changes other than just elected personnel.

Just because empire is an ugly word doesn't mean you don't live in one.

You are 100% correct - I was simply pointing out the net effect of them being able to claim they didn't vote foe their pay raise ..

I would like to see your views on the balance of my presentation - this is the most important part ..


Previously, I briefly reviewed your website. I must say that I did not study the various proposals and ideas in detail. What I did find and understand you to mean makes us of similar minds. For instance, there is a thread in this forum that asks people for their top three issues to which I merely named one: Transparency in Government. Now, if I understand you correctly, we are not far apart in our thoughts about how to rein in government and make it accountable to the people. I believe the number one issue that goes further than any other proposal to resolve any issue with government legislation is the people's ability to make government behavior transparent and, thus, accountable. I would say that, with transparency, your proposal for the application of effective and recognized management practices to legislation; Unity08 could be the vehicle to take us through all the cobwebs.

That being said, maybe I can get you to expound a little on the vehicle you are proposing by addressing some thoughts I have about specifics. There are a number of practical, Constitutional, and time frame issues that can not be inferred without a delineation of what the pillars of your proposal's structure would look like in real life.

For the sake of discussion, lets assume we are talking about, say, the implementation of a "Peoples' Oversight Committee". (Feel free to change this model.) I am not sure how the committee would be constituted and am hoping you can expound more. One thing we know is that it would have access to the building blocks of proposed legislation through the Freedom of Information Act. The trick would be to couple this transparency with a required legislative review process that enhances the people's ability to proactively push for compliance within the parameters of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Its objective would be to make legislation reflective of what the people want --- not entities like corporations, special interest groups, or foreign governments.

Now, what is not clear to me is the mechanism that would permit the committee to effectively enforce government compliance. For instance, how would the committee get government to start using a method of prioritizing legislation to address the people's concerns? The dangers I see for the institution of a People's Oversight Committee are Constitutional in nature. Certain powers and authority are expressly given to the President and to Congress which mere oversight can not alter. While transparency may enable the committee to enlist the power of the people, time frames for action put the committee at a disadvantage. How is it possible to force the implementation of widely recognized and accepted management practices when it takes so much of our collective voice to get representatives to hear us? While we may be able to speak loudly enough to stop earmarks and reduce the influence of special interest groups, if caught in time; how is it possible to override or influence the constitutional perogatives of officials?

As I am not familiar with Dick Morris' book nor the specifics of your proposal, I have more questions than I have solid input. Maybe you are just saying that this should be the focus of Unity08, I am not sure.

I appreciate you saying that you would like to hear my feedback. However, I'm afraid I probably have more questions than solid input. I think that is so because ideas always become a little hazy as they go from theory to fact. I look forward to reading your response.

Phil, In hope you forgive me but - the best way to do this is if you will
access my blog, scroll back through reading nns digesting those that ring a bell - I've got it all on there What Where When How ..

List any questions you have at the end and email me at, I'm having some heart trouble right now and I tire easilly ..

I will anwer any questions you have after you've studied my blog

Peter K (popo) Evans

Phil the details are on my blog in several forms - but to encapsulate think of it this way ...


1. A Governing Body that has all the skills and experience it takes to Effectively Manage The World's Largest Corporation ..

2. The Management Disciplines in place and functional to Eliminate Mistakes By Accident or Design ..

Anything less should be unacceptable.


Okay, in an effort to understand your proposal, let me try this again. When you say we need a "Governing Body that has all the skills and experience it takes to Effectively Manage The World's Largest Corporation ..." I take it you mean senior government appointees. The reason I say appointees is because the president and congress are both elected and their qualifications are already scrutinized at the ballot box by the voters. I don't believe you are talking about career civil servants either because these people already have to meet established requirements for their positions. That only leaves appointees. So, you want the practice of making appointments based on politics to cease. Instead, your proposal is that only skilled, experienced, knowledgeable, and proven managers be appointed to head the major government departments.

Here is some supporting documentation for your proposal # 1:

    The Brookings Institution, in its Presidential Appointee Initiative states that,

  • The secret to regaining the public's trust may be both obvious and politically unassailable: presidents should make clear that qualifications always are more important than political connections in the choice of nominees.

I can agree with you that we ought to present this question to any prospective Unity08 candidate to learn whether they will implement an appointment approach that places a premium on the need to appoint people to senior level positions based on their skills and experience instead of politics.

The second part of your proposal says, The Management Disciplines in place and functional to Eliminate Mistakes By Accident or Design ... This builds upon part one. I think the words you are using make it appear that you are mistakenly putting the cart before the horse. While it seems to be a sound notion and a good question to ask if a candidate has a management plan for governing, to expect to have these management disciplines already functioning in the government is outside of the control of someone that is running for the position now. (I am not trying to be picky about semantics, I just want to understand and be accurate. A lot of miscommunication happens when we write online and cannot interact as we would in a verbal conversation.)

I would like to take your second thought one step further and ask the candidate how they would seek reform for a corrupt system so that we never again have political appointees in place of knowledgeable, skilled, and competent managers. It would be good to ask how a candidate intends to insure more permanent reform through tools like Executive Order, proposed legislation to Congress, or would he/she take a more in-depth approach with a study and recommendations?

I do agree with the concept that Appointees are not there in a political capacity to use their office to further their political agenda. They are there to effectively manage the resources of a department so as to efficiently carry out the laws of the land. To do that, I agree that we need proven managers that are skilled and experienced in that particular area. And there also needs to be proven management disciplines applied to the enormous task of running the government in the most efficient way possible. Only then can we tell if the legislation that is enacted is really working as intended.

Before I make a suggestion in regard to senior political appointees, let me remind us that the cabinet level positions are not spelled out in the Constitution, and a President is not therefore required to follow the precedents that have been set with regard to these positions. Based on this, I would suggest that Unity's presidential nominee should not appoint individuals to head the executive departments, but should instead appoint small committees for each of them. These committees should each be multipartisan (that is, 1 each Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, and Independent), and half of the committees should be chaired by Republicans, and half should be chaired by Democrats.

Just because empire is an ugly word doesn't mean you don't live in one.

The Evidence is overwhelming that OUR POLITICAL "SYSTEM" - ie The Way We Hire, Monitor & Fire. Our Elected Representatives IS INADEQUATE TO PROTECT OUR SOCIAL & ECONOMIC WELFARE & SECURITY IN THE 21st CENTURY .. EVEN a cursory study of our present system PIN-POINTS the MISSING ITEMS ..

THERE IS NO JOB DESCRIPTION OR CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PEOPLE WE ELECT - TO PROTECT OUR LIVES, LIBERTIES & PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS .. There Is No Published Resume With References on Each Candidate So The Voters Can Check & Evaluate Each Based on Qualifications .. IN FACT - The Only Thing Most Of Us Know About All The Candidates IS WHAT THEIR HANDLERS CAN SELL TO THE MEDIA & WHAT THE MEDIA DECIDES TO TELL US ..

Our Individual Elected Representatives Are Powerless To Represent Our Interests - they either Follow The Party Line or their term of employment in DC is short, frustrating and debilitating ..

The Congress has adopted a set of rules and procedures without our Knowledge, Advice & Consent - that allows them to hide questionable actions from us until it's too late to prevent catastrophic situations that can occur by accident or design ..



It's not a complicated issue - It's simply a case of establishing/implementing a Plan that Has Qualified People Performing Required Functions Based on Sound & Constitutional Operating Policies & Procedures !!

That's "Pete's Plan For Political & Management Reform" ...

Peter K (popo) Evans

pa. Phil the Management Qualifications of Presidential Appointees is important BUT The Real Control Is In The Congress - THERE IT'S VITAL !!!!!!

pps. The only thing more important than Transparency - is having an Effective System to watch over and keeping it ahead of the times.

Popo, thanks for your response. I think I have a better idea of what you are saying now. I feel much more comfortable having a discussion about the merits of your thought. Two heads, or many heads, are always better than one when it comes to brainstorming about ideas.

I don't think America is simply a large corporation that has to be managed more effectively. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights make up the living and breathing ideals for operating within a framework that we call our government. While those ideals are not the same thing "as" our government, it would be a mistake to think that government's purpose is to simply "manage" those ideals.

Ideals embodied in the Constitution and The Bills of Rights, attributed to our Founding Fathers like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are based on earlier ideals espoused by the Philosopher John Locke. Even the elegant Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson owes its core principles to the earlier and elegant Philosophy of John Locke.

John Locke's ideals from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

  • "Much of Locke's work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth (my emphasis) rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions."

This tells me that ideals (embodied in the Constitution and the Bills of Rights) are subject to interpretation based on our reason and in proportion to which we determine that government can engage in its various activities. That is also why we can expect to have a population with a spectrum of differing belief systems - everyone has a different truth as individuals and how they view the role of government, based on their individual reason.

This is the foundation for us to elect representatives that believe as we do in our Democracy. There is no basis for me to believe that we have to manage ever changing truths with government managers. While a qualified manager approach may yield better efficiency for implementing static policies, I believe a managerial qualification requirement for our candidates would detract from changes that human reason undergoes. There is also a school of thought that thinks the term "Legislator" means that representatives should be lawyers because they understand the law better than you or I. I don't have to say why that is such a scary thought.

I don't know where ideas come from so I can't say that someone without any specific skill or experience will not come up with an idea that hits home with my reason. I also can not say that someone emminently skilled, experienced, and is a qualified manager is not suited to be my representative either. An analogy could be drawn with how medical school candidates are selected. I can't give you specific figures but, I do know that medical doctors are not merely selected from the ranks of Biology majors in colleges. Imagine that, we have medical doctors whose undergraduate studies were in English Literature. I don't think it would be good to establish specific managerial qualifications for our elected representatives.

I believe there is good reason why our Forefathers left specific qualifications other than age, citizenship, and residency out of the Constitution. I do think we need to scrutinize candidates better so we can determine they are principled and of high character.

Phil, the following is a response I recently made to a Delegate who's question to me was "How Do You Get People Who Despise Each other To Work Together" ?? He was talking of course about our Two Political Parties !!

After thinking that question through - I realized the REAL ANSWER to that question has great significance when you see things the way I do ..

The truth is - Members of our two major parties are cut from the same cloth, they have evolved into two teams of Professional Politicians Playing A Very High Stakes Game of "Winner Take All During Your Term At Bat" ..

They don't despise each other, they don't think much of you and yours or me and mine - bur each will protect the opposition from you and I ..

I'm not being cynical - its the reality, this is why Perot failed, this why Nader failed : the two parties closed ranks and joined forces to protect their Power, Pay, Perks and Pensions !!

THEY WILL DO THE SAME THING TO UNITY08 unless we have THE TOOLS IN PLACE BEFORE NOV 2023 THAT CAN NEUTRALIZE any attempt by the two major parties to join forces to freeze us out.

I have been advised by one Law Professor - that while my approach may be unprecedented It Has Real Merit and a Case could be made for its implementation should the need arise.

Pete (popo) Evans

popo, that is sooo true! On Sunday, August 12th, I am sorta lazing before the TV screen, thinking about a project of mine, and then thought of getting a weather report, it was early so I flicked around for a local station, stopped on ABC, it had the ABC national news , meaning that the local news would be next. While I waited, ABC broadcast a segment on the tradegy of the 3 murdered college kids, and the one wounded college kid. Then to my somewhat should be jaded, amazement,the ABC newscasters went into a segue-topic-offshoot, don't know what, about how bad the people are in that area of the city, the crime rate being so high, the crime being inner-city, the crime is from poor and ... the crime is getting better... NOT ONCE NOT ONE TIME - did ABC mention or speak of the 26 year old ringleader, the illegal immigrant with the rap sheet that includes the rape of a five year old girl. Not one iota of a breath of a word.

I sat there in shock and am still in kind of a .. well I'd heard about the MSM (mainstream media) but that really ...really. You know what I mean.

Rather than placing stricter limitations on who can serve in an elected office, which would in effect just make our government less democratic, let's get at the heart of what you are really saying.

It seems to me that your issue is with the nature of our election system, and how the issues have been replaced with hype. That is something on which I think most of us would agree. So, let's move toward changing the rules of the election process rather than limiting who can run. I personally would like to believe that the people are entirely capable of deciding between candidates IF they have access to the candidates' actual positions on the various issues with which they are concerned. The problem is that the entire political process has been removed from our lives, except the partisan aspect and the horse race. What we must do is to re-insert the actual politics, the issues, and to give the people ready access to these. Some of that is already occurring through the internet. Some candidates are creating websites that cover their positions on the issues they believe are important. However, there are still several problems with this:

1) Not everybody has internet access. This is also an issue with Unity that will surely need to be addressed, but as internet access becomes more widespread, it will become less of an issue.

1.a) Perhaps, the Unity presidential platform could include an initiative that would create a federal broadband ISP for low income households, and a computer recycling/redistribution program that would allow lower-income families to receive computers that are being discarded by others, but which are still functional and/or reparable.

1.b) At least until every American has internet access, we should try to remedy the problem in another way. I suggest a law that requires that the candidates for any federal (or state?) office must hold an open debate in every precinct of the jurisdiction for which they are running. OK, maybe that's unrealistic. Senatorial candidates would be spending all their time trying to cover every precinct in their state, and would get tired of having the same argument that many times. So, let's modify that. Candidates for any federal office must participate in at least three debates against all other legally registered candidates for that office, and that these debates must be televised throughout the jurisdiction for which the candidates are seeking office, and that open admission viewing areas must be made available to those without televisions in every precinct of that jurisdiction

I know that there are some flaws with that idea, but now it's out there, and you can suggest revisions, amendments, or entirely different ideas that might accomplish the purpose better.

2) We might also want to suggest a law that requires that all candidates for elected office must post a website with a page containing their positions on the issues that are most pertinent to the office they seek. Such a law might be going overboard. We might do better just telling people not to vote for anyone who doesn't post their positions on their website. Or maybe there is a middle ground of some sort. Perhaps there should be a governmental agency whose job is to create an unbiased website that lists every candidate for every office and their positions, and that this office should also be tasked with posting the same information in all newspapers relevant to any given race, and acquiring air time on appropriate radio and TV stations to make this information public knowledge.

I'm just working off the top of my head here, so none of these ideas are very well developed, but I think these would be better steps than trying to limit who can run for office. I would like to live in a democracy, with self-government by the people, and obviously, if most people are declared unfit for most offices before election processes even begin, we are moving far away from democracy.

Just because empire is an ugly word doesn't mean you don't live in one.

We are on the same wavelength ... What I want From My Politicians Regardless of Political Affiliation IS


Unfortunately, by failing to insure the Wisdom, Dedication and Integrity of those we elected to represent us, we created a situation where inept and corrupt Politicians were able to pervert the system and expose Millions to unacceptable dangers from - natural and other forms of social and economic disaster ..


Phil one of my postings way back explains my feelings about America : IT IS THE GREATEST & MOST SUCCESSFUL SOCIAL EXPERIMENT EVER CONDUCTED TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF HUMAN KIND - many of us hoped More Nations Would Have Wanted To Pattern Themselves After Us By Choice, again, unfortunately the conduct of our Politicians in recent years AND our failure to do what's necessary to change things - has lost us many friends throughout world - and emboldened our enemies.

You are not wrong Phil - I'm just MORE RIGHT !!

Please email me your phone number - there is so much more I have to offer

Peter K (popo)Evans email popopete&

Your plan is irrelevant. It has no legal standing, nor enforcement mechanism. Phil as much as said so in his last posting:Popo, thanks for your.

Be that as it may, go ahead and make your motion to adopt Peter's Plan and I will be glad to second it, if nothing else, so you won't suck the life out of anybody else's political plank discussions in the future.

But who am I kidding? You aren't going to make a motion to adopt your own plan, are you, Peter?

ex animo

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Container Bottom