 
A Proposed New Constitution

by Al Carroll

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons agreement. It may be freely reproduced and reposted elsewhere, in part or in full, if not for profit and given proper accreditation of authorship.

About the Author

Al Carroll is Assistant Professor of History at Northern Virginia Community College, teaching American, American Indian, and Latin American history. He is the author of four history books and numerous academic and journalism articles on history, politics, international relations, presidents, veterans, racism, and spiritual and cultural traditions. His writings have appeared in publications such as _History News Network, Indian Country Today, Southwestern Historical Quarterly_ , and _Wall Street Examiner_. He is best known for his work as a human rights and anti-racist activist for the group New Age Frauds Plastic Shamans (NAFPS) based at www.newagefraud.org, defending Native spiritual traditions from abuse and exploitation for over fifteen years.

Table of Contents
Introduction

The Proposed New Constitution in Full

Explaining the Articles and Arguments For Them

Article 1- Continuing and Expanding the Original Constitution and its Amendments

Article 2- Insuring Greater Democracy

Article 3- Guaranteeing the Right to Vote

Article 4- Ending the Buying of Elections

Article 5-Voting Guarantees Benefits

Article 6- Limiting Corporate Power

Article 7- Ending Colonialism

Article 8- Renouncing War

Article 9- Referendums and Recalls

Article 10- Nonprofits for the Public Interest

Article 11- Ending Institutional Support for Hatred and Discrimination

Article 12- Ending Class Bias in the Law

Article 13- Ending Special Treatment for Wealthy Elites

Article 14- Limiting Idle Wealth

Article 15- The Right to Privacy

Amendments That Don't Belong in the US Constitution

Conclusions: Why a New Constitution Is Needed
Notes

Other Works by Al Carroll

Introduction

How would you change the constitution if it were up to you? How should we as a nation change the constitution? Even asking the question gets angry and outraged responses. This is so even though parts of it are poorly thought out, anti-democratic, and have done tremendous damage to the nation.

For America's constitution is a sacred cow. Some cows should not be worshiped. Some should be slaughtered. That is not true of all of the US Constitution, but America would be better off if some parts of it became hamburger. For nothing should be so revered that one cannot question it, change it, or discard it, and blind worship is always to be avoided.

There is, among those on both the political left and right, what can only be called widespread constitution worship. Most on both sides hold up the constitution the way a vampire hunter in the movies holds up a cross to ward off vampires. Everyone from the most stoned pot smokers to gun toting militia groups calls on the constitution as support for causes, beliefs, and attitudes they hold dear.

This constitution worship is every bit as blindly enthusiastic as it is unknowing of the actual history of the constitution, and how and why it was adopted. For this, most people are blameless. People cannot be faulted for what they were not taught, or more often, falsely taught. I made the same argument in _Presidents' Body Counts_ , and others, notably James Loewen in _Lies My Teacher Told Me_ , argue likewise.

For the founders themselves did not think much of the constitution. Jefferson wanted a new constitution every twenty years. Other founders disagreed, largely because they were not sure the constitution would last twenty years. For the founders, it was a pragmatic, even temporary, measure, not holy or intended to be permanent. Constitution worship did not become a regular feature of American society until near the start of the twentieth century, in part as a way to assimilate immigrants.

I often tell my students that America is great not because of the constitution, but in spite of it, and especially in spite of the founders. The constitution itself is clearly at the root of many of our worst problems in American society today. If it were up to the American public, the following solutions would have become law many decades, even half a century or more, before today:

1. Abolishing the Electoral College.

2. Ending the buying of elections.

3. Limiting the time campaigning for office, as they do in Great Britain.

4. Ending wars quickly in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Each war continued over half a decade after the American public wanted to get out.

5. Reforming the office of vice president, widely regarded with contempt by most, and producing candidates that even most voters of the same party as the presidential candidate did not want.

6. Ending corporate welfare and other wasteful spending.

7. Ending most foreign military aid, and support for tyrants and dictators around the world.

8. Limiting the power of the Supreme Court.

9. Ending the political monopoly of wealthy elites.

10. Guaranteeing privacy from government intrusion.

Each of these proposals have widespread bipartisan support and are hugely popular across the political spectrum by great majorities. But none of these proposals, not too surprisingly, have majority support among elected political elites, economic elites, or the leadership of either party.

The constitution itself is the biggest barrier to solving these problems. Not one of these problems have been, or ever could have been, quickly solved, precisely because the constitution makes it difficult. Most of these problems require a constitutional amendment, something made deliberately long and difficult by the founders. A few of these could be solved temporarily by ordinary laws, which could then be easily overturned next election.

So why not go to the root of these problems? Why not a new constitution?

Constitution worship is the reason. Most Americans have been so heavily propagandized to think of the US Constitution as undeniably great and downright sacred, something you just don't question without being seen as un-American.

What is pretty comical is to see the most idealistic of leftists, who are deeply cynical of everything else that is elitist and coming from powerful and wealthy institutions, become like a fundamentalist when the constitution is brought up. What is equally comical is to see populist conservatives or libertarians become enamored of government power when it is enshrined in a document written by, after all, Deists and Enlightenment-influenced thinkers who did not trust organized religion or nobility. Both are smitten by constitution worship.

There are two obvious ways to deal with that. One is to challenge the holy stature of the constitution. Write the true history, which most historians and political scientists already know is not a noble one, but one of elitists hijacking a popular revolution.

The other solution is to keep what is best about the old constitution while adding to it. Propose a new constitution and a new constitutional convention, but make one of the first proposals to keep the best of the old document.

For the best of the constitution is not the original document at all. **The best part is the amendments. The original document is not about rights and all about power,** who has it and how they can wield it, and that it will always remain in the hands of elites. The amendments are what most rightly revere. Keep the amendments, and amend the original document of power to spread the power to the mass of people, and add more amendments to limit the power of elites, for good.

That is what this proposed constitution tries to do. It adds to the best of the document, keeping all the original constitutional amendments with Article 1. The rest of the articles serve the same purpose as amendments.

What of the first solution to ending constitution worship? Tell the true history of the constitution, uncensored, without the heavy doses of patriotic propaganda that leave out its elitist nature. That story has already been told many times in the fields of history, political science, etc. But to help the curious and open minded, and for the less patient, let me summarize the history of the adoption of the constitution. To do that, one has to go back to the American Revolution.

**The American Revolution was not a real revolution at all. It was just an independence movement.** In actual revolutions, elites are overthrown, killed off, imprisoned, or forced to flee the country. America's elites, plantation owners like Washington and Jefferson, were actually strengthened. They no longer had to listen to British authorities. Many scholars, the best known being the eminent Charles Beard, argued the real motive for the founders' rebellion was economic. The British Empire was run by mercantilism, which required colonies to trade only with the mother country. The founders wanted primarily more profit from trade, not political freedom. (Some scholars go farther and argue many of the founders actually pushed for independence to hold onto plantation slavery, fearing the rising abolitionist movement in Great Britain.)

But there were many in the middle and working classes who wanted a true class revolution. There had been class warfare in the earlier English Revolution, the so called Roundheads who were middle class and anti-nobility, and the Levelers, primitive versions of communists who wanted to level off the wealth anyone could have. In the American Revolution, there were anti elite groups like the Sons of Liberty, and populist rabble rousers like Samuel Adams, George Mason, and most of all Thomas Paine. Paine, for example, later proposed a guaranteed income for all, taken directly from taxing the inherited property of wealthy elites.

There was a populist wave of the American Revolution before it was hijacked by the largely elitist founders. The Massachusetts Revolution of 1774 happened a year before the Battles of Lexington and Concord. The public took control of Massachusetts courts, forcing judges and the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to resign. They overthrew every county government in Massachusetts. That is why the British were occupying Boston in the first place at the time of Lexington and Concord.

This was just the start of a populist revolution. **There were over 90 Declarations of Independence before Jefferson's** , from counties, cities, and states. Most were based on George Mason's in Virginia. Jefferson's declaration was an elite attempt to shape a popular uprising. There were also uprisings within the elite-led independence movement. There were mutinies within the US Army, in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Congress was forced to use a draft, bounties, even the promise of slaves to gain recruits.

After the war, there were early experiments in anarchism, socialism, and other revolutionary notions, especially for that time. For a year, Pennsylvania tried shutting down the government entirely. Pennsylvania also tried outlawing the collection of debt, a form of wealth redistribution. Slavery ended in seven northern states. One out of eight slaves in the US were freed. New Jersey even gave women the right to vote, and women's suffrage stayed on the books in the state until 1807.

Most importantly, **aristocracy and feudalism were ended in the US.** Noble titles, primogeniture, and entailment (the wealthy being able to seize public property) all ended. **There was enormous confiscation and redistribution of wealth during and after the revolution**. (Try telling that to a Tea Party member.) Most British loyalists and many aristocrats, whether they sided with the colonists or with Britain, lost their property. Established state churches in nine of the thirteen colonies were abolished. These were all fairly radical changes, and many Americans wanted to go even further.

**American elites' fear of class warfare created the US Constitution.** The most pivotal event was Shay's Rebellion. Farmers in western Massachusetts tried to stop foreclosures on their farms, so they shut down state courts. Jefferson called this, "liberty run mad." Washington called it, "anarchy and confusion." What horrified the founders was not the size of the rebellion. It was minor, with few deaths. The fact that it took so long to break the rebellion worried them. And at the same time, the French Revolution was going on. They feared this minor rebellion might grow into a similar class revolution. All the radical experiments in wealth redistribution added to that fear. The founders called the convention in direct response to Shay's Rebellion.

The constitutional delegates had a low opinion of the public. They believed most people were just one hungry belly short of becoming a howling mob, that the average person was selfish, unreliable, and easily misled. They wanted the nation to be run by "men of quality" and argued the wealthy must be protected from the general public above all else. **"Those who own the country ought to govern it," John Jay argued.**

**The Constitutional Convention was secretive. There were no notes taken** , except Madison's, done at the end of the day in his room, against the wishes of the convention. **The public was barred. So was the press. The delegates** , just like Colonial Congresses before them, **took oaths of secrecy to keep debates from the public.** There was almost no debate on expanding the power of the government. The elite delegates already agreed in advance on most questions.

The US Constitution was and is deliberately anti-democratic, designed to look like a democracy without actually being one. Great power was given to the president. The assumption was Washington would be the first, and the clumsy Electoral College put in. Electing a president was deliberately made cumbersome to stop anyone not as admired as Washington from being elected. **The founders did not want competitive elections, but presidents chosen almost by acclamation.**

**Ratifying deliberately excluded opponents of the constitution. Special state conventions, not legislatures or the public, ratified the constitution.** Even so, as word leaked out, the public turned against this document that none of them were allowed to vote on. Elites at the special state conventions began to get nervous. Votes against the constitution were highest in Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. The Massachusetts convention only ratified after Governor John Hancock was promised (falsely) he would be the first president or vice president.

In Virginia, George Mason and Patrick Henry successfully pushed for the Bill of Rights as a condition for ratifying. The first presidential election was planned without New York, North Carolina, or Rhode Island. New York actually prepared to secede and become its own country. Federalists in New York City then threatened to secede from New York. The New York convention backed down and narrowly ratified.

North Carolina's convention defeated the constitution and held out a year before a new convention ratified. Rhode Island was the only state to hold a "popular" vote. (Not only minorities and women, except in New Jersey, were barred. There were property requirements to vote in every state.) The constitution was defeated in the state by a 10-1 margin, a good indication of what most of the public thought. Washington was actually elected without Rhode Island voting in the presidential election.

**Ratification took three years of enormous elite effort *against* the general public.** Ben Franklin owned most newspapers in the US. An economic boycott was used by wealthy elites to shut down many of the other papers opposing the constitution.

**The original US Constitution, minus the amendments, has a deliberate *anti* democratic structure** :

1. The Electoral College means there has never been a direct election of presidents. Originally it was intended to be a veto by elites vs. the general public. If they elected the "wrong" person, the electors were there to overrule the public.

2. The US Senate is the most undemocratic part of the system. Wyoming has 75 times greater representation than California. Until the 20th Century, senators were chosen by state legislatures, not voters. (Some Tea Party leaders want to return to that.)

3. The Supreme Court almost always defends wealthy elites.

4. The winner take all/majority rule system is less democratic than parliament systems in most other nations. It leaves small groups unrepresented, cripples newer or smaller parties. In most other democracies, if you vote, you are represented, whether or not your party or candidate wins. Not in the US, and thus we are dominated by two parties.

5. There is no mention of rights in in the original constitution whatsoever, except a stricter definition of treason.

And **the US Constitution was illegally adopted.** The Articles of Confederation's

Article 13 states "...Articles of this Confederation...shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time be made in any of them; unless such alteration agreed to in Congress of the US and confirmed by legislatures of every State." On both counts, the constitution is illegal. Neither Congress nor state legislatures ever confirmed it, only special state conventions.

Obviously I am not suggesting resistance to the current constitution, or ignoring it. That argument leads to chaos, and only militias and sovereign citizens on the fringe embrace that. There is a legal concept which says even if a law was adopted by faulty means, it remains the law if it has been in force for a good length of time. My point was simply, when one hears that this is a nation of laws, remember that the founders ignored the highest law in the land, the Articles of Confederation. Being elites, and very elitist, they just went ahead and did it.

Imagine a modern parallel to what the founders did. Imagine the wealthiest elites writing a document only they had any say in, and only allowing themselves to vote on it, and then declaring it the highest law in the land. That is what the founders did, and this is precisely why the original constitution deserves no reverence.

Instead, let us resolve to craft a new constitution that preserves the best of the old, the amendments, and adds to it with a far better system of government and drastic limits on elite power.

Unlike the original convention, any new constitution deserves, needs, and requires as much popular input as possible. While the proposals that follow were written by me, many of these proposals have been made in other forms before. Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, proposed some parts of several of these articles, as have others. It is depressing, and proof that reform is needed more than ever, that none of his proposals were adopted in spite of public support. The many calls for a new constitutional convention are ongoing.

These proposals, and any proposals, need to come from you, the general public. Send in your suggestions, criticisms, counter proposals, arguments and debates. Spread the word anywhere and everywhere you can. This cannot be done without you.

The only real arguments for continuing the current constitution are stability, and a view of the American system based more on romanticism than actual history.

A final note, before the amendments and arguments for them. This is a work aimed at the general public, not academics. There are no footnotes, so that the flow of the narrative is smoother. Anyone wishing to see the sources of my evidence can find them at book's end.

The Proposed New Constitution in Full

Article 1- Continuing and Expanding the Original Constitution and its Amendments

1. All articles and amendments from the previous Constitution of 1787 remain the final law of the land, except as changed by the following articles or later amendments. 2. This and all future constitutional conventions must be representative of the US public, by gender, race and ethnicity, and religious faith or lack of. Its members must be respected intellectuals drawn from education, religious institutions, civil rights groups, non-governmental organizations, labor, business, military veteran groups, consumer groups, and scientists. No current or former elected officials or appointed cabinet members or presidential or congressional advisers or staff are allowed. All constitution conventions must be in full view of the public, every word said by every delegate at the convention scrupulously recorded. 3. Each of these following articles must be voted on and approved separately by two thirds or more of those voting to become the law of the land.

Article 2- Insuring Greater Democracy

1. The Electoral College is abolished. The President shall be directly elected, with the winner being the candidate receiving the most votes. 2. The Supreme Court shall never, by any decision including indirectly, decide who shall be President. 3. Vice President candidates shall be nominated separately by each party and elected separately from the President, and also serve as the Secretary of State. 4. The Senate shall be 100 adult citizens chosen at random each year, representative of the adult American public by age, gender, race and ethnicity, religion or lack of, and income or social class. 5. Redistricting shall only be decided by nonpartisan committee, and gerrymandering to favor one party or dilute ethnic minority voting power is forbidden. 6. Congressional representatives' terms are changed to four years, elected in the same elections as the President.

Article 3-Guaranteeing the Right to Vote

1. The right to vote for all citizens of legal adult age is absolute and cannot be denied, limited, barred, blocked, or suppressed, whether by deliberate attempts or unintended outcomes. All current such attempts are ended. Any law with the outcome, even unintended, of making voting more difficult shall be immediately void. 2. Any official who deliberately or unintentionally makes voting more difficult shall be immediately removed and their decisions voided and actions reversed. Deliberately blocking others from voting or blocking voting recounts is treason and shall always be prosecuted and punished as a felony. 3. Voting days shall be national holidays, with a paid day off for workers only with proof of voting. 4. The voting age is lowered to sixteen for any US citizen proving their maturity by holding a job, driver's license, or living on their own.

Article 4-Ending the Buying of Elections

1. All elections shall be publicly funded only. Private contributions or donations to or on behalf of a candidate or party, except for unpaid volunteer work, are outlawed. Corporate donations of any kind are forbidden, and business and corporate owners and management are forbidden from intimidating, pressuring, or influencing in any way their employees, punishable by long prison sentences. 2. Campaigning and advertising for all general elections are limited to the period of six weeks before election day. Campaigning and advertising for all primary elections are limited to the six weeks before the general election period. 3. No election, whether federal, state, county, city, special district, American Indian tribe, or of unions, civic groups, lobbying groups, or private clubs, is valid unless more than half of its citizens or members vote. If less than half of the citizens or members vote, there must be immediate new elections within 30 days with different candidates.

Article 5-Voting Guarantees Benefits

1. All eligible voters must vote. Failure to vote results in inability to receive all government benefits until the next election, including licenses, grants, subsidies, tax refunds, eligibility for public assistance, student or business loans or credit. 2. Those with strong and longstanding religious, philosophical, or political beliefs against voting are not required to vote if they show their longstanding beliefs.

Article 6- Limiting Corporate Power

1. All rights in this and the previous constitution, as well as under all American laws, are limited to human beings only. A person under US law is defined as a living human being only. Corporation rights and powers may be severely limited by any and all governments, whether federal, state, city, country, special district, or American Indian tribe. 2. A corporation must serve the public interest and its life span shall be limited. Any corporation shall be permanently dissolved if they break the law more than five times. No business, corporation, or individual can escape fines, punishments, or legal judgments by declaring bankruptcy, or by the use of holding companies, shell companies, or any other diversion, evasion, or tactic. 3. The right to collective bargaining by unions or other workers shall not be limited more than other civic or lobbying groups, nor subject to government recognition.

Article 7-Ending Colonialism

1. The United States recognizes the great wrongs done by genocide against American Indians, apologizes fully, and shall always strive to make amends. All federally recognized American Indian tribes are forever sovereign, defined by their treaty or other legal relationship to the United States, with rights to decide their own government and laws, and to enforce those laws on all residents and visitors within their territory. 2. All American Indian tribes have permanent and absolute rights to their current reservation lands, forever. All federal lands, or lands reacquired by American Indian tribes, that are within these tribes' historically recognized boundaries, or protected by treaty, will be part of their reservations. All sacred sites of federally recognized American Indian tribes shall be returned immediately, or protected by federal partnership if requested by tribes. 3. Native Hawaiians are recognized as a tribe by the US government and shall have a reservation with a sovereign government with relations with the US government and rights equal to an American Indian tribe. Nothing in this article shall be construed as denying or abridging Native Hawaiians' right to pursue the return to being an independent nation as they were before the illegal overthrow and seizure of their nation. 4. US citizens and nationals of American Samoa, Guam, the Marshall Islands, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and Washington DC have full local self-rule, and shall vote in federal elections and have voting federal congressional districts.

Article 8-Renouncing War

1. The United States shall not go to war except in self-defense, and permanently renounces wars or acts of military aggression. 2. The United States, its government, agencies, or agents shall never try to overthrow another nation's government again unless directly attacked by said government. 3. Unless under direct and immediate attack, the United States shall not go to war, and the President cannot deploy troops for combat, without an official declaration of war by Congress. Unless under direct and immediate attack, the declaration of war by Congress must then be approved by a vote of the American public within 30 days. Failure to get approval by the American public overturns the declaration of war. 4. The US President can deploy troops to rescue US or other citizens and must prevent genocide, other large scale atrocities, or humanitarian disasters. The President must report to Congress on such action within 7 days and Congress must approve the deployment of troops within 30 days. 4. The US government is forbidden to go to war or use war as an opportunity to enrich in any way any American businesses, corporations, or individuals. Family members of government officials shall not be exempt from military draft, nor sheltered in special units, or in any other way.

Article 9- Referendums and Recalls

1. Members of the public may propose referendums to pass new laws, recalls to remove for illegal or corrupt actions the President, Vice President, member of Congress, Supreme Court Justice, or any appointed official, or bring an end to wars or operations involving US troops. 2. A referendum or recall is held 30 days after the certified collection of valid signatures of ten percent of all voters.3. No referendum may overturn, contradict, or limit anything in either constitution, and such efforts must be done instead by constitutional amendment. Nor shall referendums or recalls be funded by corporations or private contributions, except for individual unpaid volunteer work. Referendum advertising must be equally funded both pro and con, must be publicly funded only, and subject to reasonable limits.

Article 10- Nonprofits and Public Ownership for the Public Interest

1. National defense industries, healthcare, prisons, education, and news media must be nonprofit or publicly owned. No business, corporation, or individual can profit unfairly from federal, state, or local governments or public resources and must pay fair market value for all current and previous resources, subsidies, and research. 2. No journalist, commentator, or others presenting themselves as experts in politics, history, law, society, health, medicine, or science can make more than five times the median national income, and any excess income must be donated to charity or it will be seized by the federal government. 3. All journalists, commentators, and others presenting themselves as experts for mass news media will be fined every time they lie in their articles, broadcasts, or public statements. No person or media outlet can profit from lies or falsehoods and fines shall at least equal all profit, money, or benefits made from lies or falsehoods. 4. The agency in charge of judging lies and falsehoods by journalists, commentators, or experts for the mass media must be entirely of respected historians for matters of history and politics, respected legal scholars for matters of law, and respected scientists or doctors for matters of science, medicine, and health, and shall be entirely nonpartisan, with no member affiliated with any party.

Article 11- Ending Institutional Support for Hatred

1. No government body, law, or regulation will sanction or reward racism or ethnic hatred, religious bigotry, sexism, or other hatreds based on linguicism (hatred or discrimination based on language) or national or regional origin. 2. Nor shall any government fail to provide redress for longstanding discrimination based on the previous. 3. Any person or institution taking part in or promoting discrimination based on the previous results in that person or institution's permanent inability to receive government jobs or benefits, including licenses, grants, subsidies, retirement including pensions and Social Security, tax refunds, eligibility for public assistance, student or business loans or credit.

Article 12-Ending Class Bias in the Law

1. All crimes must be punished. No president may pardon or give clemency to any in their own administration, or the administration of other presidents of their party, or to anyone who has given them campaign contributions. All such previous pardons are overturned. The guilty shall never be allowed to profit from their crimes. The guilty must pay back all wealth from their crimes and pay for all damage done to others. 2. All fees, fines, and taxes must be progressive, based on ability to pay. Regressive taxes, where the wealthy pay a proportionately smaller amount, are expressly forbidden and must be immediately made progressive.

Article 13-No Special Treatment for Wealthy Elites

1. Government assistance only goes to those in need and corporate welfare is forbidden. No person or corporation, nor any trust or legal entity used by a person or corporation, shall receive government assistance or funding unless they make less than double the median national income and possess less than double the median national wealth. 2. All government loans or tax deferrals or holidays or other benefits to corporations or business must be repaid, with interest at market rates. All facilities built even partly to benefit or profit private businesses or individuals must be paid for by those businesses or individuals equal to the benefits or profits received.

Article 14-Limiting Idle Wealth

1. Large concentrations of idle wealth are inherently dangerous and inhumane. All income from any and all sources greater than 100 times the median national income and all wealth of an individual greater than 100 times the median national wealth shall be seized, unless it is reinvested or donated to charity. 2. All attempts to conceal wealth to avoid taxes shall result in prosecution as grand larceny, full seizure of not just concealed wealth but all their wealth, and long prison sentences which may not be suspended. Separate white collar prisons, or other prisons that are less arduous or harsh, are forbidden, and all white collar criminals must be punished and imprisoned with all other prisoners.

Article 15- The Right to Privacy

1. The right to privacy, unless it can be shown to directly and obviously harm others or affect national security, shall not be abridged in any way. Private individuals shall not have their private lives divulged in any form without their consent unless they commit felonies, or failure to divulge such information can be shown to affect or harm others in a direct and obvious way. 2. Libel, slander, or defamation of public figures is subject to the same punishments and standards as for private individuals. 3. Private information on public figures cannot be divulged without their consent unless it can be shown to serve the public interest, or if their private lives contradict their public opinions and actions.

The Full Articles and Arguments for Them

Each discussion has each clause of an article in italics. This is followed by the history of the issue it addresses, why the clause is necessary, and how it will solve or prevent urgent problems that cannot be solved by ordinary law.

Article 1-

Continuing and Expanding the Original Constitution and its Amendments

" _1. All articles and amendments from the previous Constitution of 1787 remain the final law of the land, except as changed by the following articles or later amendments."_

As just described in the Introduction, the original constitution does not deserve reverence. It was elitist, conceived in secrecy, passed by undemocratic means, and deliberately designed to insure economic elites will also hold political control. This proposed constitution does not seek to take away what was good and right in the original amendments to the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights, and amendments such as the Reconstruction Amendments and the Right to Vote for Women remain incredibly important.

The original constitution is another matter. It is purely a document of power, who has it and can wield it. It is not about rights or democracy, but designed to limit rights and democracy. The amendments stay protected. The First Amendment is the most cherished part of the entire constitution, protecting freedom of speech, assembly, petition, and religion. It also blocks established state churches, one of the main causes of religious repression and wars partly or wholly begun or justified using religion. The lack of an official state church is one of the main reasons the US is one of the most devout nations in the world, with an incredible diversity of faiths. There are dozens of Southern Baptist denominations alone.

The Second Amendment is the most controversial of all the amendments. It is best left alone, for any attempt to alter it would at least occupy and perhaps split apart the entire convention. Not only that, crime has been dropping for several decades already, including gun crimes. Most gun deaths are suicides, and they along with some gun crimes can be reduced by restricting guns to the mentally ill, felons, or those under restraining orders, by ordinary law.

The remaining amendments include rights against self-incrimination, to a speedy trial, equal protection in the Fourteenth Amendment, an end to slavery, suffrage for women, presidential succession, and an end to poll taxes and literacy tests. It would be difficult to understate the importance of these rights to individuals and to expanding rights. All these amendments besides the Bill of Rights are ones most of the founders would have opposed. These amendments are almost all very real defeats of the original elitist intent of the founders.

" _2. This and all future constitutional conventions must be representative of the US public, by gender, race and ethnicity, and religious faith or lack of. Its members must be respected intellectuals drawn from education, religious institutions, civil rights groups, non-governmental organizations, labor, business, military veteran groups, consumer groups, and scientists. No current or former elected officials or appointed cabinet members or presidential or congressional advisers or staff are allowed. This and all constitutional conventions must be in full view of the public, every word said by every delegate at the convention scrupulously recorded."_

The original constitution was by, for, and of elitists, entirely white males, mostly very wealthy slave owners, speculators, and professional politicians. Any and all future constitutions, including this proposed one, must not be. They must include everyone, every last social group, every last group of important representative institutions. To fail to do so means the document is not legitimate, and deserves not to be seen as such.

Look at the background of the original 55 founders:

41 had been members of the Continental Congress. 35 had legal training (not all practicing.) 18 were speculators in land or stocks. 14 were plantation owners, 26 owned slaves including 1 slave trader. There were only 2 small farmers. The only other good traits of the founders were 5 who were doctors or scientists.

All 55 were white. All 55 were male. 49 were Protestant (28 of them Episcopal), and only 2 Catholics. 3 of the most important, Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin, were Deists, believers in God who did not belong to any church.

Now look at a hypothetical convention of 100 delegates who represent a cross section of America under this proposal:

62 whites, 17 Latinos, 13 Blacks, 5 Asians, 2 American Indians, and 1 Arab. 51 women and 49 men. 51 Protestants, 22 Catholics, 16 atheists, agnostics, or unaffiliated, 2 Jewish, 2 Orthodox Christians, 1 Mormon, 1 Buddhist, 1 Hindu, 1 Muslim, and 3 who won't say their faith.

Obviously there were would be no plantation or slave owners, though likely a few speculators or lawyers. Most of the membership would be drawn from institutions devoted to public service, and no office holders. The only thing the two conventions would share might be roughly equal numbers of scientists and doctors.

Such a convention would be far more devoted to the public good than the founders ever were. The chances of anti democratic and elitist institutions like an Electoral College being repeated are extremely remote. Ideally the delegates would seek consensus on as many issues as possible, and deliberate obstructionists would be few, as they are intellectuals more than ideologues.

The most constructive way to run a convention would be to limit the time to several weeks to give the delegates impetus to finish decisively. Immediately hold an informal nonbinding straw poll to see which proposals have the most and least support. All proposals with less than a third support get tabled until the end, perhaps never voted on at all. Those with the highest support are voted on, in that order. This would create momentum to hopefully carry forward the proceedings, and help solve the more difficult and contentious issues.

Such a convention must also have rules in place to bar filibusters entirely, strictly limiting the amount of time speaking by one person, establish quorums easily, and bring votes quickly. For the truly intractable issues, a model can be found in how historic treaties like the Camp David Accords were negotiated. When two sides disagree strongly on an issue, those who are not part of either group and with the least stake or emotion tied up in that issue act as go betweens, seeking out common ground and finding solutions neither side had tried or thought of before.

This and any other possible future conventions must be out in the open for all to see, with no more secretive deliberations as the original convention had. The media must be there to observe but not interfere or agitate, and the public there to observe, much like the visitors' gallery in Congress today. Secrecy and elitism create and guarantee mistrust, rightfully so. Recent history shows us the public greatly distrusted NAFTA and GATT for perfectly valid reasons, as gatherings of remote elites designed to undermine democratic institutions out of sight from the public. This convention must be accessible. Every word at it must be recorded for historic reasons as well. There is much we do not know about the original convention because of the walls of secrecy those elitists hid behind.

" _3. Each of these following articles must be voted on and approved separately by two thirds or more of those voting to become the law of the land."_

The public should not be forced to vote an entire document either up or down, accepting those parts they disagree with in order to have those parts they do agree with. This is what the original founders did (except it was to other elites, the special state conventions and not the public) and it further shows how anti-democratic their methods deliberately were.

The vote should also be a supermajority, two thirds or more, to become the highest law in the land. Passing by narrow majorities would be rightly seen as contentious, undermine any consensus these new laws deserve to be our constitution, and probably foreshadow a great deal of conflict.

One of the best examples is the abortion issue. There are few countries where abortion is a more divisive issue than the US, and that is precisely because of how it was done. The Supreme Court declared abortion bans to be unconstitutional based on an implied right to privacy. In most of the rest of the world, abortion bans were dropped by a vote. Thus the issue felt more resolved to most of the public. Had the court not acted, an abortion ban may well have dropped anyway, state by state. I hasten to point out, this proposed constitution includes the right to privacy in Article 15, protecting abortion rights among other things.

This vote must be held by the public, and not by legislatures as the current constitution requires. Needing approval by the state legislatures gives far too much power to elected elites of small population and mostly rural states, far out of proportion to their population. It is deliberately anti-democratic, as the founders yet again intended.

If two thirds of the public nationwide vote for these articles, that gives them legitimacy. But would that not ignore the original constitution? Yes, and that is half the point. The founders did precisely the same, ignoring the original Articles of Confederation. The original Articles state they are "...perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time be made in any of them; unless such alteration agreed to in Congress of the US and confirmed by legislatures of every State." As pointed out in the Introduction, on both counts, the constitution was illegally adopted, not agreed to either by Congress or state legislatures during the ratification process.

If the founders could ignore the original Articles, we as a nation can and should ignore the founders and the constitutional requirement, based on the precedent the founders themselves set. A two thirds supermajority will create enormous pressure on the federal government: Accept these new constitutional articles we have just approved, overwhelmingly, as now the highest law of the land.

Article 2- Insuring Greater Democracy

" _1. The Electoral College is abolished. The President shall be directly elected, with the winner being the candidate receiving the most votes."_

There probably is no part of the original constitution more disliked than the Electoral College, more regarded as archaic, useless, arbitrary, and pointless. Yet it persists, for it is politically useful to elites as a way to nullify and undermine broader populist democracy.

As described in the Introduction, the college was intended by the founders to be a veto against the public. If they elected the "wrong" man, the electors were to ignore the voters and choose the "right" man, one who would serve the wishes of elites. The other restrictions already in place to keep out populists made this unnecessary. Only rarely did electors vote contrary to what the voters of a state wanted. Even that was fixed in the 1970s by laws in some states requiring electors to vote the same as a state's popular vote.

So why does it continue? The college, like the US Senate, gives far more power to small population and mostly rural states. A lightly populated state like Wyoming gets three electoral votes, when based on its population it should get a fraction of one. Since rural voters tend to be more conservative, conservatives get an exaggerated sense of how conservative the nation is, and are overrepresented in the college. The big concentrations of electoral votes in a few states also make it useful for political elites and the highly paid consultants they use to target those states.

The college has an anti-democratic effect in other ways too. If you don't live in a swing state, you are mostly ignored by major parties' campaigns. That depresses voter turnout. If the other party will win in your state by over ten percentage points, why bother showing up at all? As much as 45% of the voters of a state are told their vote does not count. So the majorities in one state by one party are further exaggerated.

Congressmen and other officials running for office from the smaller party in the state are also far more likely to lose when they could have won. A Democrat running in largely Democratic Austin in the largely Republican state of Texas, or a Republican running in largely Republican Orange County in largely Democratic California, could lose where they might have won.

Another distortion is that small groups in big Electoral College states have far more influence than they should. How much have US relations with Cuba been dictated by a small group of Cuban-Americans in South Florida?

This college is an incredibly unpopular institution and its fall is guaranteed by any future constitutional convention. In its place is the simple solution wanted by nearly everyone and practiced by almost every democracy in the world. The president will be the candidate who receives the most votes.

" _2. The Supreme Court shall never, by any decision including indirectly, decide who shall be President."_

Elections like 1876 and 2000 must never be repeated again. In both cases, a corrupt party blatantly stole the election and suppressed minority votes during the election, and even more after. In both cases, the Electoral College negated the popular vote. In both cases, five justices of the court sanctioned and actively intervened to maintain the results of these corrupt elections.

This clause removes the courts from elections, leaving the matter entirely to the executive branch. Clause 5 of this article, further down, guarantees election boards shall always be nonpartisan, and shall never decide to favor one party or ideology, and shall never exclude minority votes as happened all across the south in 1876 and in five states in 2000.

" _3. The Vice President shall be nominated separately by each party and elected separately from the President, and also serves as the Secretary of State."_

The Vice Presidential candidacy is more a punchline than anything else. It has given us such awful and almost universally despised politicians as Aaron Burr, John Calhoun, Andrew Johnson, William Marshall (who actually refused to become president when Woodrow Wilson was in a coma), Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Dick Cheney, and Sarah Palin.

Of 47 VPs, the only ones to be highly regarded by both historians and the public while VP were just two, Truman and Mondale. Truman headed a campaign to halt waste in wartime industries and Mondale was the first activist VP. A failure rate of over 95% for over 200 years is incredibly high even by the worst of government standards. As VP John Garner said, being VP is "not worth a warm bucket of piss." He did not say spit, that was cleaned up by later writers.

The office needs to be changed. The VP is chosen by a single person when they should be chosen by the voters, first in the party primaries and then in the general election. The office needs to be more than an empty formality, a person who spends most of their time at funerals or on make-work commissions to look busy.

Make the VP also the Secretary of State. That is where one would acquire the skills most needed to step into the office of the presidency should something happen to the president. Require the parties nominate their VPs separately, and let the voters choose them separately. Then there would no more Andrew Johnsons, disasters who became president, originally chosen just to help the party ticket.

" _4. The Senate shall be 100 adult citizens chosen at random each year, representative of the adult American public by age, gender, race and ethnicity, religion or lack of, and income or social class."_

The Senate is a millionaire's club. This is no exaggeration. It has always been a vocation sought after by wealthy retired men almost as a hobby after a life in business or law. This must end. Let the Senate represent the American public directly, be chosen at random from the public itself to act as a check against any and all elite led efforts or laws.

Look at the makeup of the Senate today in 2015.

93 whites, 4 Latinos, 2 Blacks, 1 Asian.

Average age of 62. 80 men, 20 women. Average income of over $1 million.

52 Protestants, 27 Catholics, 11 Jews, 7 Mormons, 1 Buddhist.

Now look at the makeup of the Senate under this proposed plan:

62 whites, 17 Latinos, 13 Blacks, 5 Asians, 2 American Indians, 1 Arab.

51 women, 49 men. Average age of 54. Average income of $35,000.

51 Protestants, 22 Catholics, 16 atheists, agnostics, or unaffiliated, 2 Jews, 2 Orthodox Christians, 1 Mormon, 1 Buddhist, 1 Hindu, 1 Muslim, and 3 who won't say what their faith, or lack of it, is.

Clearly our current system leaves out the voices of most women and ethnic and religious minorities. Atheists and the unaffiliated especially are completely silenced, unable to be elected because of the hostility of those bigoted against them. But **the most striking silencing of all is of working class people**. Even the upper middle class rarely get elected.

A completely random process for choosing senators from the adult general public can easily be designed by statisticians. Having a senate chosen at random from the public guarantees the public shall always be represented. It turns the public into itself the fourth branch of government and a check on the power of the other three branches.

No doubt the more elitist and downright snobby will sneer at the thought of a waitress or truck driver in the halls of congress. No doubt many of those same people will pat themselves on the back, and never consider that to your typical member of the political or economic elite, the readers looking down on a waitress themselves would be sneered at by elites.

**Those who sneer at the hard working and less educated are contemptible** , unlike the ones they look down on. Not having a degree does not make one stupid, and equally important, it does not take away from wanting to do what is right, and having basic common sense. The recent documentary _Schooling the World_ makes a very strong case for how education can often be used to make a person less ethical, more materialistic, and less tied to their community. The famed _Lies My Teacher Told Me_ points out that, believe it or not, more education makes one more likely to support wars, not less. Education can be used to liberate, as Paolo Freire famously formulated. But it can also be used to pacify and make the public submissive. Education must teach critical thinking, or it produces unthinking robots.

**Having wealth in many ways makes a person less capable**. They are sheltered from day to day struggles. They don't know what it is to have to choose which bill to pay, to go without, or to see one's children go without. It is elitist to sneer at those on public assistance as "lazy" when truly **the laziest people are those who let their wealth do their work for them**. It is also ignorant of the facts to not know the wealthy receive far more public assistance than the poor, or willfully blind to refuse to admit so.

**A nation should never try for change solely from above, imposed on those below**. Those below must have a veto. A senate made up of 100 John and Jane Does rather than Rockefellers provides that.

" _5. Redistricting shall only be decided by nonpartisan committee, and gerrymandering to favor one party or dilute minority voting power is forbidden."_

Redistricting is today done by the most highly partisan people possible. State legislatures decide voting districts, and they generally do so openly to favor their own party as much as possible. For over a generation after the civil rights era, it was also quite common for districts to be set up to weaken or exclude minority voting power.

A good example of partisan redistricting is Austin. Politically, Austin's voters are quite similar in their outlook to San Francisco's. The Republican state legislature gerrymandered Austin out of its own congressman, dividing it up into parts of six more conservative districts. By one gerrymandering effort alone, nearly a million Americans are not represented in the House.

But perhaps the most notorious examples of partisan electioneering have happened in Florida and Ohio. Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris purged eligible voters, mostly Black, and halted a recount to help her own party. Ohio's Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, himself Black, disenfranchised a number of minority voters, and then refused to cooperate with investigations into his actions. Neither person, nor indeed any politician, has any business as an authority to decide who can vote.

Less known, but just as unjust, is how partisan election rules keep out third parties. When John Anderson ran as an independent candidate for president in 1980, eventually getting 8% of the vote, his campaign spent much of their time and limited funds overcoming the many barriers to getting on the ballot in each state. Anderson at one point had over a quarter of voters supporting him. State barriers trying to exclude him were not the only reason he did not do nearly as well as he could have. But they had a crippling effect on his campaign.

Voting, and insuring that everyone eligible can vote as easily as possible, should not be up to partisans with a stake in keeping out voters of other parties. It should be as nonpartisan and uncontroversial as health or fire departments.

" _6. Congressional representatives' terms are changed to four years, elected in the same elections as the President."_

Most of the public does not show up to vote for midterm elections. These votes, and the people chosen by them, are illegitimate because most of the public is not represented. That must change.

Blaming the voters themselves is pointless. Voters often show up depending on how much they have been conditioned to show up, and the media does not do so for midterm elections. The media pays far more attention to the presidency than all other offices combined, but there is no law that will change that. Instead that attention must be harnessed so that a majority will always turn out to elect their congressmen.

The terms of the two houses are almost reversed by this proposed system. Today senators are wealthy elites with a longer term than a president, and they represent mostly small population states. Congressmen serve only two years, and while still well off, have slightly higher numbers of the upper middle class than senators. This new system makes the new House the upper house, with longer terms and still likely more well off economically than the Senate.

The new Senate will be mostly working class and mid and lower middle class. While there will still be some from the upper middle class, it is unlikely to have more than a single member of wealthy elites. There likely will even be several members of the Senate each year that were unemployed at the time of being chosen, and a fair number of retirees and housewives. With a new Senate every year, it will represent the mood, beliefs, and priorities of middle America better than any past congress ever has, or could. With nonpartisan redistricting, the House will look much more like America as well.

That is as it should be. This will be the most direct form of democracy seen since town, village, or tribal meetings, a populist one that can and will block elite actions that harm others or the nation.

Article 3-Guaranteeing the Right to Vote

" _1. The right to vote for all citizens of legal adult age is absolute and cannot be denied, limited, barred, blocked, or suppressed, whether by deliberate attempts or unintended outcomes. All current such attempts are ended. Any law with the outcome, even unintended, of denying the vote to members of a particular ethnic group, age group, economic background, or party, shall be immediately void."_

Many cynics will tell you that voting solves nothing. They are only half right. Believing voting is a magic bullet is false, for it is only one solution among many, one to be combined with others. Such a belief in voting alone as being the mark of a democracy almost turns voting into an empty ritual, part of what scholars call civic religion. But truly free and representative voting can and has solved much. For **if voting were truly completely useless, American elites would not spend so much effort to stop it** , centuries of trickery, exclusion, and often insane levels of violence.

At first voting was incredibly limited in the US, not only by gender and race but by a high property requirement. In some states, more than nine tenths of white males could not vote at the time of the constitution. It took two generations for the majority of poor white males to sometimes be able to vote. Even that was later limited by poll taxes aimed as much at stopping poor whites from voting as Blacks. The Fifteenth Amendment was supposed to protect Black voting rights. It took enormous violence, over 50,000 deaths after the Civil War and a corrupt and then indifferent Republican Party to intimidate the Black community into not voting, something that was not reversed until as late as the 1970s in some areas.

Besides the millions of Americans still living in the US colonial empire (see Article 7) **over 6,000,000 Americans today are legally barred from voting, over 3%** of the total. The excuse for taking away their vote is that they have criminal records. Since the "justice" system is incredibly unequal and racist, this falls almost entirely on minorities. Though almost two thirds of American criminals are white (since two thirds of Americans are white) two thirds of those locked up in prisons or on parole are Black or Latino. A Black or a Latino are far more likely to be charged and imprisoned, and for longer, than a white committing the exact same crime.

The laws deciding when ex-convicts can vote are incredibly uneven. In some states, voting returns automatically after a set period. Other states require a formal pardon, and the process can be a quick formality or very drawn out and difficult. In six states, all in the south, felons are barred from voting for life. Stealing a car at 17 means one will never vote their entire life. In three states, Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia, one out of five Blacks cannot vote. In Florida, the majority of Black males cannot vote. Being blatantly racist, this is simply unjust. The right to vote should return automatically when one pays one's debt to society. For lesser nonviolent felonies, it should not be taken away at all. Having the vote available to some prisoners could aid their rehabilitation, were it to become one more thing a parole board could look at as a sign of a genuine attempt to reform. (Those imprisoned for drug possession should not be in prison at all. Proposed Article 15 will end the Drug War as a violation of the right to privacy.)

There are a wide range of attempts to limit voting, old fashioned voter suppression by other names. Voter ID laws could block up to 9% of all voters from voting, mostly minorities and the poor. In some states there are laws or attempts to make it more difficult for college students to vote. Others are putting in place shorter absentee voting times or harder requirements. Many states make it difficult for Americans overseas to vote. Some states like Texas require a ballot to be applied for within the state before leaving and then the ballot sent from overseas by mail. In some nations with poor postal systems that means one needs to vote many months in advance.

The right to vote as a part of Proposed Article 3, or a constitutional amendment, stops all these attempts. It is already widely proposed. 173 congressmen have already signed on as co-sponsors, including 11 Republicans. Two counties and a city, with a combined population of two million, have also passed resolutions in support.

" _2. Any official who deliberately or unintentionally makes voting more difficult shall be immediately removed, their decisions voided and actions reversed. Deliberately blocking others from voting or blocking voting recounts shall always be prosecuted and punished as a felony."_

Having very partisan officials in charge of elections, election commissioners or Secretaries of States, almost guarantees partisan outcomes. Besides requiring election committees to be entirely nonpartisan, as Proposed Article II does, one needs both to remove the incentive to cheat and provide punishment if someone does.

Removing the official will be the punishment. Automatically voiding and reversing their decisions removes any incentive. Blocking voting or recounts needs to be a felony punished harshly. While the civil rights acts do punish for killing someone to stop them from voting, there is no punishment for such crimes as a riot that partly blocked the Florida recount in 2000 or those who sent false voter registration information in Wisconsin in 2012.

" _3. Voting days shall be national holidays, with a paid day off for workers only with proof of voting."_

The average voter turnout is much lower than most people think. Most references to US voter turnout are to presidential elections and claim the typical turnout is 1/2 to 3/5 of all eligible voters. (Notice also that using "eligible voters" as a standard rather than "all voters" leaves out the many who never vote.) **The actual average voter turnout is under 10% for all US elections.** For local elections, especially special districts set up for water or community colleges, turnout is routinely under 1%. Compare this to other democracies. Almost all nations have turnouts of at least 2/3. Most have turnouts over 90%. **The US is almost unique in its high voter apathy** and disgust of an enormous part of the public.

Some members of the media elite such as George Will argue low turnout is a sign of contentment. Such a view could only come from the very sheltered or willfully blind. Turnout is lowest among those who have the least reason to be content. The poorest vote least of all, minorities much less than whites, the young less than the old, and the less educated much less than the most educated. If contentment were why voters did not vote as Will claims, the wealthy never would vote, and the poor always would. The reality is the exact opposite

**The reason why poor and minorities vote much less is obvious. They are being smart, or at least realistic.** They know they are not being represented, and see no reason to waste their time. To get them to vote, one must not only make a system which will represent them, as Article 2 does. One must also give them other incentives.

A waitress or construction worker has little incentive to vote if it means they lose money by taking off time when they could be working. An eight, ten, or twelve hour shift of physical labor makes it difficult to go and wait in line. Partisan election commissions don't make it any easier. There were many accounts in the last several elections of waiting up to ten hours to vote in inner cities while suburban voters were done in minutes.

One way to boost turnout is to make election days national holidays. Most other democracies have their elections on either Sundays or make them national holidays. But since many working class people work weekends, and many others see Sunday either as a day for church or for relaxing watching pro sports and having a barbecue, Sunday is not ideal. A paid holiday gives workers incentive, being paid for a day's work for showing up to vote that hopefully is done in a short time. Failing to vote would mean one is not paid for your holiday off.

" _4. The voting age is lowered to sixteen for any US citizen proving their maturity by holding a job, driver's license, or living on their own."_

Some nations allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote. **5 nations in Latin America, 4 in Europe, and 2 in Asia allow voters under 18** , sometimes conditioned on employment. Why not? If they are taking on the responsibilities of adults, why not reward them as adults, with adult powers such as voting? The intent here is not just to reward them for adult behavior, but also to establish the voting habit early. In the Philippines, there are mock elections in high schools. Thus their voter turnout is much higher.

Tying voting to driving is another way to give them incentive to vote. Proposed Article 5 has a voter losing licenses, including your driver's license, if one fails to vote. The threat of losing their driver's license would spur voting habits to change, to be adopted early in life. A 16 year old knowing that they could lose their license if they don't vote will develop the habit early.

Article 4-Ending the Buying of Elections

" _1. All elections shall be publicly funded only. Private contributions or donations to or on behalf of a candidate or party, except for unpaid volunteer work, are outlawed. Corporate donations of any kind are forbidden. Business and corporate owners and management are forbidden from intimidating, pressuring, or influencing in any way their employees, punishable by long prison sentences."_

Money is the true engine of American politics, and that should change. Few other democracies have as elitist and plutocratic a ruling political class as the US. There have only been two US presidents who were not wealthy men at the time they were elected, Lincoln and Truman. Congress is a millionaire's club.

This is not true in most of the rest of the world. Most other democracies elect people who are truly representative, rather than elites. Poland and Bolivia elected labor union leaders as presidents, Lech Walesa and Evo Morales. Hungary had a playwright president, Vlaclev Havel. Brazil and Uruguay have former guerilla leaders who fought against dictators, Dilma Rouseff and Jose Mujica, the latter donating most of his salary to charity.

But when the US wants to see "outsiders" run for office, the only ones able to are multi billionaires, Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, and Michael Bloomberg. The number of wealthy dynasties in US politics are legendary, the Adams, Roosevelts, Kennedys, Rockefellers, and Bushes.

Jesus righteously intoned that it was easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy man to get into heaven. It would almost be easier for a working class man to be the king of either Heaven or Hell than to get elected to office in America.

For **the need for money to win office acts as a filtering process.** Since one must win over the very wealthy to be able to run, candidates depend on them utterly for sponsorship and patronage. In turn, one must give donors what they want. The idea that money equals speech is defended by elites today, both in the media and in the courts. If money is speech, the average man is shouted down by the giant egos and wallets of plutocrats. The moneychangers have driven the priests out of the temple and demand high admission fees to receive blessings and salvation.

In 2012, the presidential campaign was the first multi-billion dollar one, and 2016 will certainly be even worse. This must end. Let campaigns only be publicly funded outside of volunteer work. The billionaire should not have more of a voice than any one of his workers. **Britain has had limits on campaign spending ever since 1883.** The reason for it is obvious. They knew the corrupting influence of money even more than the US, with the outright buying and selling of offices turned into an art form.

In its place we should see the government provide an equal amount of air time, adjusted for its market value, to each party. This air time must be to each party that has candidates, not just major parties. The two party monopoly should end, and most of the public wishes it to end.

This should not be as expensive to the public as it might seem. For one thing, Congress can limit how much is to be spent, and few in the public will have an appetite for expensive campaigns. For another, all networks shall be required to provide this for free, since they make billions every year from the use of public airwaves and bandwidth. The only substantial expense will likely be from online advertising.

The government should also provide servers for the posting of online websites in equal measure for each of the candidates. If parties wish to set up sites to present their beliefs and proposals and recruit for their parties, that would be allowed by law. But party websites campaigning for their candidates, outside of a brief mention of who they are, would not be. Individuals wishing to set up websites, non-commercially, to promote or argue against candidates, parties, proposals, or platforms, would not be affected by this Proposed Article 4.

The billionaire or any other boss must also be prevented from intimidating in any way how his workers vote. Announcing or threatening layoffs or the targeting of workers who disagree with a boss over a candidate, party, or law should be seen as the civil rights violation it is.

" _2. Campaigning and advertising for all general elections are limited to the period of six weeks before election day. Campaigning and advertising for all primary elections are limited to the six weeks before the general election period."_

Few things discourage interest in politics more than ridiculously long campaigns. Primary campaigning begins a year and a half before the general election, and at times candidates declare their runs two or three years in advance. Yet the common wisdom is that only the most partisan voters pay attention. Most of the public does not follow the election before Labor Day. This clause will limit all advertising to begin no earlier than the start of August before a November election. Great Britain has even stricter time limits on campaigning with no loss of democracy.

" _3. No election, whether federal, state, county, city, special district, American Indian tribe, or of unions, civic groups, lobbying groups, or private clubs, is valid unless more than half of its citizens or members vote. If less than half of citizens or members vote, there must be immediate new elections with different candidates."_

If most of the public does not show up, an election is not a valid representation of the public's wishes. This clause works best with Proposed Article 2, where the elections would only be every four years when the president and congress are chosen. Much of the public has a de facto boycott on elections, especially local ones. Forcing parties to field new candidates gives the public a way to state their dissatisfaction with the candidates they have been given.

Article 5-Voting Guarantees Benefits

" _1. All eligible voters must vote. Failure to vote results in inability to receive all government benefits until the next election, including licenses, grants, subsidies, tax refunds, eligibility for public assistance, student or business loans or credit."_

One must seek ways for the most disaffected to join the political process. The flip side of the last clause of Proposed Article 5 is making them see it is in their self interest to vote, once a more representative democracy is in place. Obviously eligibility for public assistance does not affect children. They should not be punished for their parents' or guardians' actions. Instead those most affected are those least likely to vote; college students; the young, by tying driver's licenses to voting, as Proposed Article 3 also does; and the lower income that are more likely to receive tax refunds. A number of nations like Australia successfully use small fines to increase voter turnout. But in the US this likely would simply lead to the unemployed serving a few days in jail since they could not pay the fine.

" _2. Those with strong and longstanding religious, philosophical, or political beliefs against voting are not required to vote if they state their longstanding beliefs."_

There are some faiths who avoid deep political involvement, the Jehovah's Witnesses in particular. Anarchists also often refuse to vote based on their convictions. The Six Nations of the Iroquois do not consider themselves citizens of the US. But where most American Indians consider themselves dual citizens, of both the US and their tribal nation, the Iroquois insist they are Iroquois citizens alone, bound by treaty to the US. Thus they join the military as foreign nationals, and Iroquois who vote in US elections are stripped of Iroquois citizenship.

All these deeply held beliefs against voting should be respected and not penalized. The law should also not place much of a burden upon proof of their belief, just a simple statement. But those who lazily proclaim they don't want to vote deserve no such consideration.

Article 6- Limiting Corporate Power

" _1. All rights in this and the previous constitution, as well as under all American laws, are limited to human beings only. A person under US law is defined as a living human being only. Corporation rights and powers may be severely limited by any and all governments, whether federal, state, city, country, special district, or American Indian tribe."_

The Fourteenth Amendment may be the most misused and abused of all amendments. **Intended to guarantee rights for former slaves, it has mostly been used to give corporations almost unlimited power.** Two decades after the amendment passed, the courts ruled in _Santa Clara v Southern Pacific_ that corporations were persons under the law, that as collections of individuals it was a legal useful fiction to pretend they were a person.

Corporations have rights no living person has. Corporation can be immortal, meaning they never have to worry about estate taxes. They pay a far lower income tax than most people do. There are limits to how much and when they can be sued, and corporation management are largely protected from lawsuits for their actions. Of course the greatest and most controversial right given to them is from the _Citizens United_ ruling. Corporations can spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns, as long as it is done through a third party.

This ruling showed the class and ideological bias of the court at its worst. Condemnations of it range across the political spectrum, from Ralph Nader to John McCain. This ruling has frequently been compared to the _Dred Scott_ or _Plessy v Ferguson_ decisions both for the devastation it causes American society and how infamously it will be remembered in history. In opinion polls, up to three quarters of Americans want to see it overturned, across all parties and political beliefs. Two dozen states have their campaign finance laws affected by the ruling. Sixteen states have called for constitutional amendments to overturn the ruling.

But this ruling is just the final end product of a court always designed and usually working for the most elite class interests. There is some documentation that the judges in the original _Southern Pacific_ case did not intend their ruling to go that far and set as broad a precedent. Corporations are so powerful that many people don't realize there was ever a time when their power was limited.

Even other elites worried about corporate power. **Corporate charters in British colonial and early American times were limited.** They had only so many years of existence, had to serve the public interest, and were often chartered with a narrow purpose. One of the proposed amendments for the Bill of Rights was limits on corporate power. Andrew Jackson, before the civil rights era when little attention was paid to the Trail of Tears, was often held up as a popular hero for his successfully breaking one of the most powerful corporate institutions, the Bank of the US.

" _2. A corporation must serve the public interest and its life span shall be limited. Any corporation shall be permanently dissolved if they break the law more than five times. No business, corporation, or individual can escape fines, punishments, or legal judgments by declaring bankruptcy, holding companies, shell companies, or any other diversion, evasion, or tactic."_

Corporate crime in America is far more serious than many realize. **Corporate crime is the cause of more deaths than street crime** , each year over 60,000 workplace deaths alone. Add to that one corporate scandal after another, each of them mostly or entirely unpunished, BCCI, Enron, Worldcom, subprime mortgages, underwater loans, etc., etc. The scandals are increasing in numbers, scale, and in how rarer punishment is becoming. Hundreds went to jail for the savings and loans bank scandals of the 1980s. Almost no one was jailed for the last banking scandal.

In the documentary _The Corporation_ , the film makers followed the logic of declaring corporations to be persons. If a corporation were a person, what would its personality be? They concluded the characteristics of a corporation define it as a sociopath. It cannot have empathy for others and acts without concern for anyone else. It is deliberately amoral, and defined as such for the purpose of self- interest alone. In fact if a corporation were to act morally (for reasons other than self interest in its public image) it almost certainly would face lawsuits from shareholders for failing to pursue maximum profit.

The power of the public over any and all corporations should be absolute. If a company pollutes, force it to clean up. If a corporation makes a destructive or defective product, let it be punished the same as an individual. For a time there was a movement towards "three strikes" laws for crime. Why not five strikes laws for corporations? If corporations break the law five times, they can be dissolved.

Let there be no more legal loopholes used to escape punishment. Bankruptcy was intended to let companies and individuals fail at business but still be able to start over. It was not and should not be there to avoid punishment for crimes. Combine this Proposed Article 6 with Proposed Article 11, which requires all crimes be punished and all criminals cannot evade punishment. **Corporations that kill through negligence, incompetence, or greed deserve the corporate death penalty, the end of their existence.** The nation and the world will be far better off.

" _3. The right to collective bargaining by unions or other workers shall not be limited more than other civic or lobbying groups, nor subject to government recognition."_

Unions are the most democratic institutions in America. They are the most representative of their membership. That is part of why are often demonized by those opposed to them and why so much effort has been expended to crush the labor movement.

It is not widely taught in public schools, but America has one of the most violent histories of class warfare anywhere in the world. Not simply "class warfare" as used today, where even bringing up class issues gets one labeled a Marxist. (Full disclosure: I am a traditional Catholic. That means I believe in social justice, and that capitalism is a sin.) From colonial times until the Great Depression, unions and strikes were often crushed with great brutality. Companies often used private armies, or had the police or US Army break a strike with violence. Two of the most notorious examples include the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, broken by killing over 100 strikers. In the West Virginia Mine Wars in the 1920s, the largest armed uprising since the Civil War saw a company army of over 5,000 kill over 20 miners with not just guns but mortars, and their own air force.

The reason why today we do not often hear of violent strikes, or many strikes at all, is that after World War II the US government learned to be a better strike breaker. During the Great Depression the Wagner Act was passed. It recognized union rights to exist, to bargain collectively, and to strike. But it also required unions to submit to being government recognized to be seen as legitimate.

The Taft Hartley Act, passed during Cold War hysteria, went much further. Any perceived radicals in a union can get it stripped of recognition. Companies can dictate when unions hold their elections, and unions have to give 60 days' notice before striking. Company spies by law cannot be kicked out of a union, and strikebreakers' jobs are protected. A National Labor Relations Board is stacked with anti-union officials. Even were it to rule in favor of unions, it has little power, and so many workers are fired for joining unions or speaking out against abuses. **Over 400 union locals are stripped of recognition each year.**

Imagine how difficult organizing would be on any other issue were these same practices happening to others. How powerful would the National Rifle Association be if it lost 400 chapters a year? How well would any organization on either side of the abortion issue do if the other side could decide when it holds elections, given 60 days to prepare for campaigns, and that organization could not remove spies in its midst or people hired to break their group up?

None of these union busting practices should be legal. Let unions be treated by the same standards as any other civic, lobbying, or interest group. Anyone who joins a union should be able to. Apparently **over half of Americans wish they were part of a union**. But under 10% of Americans actually are. These are mostly government workers such as cops, firefighters, and teachers. Only public pressure on governments keep them from being as abusive to their workers as private companies.

**Unions were what turned the US into a middle class nation.** For one generation after World War II, unions helped spread prosperity to those people most responsible for it. But since the 1970s inequality has grown sharply, to where it is now as bad as before the Great Depression. Unions can reverse that, and doing so would be good for the nation as a whole and business as a whole. An economy is much more vulnerable when it depends mostly on the spending of the well off.

Article 7-Ending Colonialism

" _1. The United States recognizes the great wrongs done by genocide against American Indians, apologizes fully, and shall always strive to make amends. All federally recognized American Indian tribes are forever sovereign, defined by their treaty or other legal relationship to the United States, with rights to decide their own government and laws, and to enforce those laws on all residents and visitors within their territory."_

Most scholars know what happened to American Indians was genocide. The number of deniers in universities is as low as it has ever been. Many historians and especially anthropologists and archaeologists used to think of Natives as curiosities to be studied. Today many are Natives, and non-Natives often think of themselves as allies.

But you would likely not hear the same honest answer, genocide, by asking much of the general public, or looking at what is taught in public schools. I've taught over 2,000 college students in the past ten years. Public school students are mostly given the Thanksgiving story about Natives, and not much else. Not one in a hundred ever hears the word genocide. Many students are taught that Columbus was actually a friend to Natives. It is hard to be more appalling and dishonest.

In Germany, the nation admits the wrongs in their history. They teach extensively about the Holocaust in their public schools. Having an American admission of genocide, an apology, and a vow to work to always change these wrongs, needs to be written into the new US Constitution itself. Then no one can ever deny it again. Our schools will have to teach it, much like having MLK Day forces them to teach about civil rights. Teaching the truth makes a repeat of past wrongs much harder, and just as important, difficult to deny present wrongs.

**Honesty and self-rule are the best form of reparations. Native tribal nations should be sovereign by right.** By international law, sovereignty cannot be abrogated or taken away, and is permanent. Tribal nations are defined by their treaty or other legal relationship to the federal government. But the Supreme Court defined that relationship as domestic and dependent. One result is that non-tribal members often cannot be prosecuted under tribal law, leading to a number of abuses. Squatters occupy reservation lands. Even legal residents who are non-Native cannot be punished in tribal courts. Worst of all is the high number of crimes committed by outsiders, especially rapes that were until recently not punished because of lack of jurisdiction. Recognizing tribal sovereignty over all who come onto reservation lands is long overdue.

Most Americans do not know about how Native sovereignty was taken away with the start of reservations, and only partly returned with the New Deal for Indians and by the efforts of Native activists. Most do not know how Termination tried to end all reservations in the 1950s, that dozens of tribes were targeted, and that some still suffer from that awful time. There are also dozens of tribes awaiting recognition that deserve to be federally acknowledged, sometimes decades overdue. Often they are hampered by a lack of written records because scientific racists like Walter Plecker in Virginia systematically destroyed or altered every document he could. There are also dozens of dubious outfits posing as tribes clogging up the recognition process, often taking advantage of an unwary public financially.

Recognizing tribal sovereignty in a new constitution can change all of that. A repeat of Termination becomes impossible, and those still denied recognition from those days retrieve it. The recognition process would be decided by tribal nations, not Washington, with the greatest weight given to the opinion of those tribes most related to those applying. Some reservations might choose to split, since they are today made up of several tribes forced together by federal agents. Other tribes split by treaties into multiple reservations might choose to unite.

" _2. All American Indian tribes have permanent and absolute rights to their current reservation lands, forever. All federal lands, or lands reacquired by American Indian tribes, that are within their historically recognized boundaries or protected by treaty will be part of their reservations. All sacred sites of federally recognized American Indian tribes shall be returned immediately, or protected by federal partnership if requested by tribes."_

Tribal governments are today legally "domestic dependent nations" thanks to Supreme Court decisions. This needs to change. Having a tribe's right to their homeland needs to be written into the constitution itself, to make it inviolable, permanent, and not just protect it, but also make it easier to get homelands returned or bought. Some tribes are making efforts to buy back their homelands. But often these efforts are blocked by state governments. Where the federal government at times works with and protects on behalf of tribes, state governments are traditionally those most hostile to American Indian nations.

State efforts to limit a tribe's rights to land or anything else should be entirely and permanently blocked, since the constitution makes it clear Indian relations are purely a federal matter. All the Five Tribes remember that during the Trail of Tears states led the effort to drive them off their homelands. In recent times, both California and New York had bouts of anti-Indian sentiment led by their governors.

Federal lands within a tribe's recognized traditional homeland should be returned. The best known example is the Black Hills, Paha Sapa to the Lakota. Lakota have been pushing for their return for over a century, repeatedly turning down monetary offers. For sacred sites especially, there should be a strong effort to return them to the tribes' jurisdiction, and if the tribe does not have the means to protect them, then do so by partnership with the federal government.

There are also many reservations that are endlessly fractionated, divided up again and again, starting since the Dawes Allotment Act. This makes jurisdiction, law enforcement, and economic development far more difficult. Returning control of all lands within traditional recognized territories can end these problems.

" _3. Native Hawaiians are recognized as a tribe by the US government and shall have a reservation with a sovereign government with relations with the US government and rights equal to an American Indian tribe, and shall see their sacred sites returned. Nothing in this article shall be construed as denying or abridging Native Hawaiians' right to pursue the return to being an independent nation as they were before the illegal overthrow and seizure of their nation."_

Pacific Islanders are America's other indigenous peoples, America's other original tribes. Not enough people know the history of the Hawaiian kingdom's illegal overthrow.

Their story is somewhat similar to that of American Indians. Anglo-Americans came to the islands, bringing disease that wiped out much of the people. They took over most of the land for their own profit, starting plantations that brought in exploited workers, only mostly Asians rather than Africans. When Hawaii's Queen Liliuokalani tried to halt them, the plantation owners overthrew her with the help of US Marines. **The Hawaiian language and religion were both banned. Hawaii became a state in an illegitimate vote. No Asians and few Hawaiians could vote** , and most who voted for statehood were white servicemen who were very recent residents.

The Hawaiian sovereignty movement is very strong today, overturning the language and religious bans and reviving the language with their own schools. Most Native Hawaiians would like to see the Hawaiian nation be independent again. One proposed measure is the Akaka Bill, in congress since the 1990s. This would give Hawaiians status like an Indian tribe. They would have a reservation, tribal government, and government to government relations with the US.

This proposed article goes farther. All sacred sites, taken away and sometimes used as bombing ranges, are given back.

" _4. US citizens and nationals of American Samoa, Guam, the Marshall Islands, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and Washington DC have full local self-rule, and shall vote in federal elections and have federal congressional districts."_

Puerto Rico has a larger population than over twenty US states. Yet its people have never voted in federal fall elections. **American Samoa, Guam, the Marshall Islands, the US Virgin Islands, and even DC have been denied the vote or local self-rule because of an anomaly.** They are legally designated as territories or a district rather than a state.

For this is a civil rights issue at heart. Not by coincidence, **all of them are mostly made up of people who are not white.** 49 of 50 US states have white majorities, all except Hawaii. Four territories and one district all have populations with nonwhite majorities. Puerto Rico's peoples are mixed, but the majority of them have Black or Native ancestry. Samoa, the Marshall Islands, and Guam are made up largely of Pacific Islanders, though the military almost outnumber Chamorros in their own homeland. The Virgin Islands is Black majority, as was DC for much of its history.

All these territories and the federal district have often been treated like colonies. Money and resources flow out of them. Many of the people are poorer on average than most of the rest of America. They have often had little to no say in their own destiny. Puerto Rico saw several independence movements crushed, and citizenship was forced on them against their wishes. Chamorros had no self-rule at all for more than 60 years.

Even **the nation's capital had no local self-rule until the 1970s**. Both Puerto Rico and DC have seen statehood blocked because the major parties don't want to add a state that will vote for the other party. The Kingdom of Hawaii was its own nation for over 70 years before being illegally overthrown, annexed, and then an illegitimate statehood vote held. Most Native Hawaiians and Asians could not vote, and most of the mostly white voters were very recent residents, US servicemen. The great majority of Native Hawaiians want to see the occupation end.

Puerto Rico was actually granted the start of self-rule by Spain in March 1898. In April 1898, the US invaded and occupied it. The US imposed citizenship upon Puerto Ricans in 1917 despite unanimous opposition from Puerto Rican leaders. There were armed uprisings in the 1930s, assassination attempts against Truman and members of Congress in the 1950s, and a bombing campaign against US rule in the 1970s. Today independence has the support of 5-10% of Puerto Ricans. In the 1950s independence sentiment, which used to be almost universal, started to decline for two reasons: Puerto Ricans began to depend on the mainland economy, and **the colonial government passed a gag order, throwing anyone in jail who spoke for independence.**

The US Virgin Islands were bought from Denmark in 1916, out of fear that Germany would try to take them. **USVI stayed under direct US control until 1968, with Virgin Islanders not allowed any say over their fate** , including US citizenship imposed in 1927. About a third of the local elected legislature favors independence. A group of independence activists, the VI 5, were jailed on dubious charges of the murder of tourists in the 1970s.  
Guam was taken over by the US during the Spanish American War. They had no local self-rule at all until the 1960s. For several years there have been plans for a vote on independence, statehood, or keeping the status quo, continually delayed. Part of the problem is that servicemen threaten to dominate any vote. Most of the island is a military base, and servicemen almost outnumber Chamorros.

All the islands were all either independent nations or are distinct cultures in their own right. Their claims have legitimacy, whether or not you agree with them or if you argue they are impractical. Only DC can vote for presidents, but none of these territories or the district have a vote in Congress like the states. **Over 5 million Americans are denied some voting rights and their own congressmen because of these hold overs from colonialism.**

All of these peoples, American Indians, Native Hawaiians, Chamorros, Samoans, Virgin Islanders, and the people of DC, deserve self-determination and a full voice. The fact that they do not have it shows continuing system wide racism. Most of the American public does not know these histories, and that must end.

Let American Indians be truly sovereign on reservations and have them expand to include as much traditional homelands as desired. Let Native Hawaiians have status as a sovereign tribe, and pursue independence. Let Guam, Samoa, and the Virgin Islands finally vote in federal elections, and let all of them plus Washington DC finally have voting congressmen to represent them. It should be a source of shame to the US that this has continued as long as it has.

Article 8-Renouncing War

" _1. The United States shall not go to war except in self-defense, and permanently renounces wars or acts of military aggression."_

War is not healthy for living things, not just people, but democracies.

The historical record is clear: **Most Americans have long opposed most wars most of the time.** Yet Americans keep getting maneuvered, pushed, pulled, prodded, lied to, deceived, conned, forced into, or propagandized into one destructive and often useless war after another.

The Constitution was supposed to require wars be preceded by a declaration of war from Congress. The military was put under civilian command, and the US military for most of its history was very limited in size. Even as late as the 1930s, the US Army was only 140,000 men. Many of the founders argued strongly against a standing army of any kind as leading to tyranny.

So how did we wind up with a very large powerful permanent military, and the dangerous industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about? How do US troops keep getting sent to nations many Americans have never even heard of, much less believe it important to invade them?

It was not always this way. Up until the 1890s, the main wars the US fought were against American Indian tribes. The big exceptions were wars against Britain (1812), Mexico (1845), and the Civil War, the last one begun by Confederate aggression.

But there were a series of invasions, called filibusters, that most Americans don't know about today. These were private armies, mercenaries, led by American warmongers willing to invade other nations on their own to gain profit, territories, or power. Often they hoped to drag the US into wars, get nations or pieces of a nation taken away and made into part of the US. Filibusters invaded Canada and their allies provoked the War of 1812. They also invaded California and Texas many times. They gained an ally in slave owners who wanted to make Texas a slave state, and so they provoked the war with Mexico.

This was not what most Americans wanted. Congress passed half a dozen neutrality laws over 30 years making it illegal for private citizens to invade another nation. The laws proved difficult to enforce because of the size of the US and slow communications over great distances at the time.

Public anger and horror over the huge loss of life in the Civil War ended these private invasions, and US wars with other nations. Even "Indian wars" declined. US Grant had a Peace Policy that reduced battles with Native tribes by three fourths. But by the 1890s, the Civil War generation had died off and war enthusiasts like Teddy Roosevelt led a new push for empire and territory.

The US took Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Samoa by force. Self-righteous scientific racists like T. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson insisted they knew how other nations of mostly nonwhite people should be run more than the people there themselves did. Between 1890 and World War II, US troops invaded ten Latin Americans countries over 30 times, sometimes taking over a nation for up to 20 years at a time, other times installing a dictatorship to run the nation on US orders.

The Cold War saw American invasions in Latin America and Southeast Asia, dozens of US sponsored overthrows of governments, assassinations of national leaders, and outright genocide and democide in Cambodia and Indonesia, respectively. This has been done by US presidents on both ideological sides, Lyndon Johnson as well as Reagan, Obama as well as both Bushes. The only two US presidents in the last 125 years to not overthrow a non-aggressive nation's government were FDR and Carter.

**Since World War II, there has not been a single declaration of war by Congress.** Though there have been dozen of nations attacked by US invasions or bombings, there have been only three authorizations to use force; the notorious Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Bush Sr. receiving authorization (which he said publicly he did not need) for the Gulf War, and GW Bush's for the Iraq and Afghan Wars. The last has since been stretched by Obama to claim it covers him in warring against ISIS. Congress, including both parties, agreed to Obama's claim and declined to even meet to discuss any kind of an authorization, much less a declaration of war. (For the Korean War, Congress only authorized funding. Truman relied on a UN resolution as his military authorization.) Congress's failure is the strongest argument for making war more difficult, and demanding the public hold veto power over the start of wars or bombing other nations.

Political and media elites have the contemptuous habit of leaving the public out of war decisions. Both parties are guilty of it. There is the saying that "partisanship stops at the water's edge." What this means in practice is that **congressmen from** _both_ **parties are expected to support a president's wars without reservation or criticism.** For the only criticism accepted of wars by most of Congress or much of the media is that the president is not warlike enough, not willing to go to war on a hair trigger or bomb just to show dissatisfaction or crush other nations' leaders should they show independence.

For quick invasions and interventions, bombing campaigns or missile strikes, the public will briefly rally around a president by instinct and then move on, as long as there are no heavy American losses. For longer wars, the same stampede effect is used, often preceded by heavy propaganda to promote fear of the latest "greatest threat ever." Then once the war starts, public opinion is ignored. Nixon and GW Bush both publicly said they ignored antiwar demonstrations, the biggest in America's history. Media elites also often ignored public opinion, or caricatured demonstrators as atypical when they came from across the spectrum of American opinions and backgrounds.

We should seek a model in Japan. After World War II, the nation looked at its shameful history, renounced warfare as an instrument of policy, and forbade armed forces used except for self-defense. The US should do the same. On this issue even many Republicans and conservatives agree. For all the calls for wars by right wing media, they are out of touch with their own base. Most Americans of all ideologies and backgrounds want fewer wars, and never without just cause. Build such a stance directly into a new constitution.

" _2. The United States, its government, agencies, or agents shall never try to overthrow another nation's government again unless directly attacked by said government."_

It must also be made far harder for the president to send troops, bomb other nations, or by any other ways try overthrow other governments, including in secret. Many Americans are aware that the US has invaded other nations or overthrown other governments. But most do not know just how often.

In Latin America alone, over a dozen nations were invaded by the US. Nearly three dozen nations had their governments overthrown by the CIA, or attempted overthrows, bought, stolen, or disrupted elections, and hundreds of assassinations of government leaders. Castro alone survived hundreds of attempts on his life. This pattern includes overthrows or attacks on nations that might surprise many people, like the CIA orchestrating the firing of Australia's Prime Minister in 1975, or stealing Italian elections for over 30 years.

This has continued in recent years, under both parties, with assassination orders, drone attacks from Colombia to Pakistan, interference in elections in Venezuela, recognizing a coup in Paraguay, and a potential next president, Hillary Clinton, whose election advisers played a role in the coup in Honduras. This must end. Any nation the US is not at war with, the US should never try to overthrow, with presidents explicitly forbidden to try.

" _3. Unless under direct and immediate attack, the United States shall not go to war or deploy troops without an official declaration of war by Congress. Unless under direct and immediate attack, the declaration of war by Congress must then be approved by a vote of the American public within 30 days. Failure to get approval by the American public makes the declaration of war overturned."_

It must be made far harder to go to war. **The only effort Congress ever made to control presidents' warmaking was the War Powers Act.** In theory a president has two days to tell Congress about an invasion or attack, and 60 days to withdraw. **It has never worked. Presidents ignored it** , even argued it to be unconstitutional, and **Congress never used the act**.

Wars need to be made very difficult to start and far easier to stop, when right now the reverse is true. Unless the American nation, armed forces, embassies, bases, or other installations are being directly attacked, or citizens are needing rescue, the President shall be absolutely forbidden to deploy troops. Congress must declare war first. Period. Always. End of discussion.

Without exception also, a declaration of war must be followed by approval by the public. A 30 day period is best since the rush to judgment and sometimes public hysteria is often very brief. A 30 day period is deliberately intended to give enough time for opposition to wars or bombing campaigns to build.

" _4. The US President can deploy troops to rescue US or other citizens and must prevent genocide or other large scale atrocities. But the president must report to Congress on such action within 7 days and Congress must approve the deployment of troops within 30 days."_

The one exception to the proposed article is to prevent genocide, other atrocities, or mass humanitarian catastrophes. **As a nation which itself committed genocide against American Indians** , by the Trail of Tears, by outright systematic genocide in California during the Gold Rush, by deliberate starvation tactics when slaughtering the buffalo, and by the slave trade of both American Indians and Africans, **the US should have a special commitment to ending, limiting, or preventing genocide elsewhere,** if possible. One cannot stop genocides entirely. But genocide or other mass atrocities can often be limited, and many people can be rescued. It is inhumane and morally callous to not try.

And often American presidents have not even tried. **Three US presidents deliberately avoided trying to end or limit genocide at least three times, during the Holocaust, in Bangladesh in the 1970s, and Rwanda in the 1990s.** Most Americans have not been taught about these moral failures. Scholars do know, and we need to teach and reach the public on this issue far more. In Rwanda's case, Clinton himself has admitted his wrongdoing, that he could have easily saved 300,000 Rwandans by sending in as few as 5,000 troops. For both the Holocaust and Bangladesh, one tenth of the lives lost could have been saved, but were not. In both those cases, the far more effective way of halting genocide than militarily would have been to publicly denounce it, offer refuge, and declare the guilty would face war crimes trials.

One may understandably ask, why the US? Why not other nations too? The obvious answer is we don't control other nations, only our own. But we can and should ask other nations to work with us to halt atrocities when possible. In practical terms, **less than half a dozen nations have the military power to end atrocities in other parts of the world** , though perhaps a dozen other nations have the power to stop or help stop regional wars.

This already happens with peacekeeping forces around the world. It is not too widely known, and some may scoff because they don't know this. But the United Nations does stop or shorten most wars most of the time. The obvious recent failure was the Iraq War. It was an exception, one caused by deliberate obstruction and falsehoods by GW Bush's administration. **The UN currently keeps the peace in 15 nations, and has caused a 40% drop in wars in the past 20 years.** Limiting wars, and certainly halting or limiting genocide, are vitally important humane, ethical, and (take note, conservatives) Christian goals. These also agree with most Americans' sentiment. Many Americans sincerely believed in some of the wars fought because they genuinely wanted to help others and opposed dictatorships and atrocities. The new constitution should reflect that, and limit US troop actions to only that and self-defense.

" _5. The US government is forbidden to go to war or use war as an opportunity to enrich in any way any American businesses, corporations, or individuals. Family members of government officials shall not be exempt from military draft, nor sheltered in special units, or in any other way."_

"The flag follows the dollar" in Smedley Butler's words, is one of the main reasons for war. Wars are often fought to enrich the already wealthy. Few things unite people on all sides of the ideological aisle in disgust as much as undeserved advantage and profit in wartime. The profit motive must be removed from warfare, and businesses and persons forbidden from getting wealthy often literally over the dead bodies of servicemen.

It is also true that there are few congressmen's children in wars, less than a single percent during the Iraq and Afghan Wars. The class bias in who was drafted during Vietnam was especially notorious. So were special "champagne units" set up to shelter children of privilege from the draft. This must not be repeated or allowed.

Article 9- Referendums and Recalls

" _1. Members of the public may propose referendums to pass new laws, recalls to remove for illegal or corrupt actions the President, Vice President, member of Congress, Supreme Court Justice, or any appointed official, or bring an end to wars or operations involving US troops."_

A referendum, done right, can be direct democracy at its finest. The public directly proposes and passes laws, completely bypassing both the Congress and the President. Referendums at their best show a public more far sighted than elected officials that may depend on elites for their office and fear angering them.

**There have been over 500 national referendums in recent history in 56 nations. The region with the most national referendums by far is also the most democratic, Europe.** Two nations account for over 300 of national referendums worldwide, Australia and Switzerland. Outside of those two nations, the most common reason for a referendum was to approve a new constitution or other change of government, especially after an overthrow, independence, or to prevent or end a period of turbulence. In a few cases, nations do have purely nonbinding referendums that simply force a legislature or president to consider an issue.

There are not any federal referendums in the US. But 24 states allow referendums within them. Most of these states are in the west, the best known being those in California. Puerto Rico has also held four referendums on their status, and they are perfect examples of doing them wrong. Each time, a pro status quo government worded the referendums to be confusing, hoping to defuse sentiment for statehood. Interestingly, sentiment for the status quo still keeps dropping, and for both statehood and independence it keeps rising, along with voter turnout on the issue.

California also provides some very good lessons in these problems. The most destructive of their referendums was Proposition 13, which not only rolled back taxes, it required a supermajority to raise taxes. It took several decades to undo the damage done by Proposition 13. Clearly, using a referendum for routine matters such as tax rates is a misuse, as is something as fitful and undemocratic as requiring a supermajority for a minor matter.

California also faced one of the more despicable examples of a witch hunt posing as populism, where Lyndon Larouche's organization of conspiracy theorists and bigots managed to stealthily force a proposition which would have quarantined AIDS patients. It's worth pointing out the measure was defeated by almost 3 to 1, and many of the signatures were gathered by a consultant later convicted of fraud.

The final example of abuse of referendums or plebiscites is in fascist, communist, and other dictatorships. Dictators use them to claim to represent the will of the people. But very few people are fooled by such claims. Everyone can see that a dictatorship's elite proposal from above, with no debate or dissent allowed, is the opposite of actual direct democracy.

Recalls certainly have a better history. Most recalls in recent US history have been successful, mostly at the local level, mayors or town councils. Most efforts to recall governors have failed. Meacham of Arizona was recalled for an ugly history of racism, and Blagojevich of Illinois for corruption. The worst example of a successful recall was Gray Davis of California, orchestrated by officials in Enron, who were later convicted on other criminal counts. Enron officials ordered rolling blackouts across California, leading to Davis being blamed for a nonexistent power crisis. The recall overturned an election less than a year before. The simplest way to avoid such a debacle on a national level is to allow recalls only for law breaking or corruption.

A recall can and should be used to remove corrupt officials. **Recalls could have removed Nixon far sooner and kept Reagan from avoiding responsibility for the Iran Contra Scandal.** Recalls could have been used against partisan Republican leaders misusing the impeachment process against Clinton for the ludicrous matter of lying about oral sex. Recalls could have been used to remove the five partisan Supreme Court judges who halted a valid recount of the 2000 election. Had recalls been around in the 1850s, they could have been used to remove the judges in the Dred Scott decision, possibly making the Civil War less likely.

**Referendums, had they been around at the federal level, could have ended the Vietnam War far sooner.** The public opposed it by 1968, yet Nixon kept it going five years longer. **A similar referendum could have ended the Iraq War as early as 2006** , when the public first opposed it. There would have been tens of thousands of American soldiers still alive, many more not amputated or otherwise wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Iraqis surviving had the public been able to directly order these wars stopped.

" _2. A referendum or recall vote happens 30 days after the certified collection of valid signatures of ten percent of all voters."_

A 30 day period is long enough to allow for informed debate and avoid a rush to judgment, but short enough to avoid a buildup of cynicism and disgust for the process. Ten percent is a high enough threshold to prevent most fringe groups of conspiracists or bigots from getting a measure on the ballot. Recall that Larouche's people had to use fraud.

Of course there are some groups large enough to succeed in still doing so. Birther conspiracy theorists were and are over 10% of the public. In that case, all a ballot initiative would do is rouse the anger of the public against them, as Larouche's people did in California. Referendums that sanction prejudices are explicitly barred by the clause below.

" _3. No referendum may overturn, contradict, or limit anything in either constitution, and such efforts must be done instead by constitutional amendment. Nor shall referendums or recalls be funded by corporations, nor any private contributions except for individual unpaid volunteer work. Referendum advertising must be equally funded both pro and con, must be publicly funded only, and subject to reasonable limits."_

One of the arguments against referendums, and populism of any kind, is "What if segregation had been up for a vote?" It always was, and segregationists had to use force to impose it. For over a century racists used massive violence and intimidation to maintain separate and unequal divisions. Referendums are barred from being used for any form of government sanctioned prejudices by other proposed articles to this proposed new constitution.

What would be best for elections would also be best for referendums and recalls. Publicly funded elections only, so that corporations and wealthy elites cannot hijack them and do not have a greater voice than the average person. Neither side should be given an advantage financially. The time frame for recalls and referendums must be limited for the same reason as for elections, to prevent the overload, the burnout and cynicism and unnecessary waste that long election campaigns currently produce.

The founders, Madison especially, hated the idea of direct democracy. That is one of the strongest arguments for it, for we have been living with the destructive results of their limits on democracy for over two centuries.

Article 10- Nonprofits and Public Ownership for the Public Interest

" _1. National defense industries, healthcare, prisons, education, and news media must be nonprofit or publicly owned. No business, corporation, or individual can profit unfairly from federal, state, or local governments or public resources and must pay fair market value for all previous resources, subsidies, and research."_

So much of the worst in American (and all of human) society and history has been driven by the profit motive. So much of US (and state, and local) government practice is corporate welfare, reverse Robin Hood at its worst. From billions for stadiums built for sports teams at the local level to trillions for the Defense Department internationally, government in America often funnels money upward, from the working and middle classes to wealthy elites, and from public lands to private elite hands.

This is naked class warfare, both the cause of and maintenance of deep inequality. Wealth redistribution upward shows that those who maintain government should be run like a business could not be more wrong. (Businessmen also generally have terrible records as presidents.) Some matters are far better left to public management rather than private, done by the state with no private intent or to make a profit because doing so harms us all and is morally repugnant and unjust.

But since partisans of capitalism are generally unmoved by moral arguments, here is another consideration: **businesses are far less competent at public enterprises**. They tend to think in terms of individual profit for the next quarter, rather than the long term public good. Public parks are one obvious example. No one would reasonably want national parks opened up to strip mining, or the crassest commercial theme parks. Both would lose the parks' great value, aesthetic, public, environmental, and even long term economically, for purely short term profit.

Fire departments are an example we have learned from hard experience should not be private. Early American fire departments were, and they were notorious for incompetence and thievery. When your home caught fire, private fire departments demanded payment before they would put out the fire, negotiating with you while your place burned. Often they stole everything they could in burning homes, even looting neighbor's homes. Competing private fire departments even got into brawls over who would fight the fires, so lucrative was the theft.

Intelligence gathering is another area where privatizing has long been a disaster. But unlike the previous examples, America has yet to learn that lesson. The CIA looms so large in American consciousness, it will surprise many that the US had no national intelligence agency until the Cold War. Lincoln relied on the Pinkerton Detective Agency for intelligence during the Civil War. (They also became notorious for violent union busting.) Pinkerton routinely over estimated Confederate troop strength by 200-300%. US generals like McClellan then often refused to engage the enemy, prolonging the war.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, some of the torturers in prisons like Abu Ghraib likely were private contractors who were unaccountable to US or other law. Some CIA agents volunteered for Iraq for six months, resigned, and then worked for private intelligence companies for several times their previous pay. Besides being overpriced, a high turnover and lack of experienced agents and analysts almost certainly made mistakes that cost American, Iraqi, and Afghan lives, prolonging and worsening both wars.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars gave us still more examples of the folly of privatizing war, relying on mercenaries, the most infamous being Blackwater, later rebranded XE. Blackwater mercenaries opened fire on an Iraqi crowd, massacring dozens. A drunken Blackwater guard also killed no less than the bodyguard of the Iraqi Vice President.

Certainly conventional troops do commit atrocities. But they at least face military law, whose inadequacies are because of the protection of an old boys network. (Often, enlisted and junior officers get punished with prison, while senior officers get their careers ended, but no prison time.) Private mercenaries have far fewer laws to govern them, sometimes none. They are often not bound by military codes nor local laws, and rarely prosecuted, even for atrocities.

Equally disturbing, and most importantly for American society, mercenaries and "contractors" (actually support troops) came to outnumber US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Without mercenaries, Presidents Bush and Obama would have had to withdraw far sooner, or bring back an incredibly unpopular draft. The public turned against both wars after five years, and so few Americans were enlisting that both the army and marines missed their recruiting goals for years at a time. **Relying on mercenaries allowed both presidents to ignore public opinion and keep the wars going over half a decade more.** This proposed article by banning mercenaries will end future unpopular wars sooner.

Nations and empires that relied on mercenaries were always undone by them. The Praetorian Guard often chose who would become the next Roman Emperor. Mercenaries in the Thirty and Hundred Years Wars prolonged and worsened both wars. Looting became one of the main ways to pay them, attracting the worst criminal elements into these armies. The French Foreign Legion had an appalling history of atrocities in Algeria, Vietnam, and within France itself during the Paris Commune uprising. The Spanish Foreign Legion was equally notorious for rapes and other atrocities during the Spanish Civil War and helped put Falangist fascism into power, a dictatorship that killed half a million Spaniards over 40 years.

The US defense industry, in Eisenhower's famous phrase the military-industrial complex, itself was one of the main drivers of the Cold War, then the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and now the current undeclared wars on terrorism in lands from Colombia to central Africa to Yemen to the Philippines. It is also socially and environmentally destructive to the US itself, far out of proportion to its size. The need for war or the threat of war to maintain an American empire distorts our democracy and society, giving us such movements as neoconservatism and government such as Homeland Security with its massive spying. Removing the profit motive will dramatically shrink all of that.

Even if one is unmoved by the moral arguments, one should acknowledge another matter: for profit defense industries are enormously inefficient and wasteful. Weapons routinely cost double or triple original estimates. **Some combat planes cost more than if they were literally made of gold.** Some military planes, like Howard Hughes' Hercules or "Spruce Goose," were never in combat at all and barely able to fly. Hercules was the most costly and worthless plane in history.

By contrast, state owned defense industries produced one of the most reliable and low cost of modern weapons, the AK-47, compared to the far worse US commercially made M-16. (The M-16 jammed so often, US soldiers in Vietnam often used them to hold up tents.) Israel's defense industries, easily among the world's very best, have a large part entirely state-owned and much of the rest produced in partnership with the state. In the beginning Israeli weapons were almost entirely produced by collective enterprises.

Prisons are one more area that must remain ruled by and for the public interest. Private for profit prisons give the owners incentives to lock up as many as possible. The need for profit also cannot help but endanger not only the prisoner and the prison guard, but the general public in the long run. Abusive prisons where costs are cut to increase profit will worsen the rate of repeat offenders.

Private for profit healthcare has given the US terrible a far lower life expectancy compared to other industrial nations, especially for its cost. The worst of these US health industries are drug companies, charging up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single prescription. Typically drugs cost a tenth in other nations compared to the US. The next costliest nation is Canada, about half that of the US. Two horrifying side effects are that many Americans are over medicated because of the desire for profit, and many more Americans stop or never seek treatment because they cannot afford drug prices.

Public school education is funded unequally in America, with school districts based on income. For profit education private schools reproduce from young ages the inequality and elitism that undermines democracies. Contrary to public perception, US public schools have been getting steadily better for a third of a century. For example, the US dropout rate is now less than one in fourteen, where in the 1970s it was over half. Most of the problems in public schools are problems of economic inequality brought in from outside the schools.

The generally acknowledged best type of schools in the US, Catholic, notably don't have profit as their prime motive, only education. Parochial schools would not be affected by this proposal, only elite institutions. This includes elite private universities, mostly attended by wealthy elites, who receive far more public money per student than public colleges. This corporate welfare adds to elite institution graduates dominating most of the upper levels of government. Taking away public giveaways and making them nonprofits will end their old money bias, and at least weaken their hold on the federal government.

" _2. No journalist, commentator, or others presenting themselves as experts in politics, history, law, society, health, medicine, or science can make more than five times the median national income, and any excess income must be donated to charity or it will be seized by the federal government."_

Much of the worst actions of the media are driven by profit. This includes not just deliberate falsehoods, but fear mongering, deception, propagandizing, and hostility to empirical thinking and evidence. It was not always so. Believe it or not, as recently as the 1970s, news divisions at major networks were expected to be public services.

The problem is not ideological, for the most part, since some of the worst offenders don't even believe what they preach. To take the most obvious example, Rupert Murdoch does not agree with much of what his network and papers argue. It simply suits his business model to sell an ideology of fear and anger to a declining demographic.

The simplest cure, again, is to remove the profit motive. Media should be nonprofit. A salary cap will help drive out those who harvest fear for the sake of lucre. Media is enormously class biased in America. When watching a "news" channel one is typically watching multi-millionaires who work for multi billionaires. Thus the inevitable class hostility and hatred directed against the poorest. Think how often there are calls to drug test those on welfare. Now try to think of any instance of a call to drug test CEOs and bankers on corporate welfare. Media figures have little idea of what it is to be homeless or work for minimum wage. **The best media today is that which is nonprofit, PBS, NPR, and BBC. The worst news media is the most profitable, Fox.**

There is an equal need for an end to vast industries of outright hustlers trading in not just fear mongering but pseudo-science, from global warming deniers to anti vaccine conspiracists, conspiracy theorists of every kind, and an entire industry of faux medicine, today's equivalent of snake oil that sells by the tens of billions. Faux medicine kills, by the thousands, preying on the desperate that turn to it instead of tested treatments.

Pseudo-science kills not just people but democracies. An industry of deliberately false science has convinced two fifths of Americans that global warming is not real. A separate industry of conspiracy theorists long ago ceased to operate with vanity presses and xeroxed pamphlets and today has entire networks peddling conspiracy thinking. Much of 1960s counter culture protest was dissipated chasing phantom Kennedy conspiracies. Much of the outrage against the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars was wasted over claims of phantom missiles on September 11, made by those who seem to have never passed high school science classes.

All of the above are still perfectly free to state their opinions. They will simply be unable to profit from them. There is a precedent, in laws that prevent those who commit crimes from benefiting from them. In New York, it was nicknamed the Son of Sam law. The same principle used against mass murderers can and should apply those who make their living by serial lying, that they cannot profit by doing so. Let them show empirical evidence, and if not, no profit. The number of websites claiming JFK was killed by UFOs will shrink rapidly if there is no ad revenue to be made from it. So will faux medicine if there is no profit in it.

" _3. All journalists, commentators, and others presenting themselves as experts for mass news media will be fined every time they lie in their articles, broadcasts, or public statements. No person or media outlet can profit from lies or falsehoods and shall be fined at least equal to all profit, money, or benefits made from lies or falsehoods."_

The nation's constitution should not be a defense for falsehoods. Media and media figures should be accountable for what they say and write. Those who argue for free speech of any and all kinds often ignore the fact that **the First Amendment does not sanction defamation, libel, or slander. It does not protect incitement to murder nor callous recklessness that leads to mass panic** (commonly known as "no right to shout fire in a crowded theater.") That fact makes the US more free, not less. Neither should the Constitution or American society sanction and allow profit from the deliberate and knowing spread of falsehoods.

For an opinion is different from a fact, despite the mushy solipsist's claim that everything is an opinion. The simplest way to toss solipsism to the side is to ask the believer to point a loaded gun at his toe and fire. Let him then tell us that his bloody foot and limp is just an opinion.

Facts are black letter realities, and their truths are often simple Cartesian logic. Most often, either something is or is not true. An opinion brings in interpretation, hopefully backed by solid evidence. For example, an opinion is that capitalism or socialism is superior to the other, or a third system superior to both. It is not an opinion that capitalism is less than 500 years old, it is fact. It is a blatant falsehood that "free markets" have always been around. The fallacy is a mere ideological propaganda claim, known to non-dogmatic scholars in the social sciences as the naturalizing tendency of capitalism.

Falsehoods in journalism undermine the central purpose of journalism, and should not be allowed any more than one should teach in math classes that two plus two equals five. What is just punishment for one posing as an expert spreading deliberate falsehoods, or lazily passing them along without checking or because it suits their ideology? Fines should equal any and all profit made from lies, including salary, royalties, and advertising revenue, plus the market value of all free publicity gained by falsehoods.

Again, no one is proposing interfering with anyone's mythical "right" to be a serial liar, only their profiting from destructive lies. To give it an old fashioned analogy, one could still hand out books with falsehoods for free. You just can't sell the book to make a profit.

" _4. The agency in charge of judging lies and falsehoods by journalists, commentators, or experts for the mass media must be entirely of respected historians for matters of history and politics, respected legal scholars for matters of law, and respected scientists or doctors for matters of science, medicine, and health, and shall be nonpartisan, with no member affiliated with any party."_

A completely nonpartisan and expert agency is needed to judge and enforce these new laws. Otherwise the agency would inevitably become censorship by one party or ideology upon all others. Thus the need to be very specific, written within the new Constitution and not within ordinary or easily repealed law, in who would make up such an agency, and in what they judge. It must be made up of experts in the particular fields, the most highly regarded in those fields, not partisan hacks nor self-deluded amateurs.

If defamation, libel, and slander can be punished without harming freedom of the press, then why not this? If a judge or jury can assess such matters, why not an agency with members far more trained than the general public? In fact, **we do have a model for such an agency in the current existence of fact checking sites online**. The great majority of these sites have laudable records as badly needed resources. What this article simply proposes is that such assessments add financial penalties so that none profit from willful or ideologically driven lying.

Article 11- Ending Institutional Support for Hatred

" _1. No government body, law, or regulation will sanction or reward racism or ethnic hatred, religious bigotry, sexism, or other hatreds based on linguicism (hatred or discrimination based on language) or national or regional origin, whether intended or claimed to be unintended."_

The start of doctors' Hippocratic Oath is "First, do no harm." For most of American history, government deliberately did actively harm nonwhites, and the US system was openly white supremacist. Besides the obvious African slavery and genocide against American Indians, the earliest immigration laws in the US restricted citizenship to whites only. A racist immigration quota system was kept in place until the late 1960s. Interracial marriage was banned and an elaborate system of segregation put in place. Asians, starting with Chinese, faced a series of Exclusion Acts. Native Hawaiians saw their language banned as late as 1986, American Indians were punished for speaking Native languages, and indigenous ceremonies were banned. Social Security in the beginning did not cover farm workers or other professions with a high number of Blacks, Latinos, and Natives. There were special taxes aimed at Black businesses in the south, and against Chinese and Mexicans in California (the Foreign Miner's Tax.) Sometimes discrimination was simply petty, such as a ban on Manchu hairstyles. Even most elementary schoolchildren know that nearly all minorities faced bans or limitations on voting.

Some of that discrimination continues today, with old fashioned gerrymandering and voter ID laws squarely aimed at discouraging minorities. Voting stations in inner cities are often old and underserved, leading to long lines, or far away in rural areas with mostly Blacks, Latinos, or Natives. At the same time, largely white suburban polling stations are lavish and easy to access quickly.

Other government sanctioned prejudices are far more recent than most Americans realize. The US Department of Agriculture systematically discriminated against Blacks and Natives, denied them credit and disaster relief, had almost no minority employees, and delayed civil rights claims **as late as 2004**. The number of Black and Native owned farms dropped dramatically, forcing many into low paying labor. **The state of Georgia** _currently_ **sells a special license plate that directly funds a white supremacist group** , the Sons of Confederate Veterans. There are numerous de facto whites-only college practices, such as legacy scholarships and admissions, that continue today.

Government must no longer and never again be an institution for inequality or be used by the bigoted to enforce their prejudices. This must be safeguarded not only because of a long odious past, but because of an equally ugly present, and a potentially ugly future. A number of current presidential candidates call for a wall on the border with Mexico, and some states have passed laws against the mythical threat of Sharia law. A tide of intolerance could return, as it did **after September 11 when 80,000 males from 24 Muslim nations were forced to register with the government**. (Supposedly done to prevent terrorism, not a single suspect was caught from this profiling.) This article will act as a safeguard.

" _2. Nor shall any government fail to provide redress for longstanding discrimination based on the previous."_

Those who would try to use the previous clause to undermine government or public efforts to end hatred and the harm it brings must be blocked. One could easily see the ignorant, willfully blind, or maliciously racist or sexist trying to use this article to claim Affirmative Action or Title IX (aimed at preventing discrimination against women in education) must end. Such an argument is not just false, it is bigoted. Anti Title IX or Affirmative Action arguments assume that all better jobs or benefits naturally "belong" to white males and that women and minorities have inferior abilities.

This clause goes beyond the previous one. The government is committed to not only never causing or worsening bigotry, but to actively ending such bigotries.

" _3. Any person or institution taking part in or promoting discrimination based on the previous will result in that person or institution's permanent inability to receive government jobs or benefits, including licenses, grants, subsidies, retirement including pensions and Social Security, tax deductions or credits, eligibility for public assistance, student or business loans or credit."_

Much like proposed Article 10, a bigot's First Amendment rights are not being infringed upon by this proposal. All that is changing is that such prejudices will no longer be supported by the state and public money. A Klansman should not be a cop. A neo Nazi should not be allowed to be a soldier. A Nation of Islam member should not be teaching history at a public high school. For obvious reasons it is dangerous and destructive to allow them to do so. Those dedicated to the destruction of a large part of the people of this nation should not benefit from its institutions, or be allowed to use those institutions to harm others.

By extension, the state and the public have the right to deny benefits to members of the public based on their harmful actions. The obvious precedent is drug laws. Federal law does not allow those with drug convictions to receive federal student loans. One way this proposal could be immediately used is to end public money going to groups trying to "cure" gays of being homosexual.

Simply having a private bigoted opinion will not result in being cut off. But being a member of a hate group, media or other corporation promoting and making money off hatred, or actively promoting discrimination and hatred either as an individual, or part of a hate group or corporation promoting hatreds, should lead to sanctions from society and government against you.

The biggest benefit to society will not be from preventing a militia terrorist from getting military training, or even from keeping racists off police forces. The biggest gain will be from blocking corporations from profiting at public expense when they spread stereotypes. **Hollywood and news media will be punished by this article far more than the far right, for they do far more harm and spread far more hate.** Politicians also will face sanctions, for they will lose public funding for a pattern of preaching bigotry.

Contrary to some claims, changing behavior can and often does successfully change even the deepest of bigoted opinions. Ending many forms of legal segregation showed that. Whites who previously feared or hated minorities discovered the world does not end when one shares the same lunch counter. The percentage of Americans holding bigoted opinions has dropped sharply. Where nearly nine-tenths of the public opposed interracial dating and marriage in the 1960s, today less than a fifth do. Racism can go the way of feudalism, as a system and mindset we have to explain to students used to exist.

Article 12-Ending Class Bias in the Law

" _1. All crimes must be punished. No president may pardon or give clemency to any in their own administration, or the administration of other presidents of their party, and all such previous pardons are overturned. The guilty shall never be allowed to profit from their crimes. The guilty must pay back all wealth from their crimes and pay for all damage done to others."_

Class bias, as much as racial bias, does great harm to American society and persons. But unlike racism, class bias is rarely addressed in America. It is far too often invisible or unspoken, an enormous pretense made that classism does not exist or can easily be overcome.

There is an enormous class bias in the legal system. A criminal (even an unarmed one) who steals five hundred dollars from a convenience store is far more harshly punished than a bank president embezzling millions. White collar crime is far less punished than "street crime." Not only far shorter sentences, but white collar prisons have a notorious reputation for soft treatment, just country clubs with high fences where the well off do their time by working on their tennis game.

Such bias goes all the way to the top. Corrupt presidents have only rarely been punished, and far more often, false charges of corruption are only used as a smear by the opposition. Nixon and Reagan were never punished for their crimes, while dozens of faux scandals were invented to smear Clinton and Obama. One Clinton administration member was actually forced to resign over a single pair of low value football game tickets. Notably, t **he worst thing each president did, Clinton choosing to not halt genocide in Rwanda and Obama's drone assassination program, were not objected to by most members of either party**.

Presidents have also misused their pardon power to prevent officials of their own party and even own administration from being punished. Ford pardoned Nixon, the man who appointed him, in what was widely regarded by most as a corrupt deal that cost Ford the next election. George Bush Sr. pardoned those convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal for law breaking that later evidence showed he himself took part in. Clinton pardoned wealthy campaign donors, de facto bribery in every way but name. GW Bush gave leniency to "Scooter" Libby for his part in leaking the name of a CIA agent, when some evidence points to Bush himself leaking the agent's name. This abuse must be ended. Presidents should always be barred from pardoning their own party and administration members, since it's a clear conflict of interest and a way to protect their own criminal actions and associates.

Wealthy criminals are rarely punished equal to the crimes they commit. Bank presidents and CEOs who embezzle or defraud routinely negotiate deals allowing them to walk away with most of what they have stolen. The list of scandals of the last 30 years is disturbingly long: The Savings and Loan Scandals, BCCI, Worldcom, subprime loans, underwater mortages, Enron, Bernie Madoff's Ponzi schemes, Lehman Brothers, Cendant, MF Global, Fannie Mae, HealthSouth, Tyco, Allen Stanford, Qwest, Arthur Andersen, Bear Stearns, IMClone, and Adelphia.

All the scandals named involved billions of dollars, sometimes tens of billions. Punishment has been limited and rare. Only Madoff received any substantial prison time, and that is because his victims were all wealthy elites like Steven Spielberg. A good illustration of the double standard was Martha Stewart, who got only a few months in a cushy "prison" for insider trading that gained her about $45,000. Her business also did not suffer, nor did most of her customers or the public condemn her the way they would a petty thief, much less one stealing $45,000. By contrast, most ex-convicts guilty of minor "street" crimes have a hard time even finding minimum wage work. Many are barred from some workplaces.

The principle this nation and society should follow is simple: No one should benefit from crime. **Any punishment should at least be equal to what was stolen or gained, plus the harm done to victims. Full restitution should be standard practice. That is even more important than prison sentences.** The prospect of instant poverty will deter millionaire and billionaire serial criminals. It will also end much of the worship of wealth, the Mammon so common in mainstream America, a sickness that in its most extreme form is no different from admiring gangsters just because they are wealthy.

" _2. All fees, fines, and taxes must be progressive, based on ability to pay. Regressive taxes, where the wealthy pay a proportionately smaller amount, are expressly forbidden and must be immediately made progressive."_

Social Security is one of the great accomplishments of American society and government. It changed seniors from the poorest age group to the wealthiest. But the way it was enacted and maintained is striking. To keep the wealthy from opposing it, the **Social Security tax is among the most regressive in America. Only the first $110,000 is taxed. Someone making $110,000 and Bill Gates, worth over $60 billion, pay the same amount**.

Sales tax, compared to taxes on sales of stocks, is regressive as well. The single mother buying groceries to feed her family pays higher taxes on most of her food, up to 10%, than the speculator who pays only 0.0034% when buying stocks. Until transaction taxes and sales tax match, this is a formula for class warfare, wealth redistributed upwards from workers to elites. Ideally, the transaction tax would be between 0.5 and 1%, and so would sales tax. A great intended side benefit would be its reducing speculation in the stock market, one of the biggest reasons for instability in the economy since the start of the century.

Fines for law breaking should also be tailored to income and wealth. A fine of $500 devastates someone on minimum wage, and the unemployed have no choice but to serve jail time. But to the wealthy, such a fine is not even pocket change. In essence, many of the poorest go to jail for lack of money, while the wealthy are not deterred from law breaking. Were fines made progressive, on a sliding scale as income tax is, the average cost of fines would decline for most.

Far better to make all fines a percentage of combined income and wealth, say 0.5% of one's annual income from all sources and value of all property and other wealth for a traffic fine, or one year's income and wealth for a fine handed down for a felony conviction. Thus (in addition to prison time) someone making the minimum wage with no other real assets would pay a $10,000 fine for a felony, while someone making $1 million a year with $2 million in property would pay $3 million in fines.

Both suffer the same just and equal fate, being reduced to zero financially for their crime. An added bonus would be that the law now has far more incentive to go after wealthy lawbreakers, when now the reverse is true. Thus all the extremely wealthy lawbreakers in the scandals listed before would have paid billions or tens of billions in fines, exactly what they deserved, not a single penny of profit from their crimes.

Article 13-No Special Treatment for Wealthy Elites

" _1. Government assistance only goes to those in need and corporate welfare is forbidden. No person or corporation, nor any trust or legal entity used by a person or corporation, shall receive government assistance or funding unless they make less than double the median national income and possess less than double the median national wealth."_

Quite a few wealthy elites, and quite a few with passionate hatred for the working class, argue that poor people receiving government assistance suffer from dependency, laziness, and a lack of a moral code. The most hateful depict those in poverty as leeches, bums, and bloated off of a few hundred dollars a month in aid to live. Yet seemingly none or at least few of the same people make the same argument about wealthy elites, especially corporations. **If welfare supposedly is morally harmful to a single mother, what about CEOs? Bankers? What about entire corporations dependent on government? How is that not far more offensive, obscene, counterproductive, and useless?**

Such an argument must be turned on its head: Those with the wealth to already support themselves get no government aid, ever. Only those in need do. The Green Party platform has long included a variation on this proposal: No corporate welfare, period. But their proposal does not prevent wealthy or well off individuals from receiving such welfare. It also prevents small business loans, which provide far more jobs than the giant corporations. Blocking all corporate welfare would also include loans or tax holidays to infant industries, where innovation most often begins.

Government should not be used to redistribute wealth upwards, from the middle and working classes to the already wealthiest elites and others who are at least well off. There should be means testing, and the simplest test is that aid only goes to those in need, best measured by wealth and income. It's best, though, to err on the side of caution. Thus the proposed standard, double the median (not average) income and median wealth as well. Since wealth and income in America are both distributed very unevenly, using the average would skew the numbers high.

Sports stadiums, built at public expense that benefit already wealthy team owners, would be barred in the future unless the team owners pay for them entirely. Current team owners would have to repay every penny of public money spent for stadiums on their behalf. Agribusiness subsidies to not grow food come to an immediate end, unless they were part of the shrinking number of small family farms. The auto industry loans, both the entire US industry in 2009 and of Chrysler in 1979, would also have been barred.

Incompetently run industries should be allowed to fail, or the government buys them out very cheaply at market rates and then either sells them off in pieces, or make them publicly owned and run for public purposes, not for profit. (For example, the US auto industry could have been put to researching and making cheaper autos run solely on alternatives to fossil fuels.) If the failure of an industry or large corporation will cause huge job losses, obviously the best option would be for the government to sell them off in pieces, but make a condition of their sale that as many of the employees as possible keep their jobs or receive pensions or generous severance. Any government assistance should go to helping workers hold onto their jobs, or finding other work or being retrained, not to rewarding wealthy elites for failure.

British history shows us many examples of the failures of "lemon socialism." There the state took over failing industries, and it usually only benefited incompetent elites by bailing them out no differently than welfare for capitalists. Workers at industries like coal and railroads were not helped much. Huge cutbacks were still made, only with government now being blamed and public ownership discredited.

The failed bailout of the banks in the 2000s (failed in the sense that the public was not helped, only the banks), and the successful bailouts of the savings and loans in the 1980s (successful in the sense of greatly lowering the cost of the bailout), would both have been barred with this proposed article. The two options to save the banks and savings and loans, as in other cases, would be to either seize them and make them publicly owned, or seize them and break them up and sell them off. A third option also exists, one better for the average non-wealthy depositor, turn the banks into credit unions.

What happened instead was that **banks received an obscene secret bailout of over $7** _trillion_ **(on top of the public bailout of $700 billion), equal to half the value of the whole US economy.** Obama and his administration, made up of executives from the likes of Goldman Sachs, naively imagined banks would lend out their new government money. Instead, much of it was lent back to the federal government. These **banks received an insanely low interest rate of 0.01%, then loaned the federal government's own money** _back_ **to the government at 5% interest, making tens of billions.** The economy recovered unevenly, no thanks to either federal or wealthy elite practices.

One more area of assistance needs to be changed, aid to the elderly. Social Security and Medicare must be means tested, much like Medicaid is now. Those with more than double the median income or wealth do not deserve it.

" _2. All government loans or tax deferrals or holidays or other benefits to corporations or business must be repaid, with interest at market rates. All facilities built even partly to benefit or profit private businesses or individuals must be paid for by those businesses or individuals equal to the benefits or profits received."_

Facilities includes not just stadiums and sports complexes, but anything that benefits in large part private businesses, from highways to the internet to airports to the maintenance and regulation of public airwaves to state subsidized education to train workers for private industries, e.g. the nuclear power industry receiving most of its trained workforce from the US military. Externalities, as pro capitalist economists are fond of calling them, come to an end. For the layman, an externality is anything whose cost can be passed along to the public or the government, and the business avoids paying for it. The practice comes down to "private profits, public losses." It is reverse Robin Hood at its worst.

For a safer environment for us all, ending externalities will be a godsend. Mining and some chemical industries have as standard practice to pollute without consequence, declare bankruptcy, and expect the cleanup to be done by the government and paid for by the public. This is a government benefit by any reasonable standard. Now companies will be required to pay for their pollution, or better yet, avoid it in advance as cheaper than paying for cleanup later.

The huge giveaways to corporations come to an end. Amazon has benefited from no sales tax far beyond reason. Ideally it should have ended as soon as the company turned a profit, back in the 1990s, and began paying sales taxes either to the states where the items were bought, or the home of their shipping centers. Trucking and shipping companies should be paying all of their part for the upkeep of the public highways. Broadcast networks should pay for the market value of the public airwaves, on top of the cost of regulation, as cable companies should pay for the entire market value of the use of public bandwidth and cost of regulation.

Benefits also clearly include government research that private industries profit from. Companies would now have to pay back the government for the cost of research. Intellectual property laws should also be severely curtailed, though not ended entirely. A form of means testing would keep the laws in place for artists such as independent filmmakers, musicians, and authors, or those just starting out, but end such protection for individuals once they attain a certain level of wealth, and for all corporations. Thus while the struggling artist remains protected, Hollywood and the recording industry are not.

Drug companies would also lose their patents once they earn back the cost of research. Industries with de facto or legally enforced monopolies, such as cable networks and the football and baseball leagues, lose such protections. For the consumer, prices will drop sharply.

But the biggest benefit to the public will be longer lives, since medical treatment and prescription prices will be greatly reduced. For the entire US public, the next biggest benefit will be a far more thriving and representative democracy since elites will no longer be using government to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense.

Article 14-Limiting Idle Wealth

" _1. Large concentrations of idle wealth are inherently dangerous and inhumane. All income from any and all sources greater than 100 times the median national income and all wealth of an individual greater than 100 times the median national wealth shall be seized, unless it is reinvested or donated to charity."_

Wealth is power and any accumulation of power is dangerous and undemocratic. But the strongest critique of inequality is one that US conservatives should heed because it speaks directly to the deepest beliefs of the great majority of them:

It is un-Christian.

Inequality and concentrations of wealth are against every Biblical principal, the expressed word of Christ, and for that matter, against the central precepts of most major world religions, and most minor ones too. Christ raged against money changers in the temple. He intoned that it was easier for a camel to be threaded through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven. For two millenia, the church has maintained the idea of Holy Poverty, that the poor are especially close to God, that the church should be especially concerned with their fate, that we are all our brother's keeper, and that materialism and attachment to possessions are unhealthy spiritually. After all, Jesus lived an ascetic life, one concerned with the fate of "the least of my brothers," not a life devoted in any way to financial profit or accumulating wealth.

Much of modern conservatism ignores these central messages of Christianity, instead being far more concerned with what people do with their genitals. To paraphrase George Orwell, they are only Christians from the waist down. Another portion of conservatism is devoted to putting personal profit over the public good. Bizarrely, some libertarians and conservatives admire Ayn Rand, whose philosophy inspired no less than the Satanic Church. America as a nation could gain much by returning to that original Christian message.

Wealth being power, it is also dangerous unless limited, far more inefficient than its admirers admit, and destructive to a nation and society to let it gather and remain idle. In Latin America, there were wars and revolutions fought for nearly two centuries over latifundias, huge estates larger than most US counties, kept idle while much of the public had no land at all, solely because the size of the estate brought prestige to its owner.

But US elites have long been even more conspicuous in their obscene displays. The public saw William Randolph Hearst buy entire castles in Europe to be reassembled in California. The Astors held a multimillion dollar party at the height of the Great Depression. Elvis would charter a jet just to get peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Aaron Spelling lived in a mansion covering over 6 acres, with rooms devoted just to wrapping presents. Michael Jackson had his own private zoo and amusement park with roller coasters and carousels. Numerous CEOs insist on private jets that cost millions to buy and maintain, while downsizing their companies and keeping employee wages low. **Nike CEO Phil Knight became an international symbol of inequality at its most odious, accumulating over $24 billion while paying his Indonesian workers 14 cents an hour** in unsafe sweatshop conditions. (It took over a decade of protests and boycotts to bring partial reforms to Nike.)

Such examples are part of a larger pattern. American elites have far more wealth and pay compared to their workers, more than anywhere else in the world. There is far more inequality in the US than in almost all other developed nations. Only Russia and Slovakia are more unequal. **A Japanese CEO makes slightly less than 70 times what one of their workers do. In the US, a CEO makes over 350 times an average worker's pay.** Such inequality even horrifies noted conservatives like commentator George Will, who once said American CEOs are doing what Karl Marx was unable to do, discredit capitalism.

Such concentrations of power must be ended for the damage they do to society and democracy. It is hardly a secret that money buys elections, and elites purchase favorable laws written for them by a congress dependent on their support. Barring the use of elite funds in elections is not enough, for there is no practical way to end lobbying without limiting or ending the right to petition. Remove the excess wealth, any wealth that is not devoted to investment or charity. That way elites will not have funds not only for a lifestyle that holds the middle and working classes in contempt, but to influence public sentiment any more than any other person.

The standard used for this proposal is very generous. A full 100 times the median annual income of slightly under $27,000 is currently a little under $2.7 million. 100 times the current median wealth of slightly over $81,000 is slightly over $8.1 million. If any elites or their apologists complain this is too harsh, let them try to convince a waitress or bus driver that elites "need" more than $2.7 million a year to live on, or "need" a home worth over $8 million.

There is absolutely no way that a CEO is worth 350 times more than an average worker. It defies logic and basic morality. If anything, the pattern is the opposite: Having more wealth makes one less capable, not more. For the cushion of wealth makes one soft, out of touch with the world and the people within it. It is also morally numbing. As one study pointed out, the obscenely wealthy have far less empathy for the average worker, the greater the wealth they have.

The effect of penalizing idle wealth will not be to "punish success." Most wealth is either inherited or created by a combination of luck and favorable government laws. Penalizing idle wealth spurs investment and charitable donations. In Europe, the ideal of noblesse oblige says that nobility must give one sixth of their income to charity. In Muslim tradition, alms for the poor is one of the central pillars of the faith, requiring the giving away of up to a tenth of not just your income, but all your wealth.

But American elites as a group are not very generous. **As income in America goes up, the proportion given to charity generally goes down.** Phil Knight, for example, had as his sole "charity" to have a sports stadium and business school built at his old university named after him. Let this proposal become the American version of noblesse oblige, an obligation for elites to do good instead of self-aggrandizement, more power, and ever increasing unequal wealth.

" _2. All attempts to conceal wealth to avoid taxes shall result in prosecution as grand larceny, full seizure of not just concealed wealth but all wealth, and long prison sentences which may not be suspended. Separate white collar prisons, or other prisons that are less arduous or harsh, are forbidden, and all white collar criminals must be punished and imprisoned with all other prisoners."_

**More than $21 trillion in concealed wealth is hidden overseas, about one and a half the value of the entire US economy. And that's the low estimate. The highest is $31 trillion.** American wealth is roughly one tenth of that, $2.1 trillion.

Over $2 trillion in untaxed wealth is a theft and crime that Pablo Escobar could only dream about. Most hidden wealth is not from criminals, but from "respectable" sources. **Nearly three fourths of the Fortune 500 top corporations routinely hide huge amounts.** Apple alone hides over $180 billion. **American corporate criminals, were they to pay up, owe the nation up to $620 billion.** That loss weakens the nation and society, treats with contempt the average honest person and the system we all live under. The wealthiest in America clearly show they have always been the least patriotic of people.

Such concealed wealth should be immediately declared by elites and taxed, so that they may avoid having it all seized and then having to serve a lengthy prison sentence. If they fail to, then the entire $2.1 trillion should be seized outright, and elites hunted down wherever on the globe they hide out, and then imprisoned. Al Capone was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison, serving much of that time in Alcatraz, for evading income tax on perhaps $100 million. There is no just reason similar elite criminals cannot serve similar sentences for concealing similar amounts, and do equally similar hard time. Elite thieves should be tracked down by the likes of the US Marshals, no different than other criminals.

Treating wealthy elites differently from other criminals once they are imprisoned also must be ended. Some current white collar prisons have wooded parks in them. Prisoners get routine net access and email. Most get generous visits from family, with prisoners getting to choose a prison close to their family. Some white collar "prisons" allow prisoners to spend their days outside the facility. One in Pensacola even allows prisoners to go to a local movie theater.

This is obviously unjust. Let the fear of hard conditions, including the fear of other prisoners, become one more deterrent designed to make wealthy elite criminals honest. Let us stop the practice of being soft on crime when it is being done by those in $20,000 suits. Wall Street criminals should face justice no differently than those on Main Street.

Article 15- The Right to Privacy

" _1. The right to privacy, unless it can be shown to directly and obviously harm others or affect national security, shall not be abridged in any way. Private individuals shall not have their private lives divulged in any form without their consent unless they commit felonies, or failure to divulge such information can be shown to affect or harm others in a direct and obvious way."_

A mix of technology, commercial greed, and government intrusions threaten individual privacy in unprecedented ways. Information gathered online is routinely bought and sold without a person even knowing about it. Using the excuse of terrorism, the government monitors billions of emails and phone calls. The media is consumed with gossip far more than journalism, leading to a nation where most know celebrity affairs in detail but cannot name recent Supreme Court decisions that affect their lives far more.

A government cannot un-invent technology. But a government can prevent disclosure, and punish it by law, or allow lawsuits to make such revelations unprofitable. Government and big business both too often divulge private lives because there are no consequences for doing so. The standards under which private information could be revealed must be high, and failing to do so must somehow be shown to cause harm. An examples of allowing public disclosure could include sex offenders being on public registries, while a contrary example might be disclosing someone as a closeted gay might threaten their life if they live in a reactionary area, whether Saudi Arabia or South Carolina.

The Supreme Court ruled decades ago there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, leading to the legalizing of abortion. The courts have repeatedly upheld this, even while a minority has successfully passed hundreds of restrictions locally. This proposed article will make the right to privacy explicit, guaranteeing abortion rights. The anti-abortion lobby should learn the best way to limit abortion is to make it unneeded, by making access to and understanding of birth control universal. Even more, building privacy rights directly into the constitution can guard against the many other intrusions we increasingly see.

" _2. Libel, slander, or defamation of public figures is subject to the same punishments and standards as for private individuals."_

Currently it is almost impossible to defame a public figure. Thus it is perfectly legal to seriously claim Obama is a reptilian alien space overlord, a homosexual prostitute, secretly the son of a Black Panther, or of course the vicious open bigotry of the birth certificate/secret Muslim hysteria. On the other side of the aisle, an industry of deluded people using bad science claim GW Bush ordered or allowed the murder of 3,000 people on September 11, trying to change an enormously incompetent president into a traitorous mass killer.

The effect of allowing such defamation is toxic to a democracy. Enormous energy has to be devoted to refuting such idiocies, and perhaps a third of the members of both parties adhere to such craziness. (To be fair, few Democratic leaders pander to or promote such claims, while numerous Republican ones do.)

Entire political movements are diverted, distracted, and ruined. The energy spent trying to prove the loony conspiracy claiming GW Bush carried out or allowed 9-11 could have actually done something useful, like stop two ruinous wars. The effort spent on one theory on Obama after another, each more grotesque or hate filled than the one before, could have prevented the GOP from getting locked into a self-destructive cycle based on the futile bigoted anger of a dying demographic.

Much of such defamation is driven by partisan ideology or outright bigotry. But much is also driven by the profit motive catering to ideologues, ignorance, and lurid interest. Ending the profitability of defamation can dramatically reduce it, and produce a far less poisonous atmosphere for public debate.

" _3. Private information on public figures cannot be divulged without their consent unless it can be shown to serve the public interest, or if their private lives contradict their public opinions and actions."_

The Lewinsky so called scandal (pick your silly name, Zippergate, Forni-gate, etc.) was not unique. Bouts of outrage over sexual morality, much of them feigned, go very far back. In the election of 1800, supporters of both candidates invented stories of Jefferson and John Adams consorting with prostitutes. Jefferson's relationship with his slave Sally Hemmings, with her bearing him eight children, later became an issue, one devastating to the future of America for the next half century.

Most Americans do not realize that **Jefferson was the strongest American anti-slavery voice of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries**. He worked steadily to abolish the slave trade for fully half his life. As a colonial legislator, he was able to pass a law limiting the slave trade in Virginia. In the earliest years of the new United States, he was the one most responsible for barring slavery in future northern states with the Northwest Ordinance. As president, he successfully barred the entire overseas slave trade to the US. **Hundreds of thousands of Africans did not perish in the Atlantic slave trade to the US because of Jefferson.**

But after Jefferson's relationship to Hemmings was exposed, he completely reversed himself on slavery. Jefferson never spoke out strongly against slavery again. He even sent military and financial aid to Haiti's slave owners and led efforts to isolate Haiti after slaves successfully revolted and overthrew their masters. Such was the destructive effects of spying into a public figure's private life. One can also point to a more recent example. Congressman Kevin McCarthy was forced to withdraw from being the next House Speaker because of outright blackmail, threats to reveal an alleged affair.

One of the few good things to come out of the Lewinsky noise was that it showed conclusively **the public mostly does not care about politicians' sex lives. Clinton actually came out of the affair more popular than ever, and Republicans suffered great losses in the next election** for pandering to the pretended puritanical morality of a hypocritical small group. Only a quarter of the nation favored the impeachment, which to the amazement of the rest of the world succeeded.

We as a nation don't care about the private lives of politicians, in the sense that it affects most of our votes or raises or lowers our opinion of said politicians. Some of us only care about what politicians do below the waist in the same sense we do about celebrities, on the level of gossipy interest and amusement. But none of us really need to know.

The only instance in which the private life of a public figure should matter is if it is shown to contradict their public stance. If an anti-gay rights politician is a closeted homosexual, that is relevant. If a politician has a straight affair with a consenting adult, that is irrelevant. **Only if there is a crime involved, or a conflict of interest such as the person being a lobbyist, should their private life matter.** Their privacy should not end simply because they are in public office. No one's privacy should be abridged unless doing so directly and obviously harms the nation and society.

The standard for public revelation for public figures must be high and strictly defined. One must be able to show both direct harm to the public, such as a private relationship being with a lobbyist on issues the politician must vote on. The harm must also be obvious, with no extended or vague claims, such as that breaking the marriage vows make a politician less trustworthy.

Other public figures such as celebrities, and especially those who simply have the misfortune to be related to the famous, should not have their privacy invaded. (I hasten to point out, obviously many celebrities put themselves on display for publicity's sake, and this proposal does not apply to them since they voluntarily disclose their once private lives.) When media invade the lives of young and even underage relations of celebrities and politicians, clearly it has gone too far.

All clauses of this proposed article argue that journalism should actually be journalism rather than gossip mongering, that government intrusions should end at the front doors of private homes, and that businesses and individuals who invade another's privacy will face lawsuits or even jail time. Courts have previously argued for "the right to be left alone." This proposal seeks to make that a reality.

Amendments That Don't Belong in the US Constitution

There are some amendments any future US constitutional convention, or any amendment effort period, should avoid: the poorly thought out, destructive, useless, or unnecessary proposals. If an amendment's goals can be achieved by ordinary law, there should be no such amendment. If an amendment's goals are either extremely broad or extremely narrow, there should be no such amendment either.

A too broad goal is one that cannot be achieved by the said amendment, such as a balanced budget amendment, which will never bring about its hoped for balanced budgets for the federal government. A too narrow goal would be a ban on flag burning, which is aimed at punishing a particular belief and making a rare exception to a previous amendment. These below are the biggest wastes of time when trying to amend the Constitution:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment:

**Lack of a balanced budget does little harm to either the government or the US economy** , as long as the economy is strong and US credit ratings are high. The highest deficit in US history by percentage of the economy was during World War II, and the US only became far more prosperous as a direct result. Not only that, such an amendment would bar the deficit spending frequently used to lift the nation out of recessions and depressions. Thus the amendment would have to have an escape clause, one that would easily make the amendment useless.

Balanced budgets are also an elitist obsession, a way to limit social spending aimed at a more just society. They are further an obsession of those who falsely think businessmen or business models are best suited to run government. Since the purposes of governments and businesses are direct opposites, public good vs. private profit, that belief could not be more false.

2. Term Limits Amendment:

For most of US history, term limits were unneeded. Congressmen and presidents, notably Washington, voluntarily limited their time in office with public pledges. One did not see widespread long periods of office for congressmen until post World War II. In Franklin Roosevelt's case, he was elected overwhelmingly to four terms, and the country was certainly far better off than the alternatives. The presidential term limits amendment to the US Constitution was largely a petty partisan slap at FDR's legacy by reactionary Republicans.

**Term limits have already been tried in some cities, counties, and states. While they remain popular, they have done little to affect the concentration of power by elites. If anything, they worsen it.** Inexperienced elected officials have little time to learn about legislating, and so depend on corporate elites more than ever. Relying on term limits is a way to sidestep the issue of money's influence in politics. It gives the public the illusion of actually doing something useful, and shifts the blame from wealthy elites to elected public servants who now serve those elites more slavishly than before.

3. Equal Rights Amendment (ERA):

In theory, this amendment makes perfect and fitting sense, an explicit bar to gender discrimination. Except that this matter is already covered by the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. It's also been covered by hundreds of ordinary statutory laws since the 1970s. Passing this amendment would have been badly needed when first proposed, or before the anti-gender discrimination legislation beginning in the 1970s. Passing it today would only be symbolic, and this amendment already failed back in the 1970s thanks to incompetent planning and advocacy.

This is certainly not to downplay continuing sexism and gender inequality. It's only to point out we have reached the limits of what can be done by law. Ending sexism is a noble and righteous goal, but it must be done societally and culturally, not by an act of empty symbolism.

4. Overturning, Limiting, or Redefining the Second Amendment:

Every gun massacre and the attendant horrors, outcry, and publicity brings an understandable call for gun regulation. But any such effort at an amendment would bog down a constitutional convention, perhaps wreck it entirely, as it would wreck most legislative sessions. A dedicated minority will work fanatically hard to block it. That's exactly why every proposal is always through ordinary law, and even then has a great deal of difficulty passing.

**Such an amendment is also unneeded. Media coverage of gun massacres give a false impression. Violent crime and gun deaths have both been steadily dropping for a third of a century.** The biggest source of gun deaths is actually suicides. The actual greatest need is for public health treatment for the mentally ill, and removing access to guns for them, which can be done by ordinary law. Universal background checks are supported by almost literally everyone, including a majority of NRA members, over the objections of gun makers who actually control the NRA. Such laws passing are a matter of time, and changing the Second Amendment is unneeded.

4. Outlawing Abortion/"Right to Life" Amendment:

Asking the US Congress to define an enormously complex matter like when life begins is ludicrous. The greatest philosophers, theologians, and scientists cannot agree on the matter. Grandstanding political hacks, driven by the need to score points for reelection, could hardly be expected to do better.

The other most obvious reason such an amendment should never be passed is simply that most Americans don't want it. **Less than a quarter of Americans want to see all abortion outlawed.** Far more have moral objections to some or all abortions, but most don't trust government with a matter so emotional, personal, and bound up with the most deeply held beliefs about life, choice, and freedom.

5. Barring Gay Marriage Amendment ("Defense of Marriage"):

Banning or outlawing gay marriage is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause and of civil liberties. Contrary to some claims, same sex marriage is actually thousands of years old in America. American Indians tribes have been practicing it for as far back as any of them can trace. Over two dozen tribes currently recognize gay marriage. Most have no law explicitly banning it. Less than a dozen tribes do ban it, mostly those with the strongest colonialist influence on their spiritual traditions. The moral panic some conservative Christians express over gay marriage is very sheltered, much like the outrage over "living in sin" (unmarried couples living together) that US society went through in the 1970s. That outrage from the 1970s looks quaint today, and so will anger over gay marriage within a few decades.

6. Flag Burning Amendment:

Having an entire amendment just to ban a tiny number of expressions of protest one disagrees with is a good example of nearly everything an amendment should not be used for. Those who revere the American flag are practicing what scholars often call civil religion. Patriotism has the same force in their lives that religion does for many others. The clearest evidence of that is referring to flag burning as "desecration." An object must be considered sacred before it can be desecrated.

The flag can be a noble symbol of many things, a nation and its principles. But the founders did not share such reverence for the flag. They took their time approving the first official American flags, and only bothered doing so to avoid US ships firing on each other by mistake.

7. School Prayer Amendment:

There has always been and always will be prayer in schools, as long as students fail to study. The only question is if government should force religion upon minors. Those who think of religious faith as a good thing should not favor the law forcing empty ritual prayer onto others. For faith to be strong and genuine, it must come from the heart, not under threat of law. **Government intrusions into spiritual faith have the effect of discrediting religion, making a nation far less religious.** The perfect example of that is Europe, where most Europeans are atheists or agnostics precisely because of the ties between state and church.

The greatest need for amendments to the Constitution continue to be to end the influence of money in politics, and through that to limit and reverse growing inequality. The second greatest need for amendments is to reverse the deliberate anti-democratic nature of the constitution imposed by the founders. That means abolishing the Electoral College and the Senate, separately electing Vice Presidents, guaranteeing the right to vote, having a national holiday for elections, etc. Every one of the seven proposed amendments listed before, except the ERA, are poorly thought out fits of pique.

Conclusions:

Why a New Constitution Is Needed

There has been an interesting mix of reactions to my articles at _Counterpunch_ , _DailyKos_ , and _Democratic Underground_ discussing constitutional reform. Some responses were knee jerk rejection, mostly incoherent or bluster. The angriest responses were essentially, "How dare you even talk about this?"

As I argued at the start, many Americans are afflicted with constitution worship. The constitution is just not to be questioned, and even those who think of themselves as left of center often become like fundamentalists on the subject. A few responded with hysteria, paranoia, or conspiracy theories. One insisted any constitutional convention would be taken over by Monsanto. (It's amusing to imagine this person's paranoia as they try to eat every day.)

But those reactions were a distinct minority, not even a fourth of the respondents. Most responses were well thought out. Most often those that disagreed with my own proposals had read much history and law, given much thought to the subject, and had intelligent critical responses and their own counter proposals.

**The most common counter argument was that what was needed more than anything was for the current rights in the constitution to be actually followed.** Articles in the constitution give the power to declare war to congress, and the Fifteenth Amendment is supposed to protect voting rights. My response is that the elitist nature of the current system put in place by the founders into the original constitution prevents the nobler parts of the document from being enforced. The bad drives out the good, and the former needs to be removed or reformed.

Ordinary law, statutory law, will never be enough to bring about the hoped for equal system. It will never bring an end to inequality, economic, social, or political. It will never happen as long as there is a constitution in place designed to preserve the power of elites and limit democracy.

This is because **if** a heavily propagandized public overcomes or is educated that such propaganda is propaganda...and then **if** that public elects congressmen or presidents who oppose inequality...and then **if** a law or laws are passed that seek to end that inequality... **such laws can and perhaps inevitably will always easily be repealed by wealthy elites the next election cycle**. Or they will be overturned by a Supreme Court appointed to protect the power of elites.

A single or several amendments also will not be enough. The panacea so many now argue for, repealing the _Citizens United_ decision, will not be enough. At best it would just be a start.

Deeper reforms are needed. The entirety of the constitution must be reformed. An entire convention needs to be convened, made up of true representatives of the public, as described in the first article of _A Proposed New Constitution_. Everything undemocratic about the constitution must be stripped away:

The Electoral College.

The Senate.

A Vice President chosen only by the President and not elected separately by the public.

A President able to send troops into combat without approval by Congress or the public.

Seven million Americans in territories and the District of Columbia, mostly nonwhite, who are not represented in Congress. The rule should be simple: Every American and every US territory should have congressmen.

A system which does not protect the right to vote, allowing elites in one state after another to gerrymander and restrict voting.

Continuing structural racism, both intended and unintended.

Regressive taxation and corporate welfare that benefits wealthy elites, and lack of punishment for wealthy and corporate offenders. The system must itself no longer be allowed to be a tool for elites to enrich themselves, impoverish everyone else, and be above the law.

Only a constitutional convention representative of the whole public and a constitution that preserves all current constitutional amendments while ending the original antidemocratic elitist intent of the founders can bring the necessary and permanent changes for a truly equal American society. Ordinary statutory law cannot achieve it. A single progressive amendment such as ending _Citizens United_ , passed through a deliberately regressive system, would not achieve it. Cultural and social movements cannot achieve an equal system on their own, for the political structure of the deliberately antidemocratic constitution we live under can veto it.

If such a movement towards a constitutional convention does not appear and win, then we can expect more of the same we have now: Petty partisan bickering over the outline and details of the system, but no true, long lasting, and deep structural reforms.

The choice is ours, ultimately.

Notes

Sources are in the order in which facts from them are cited. Dates accessed for all sources is as of November 30, 2015.

Notes for Introduction

Jefferson's view on a new constitution every 20 years can be found at "Popular Basis of Political Authority," <http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html>.

Statistics on reforms most Americans want can be found at the following:

Abolishing the Electoral College- "Americans Would Swap Electoral College for Popular Vote," Lydia Saad,  http://www.gallup.com/poll/150245/americans-swap-electoral-college-popular-vote.aspx.

Publicly funded elections- "Majority of Americans Want Money Out of Politics," Karin Kamp,  http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/21/majority-americans-want-money-politics/.

Shorter election campaigns- "Voters Want Shorter Primary Election Period, National Referendums on Issues-Poll," _Washington Times_ ,  http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/jul/10/voters-want-shorter-primary-election-period-nation/.

Ending wars quickly in Vietnam and Iraq- Most Americans opposed the first war by 1968, by 2005 for the second. "Iraq vs. Vietnam: A Comparison of Public Opinion," Frank Newport and Joseph Carroll,  http://www.gallup.com/poll/18097/iraq-versus-vietnam-comparison-public-opinion.aspx.

Ending most foreign military aid and support for dictators- "Most Americans Favor End to US Foreign Aid to the Middle East Except Israel," _Rasmussen Reports_ ,  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/most_americans_favor_end_to_u_s_foreign_aid_to_middle_east_except_israel.

Supreme Court term limits- "Americans Favor Supreme Court Term Limits," Lawrence Hurley,  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/20/us-usa-court-poll-idUSKCN0PU09820150720#8WH3yaXqkuXpCWft.97.

Guaranteeing privacy from government and corporate intrusion- "Public Perceptions of Privacy in the Post Snowden Era," Mary Madden,  www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/public-privacy-perceptions/.

The founders' motivation for the American Revolution being to hold onto slavery is most extensively argued in Gerald Horne's _The Counter-Revolution_.

Thomas Paine's proposal for a guaranteed income is at "Two Arguments for Basic Income- Thomas Paine and Thomas Spence," John Marangos,  https://www.academia.edu/2698139/Two_arguments_for_Basic_Income_Thomas_Paine_1737-1809_and_Thomas_Spence_1750-1814_.

The Massachusetts Revolution is best described in Ray Raphael's _A People's History of the American Revolution._ Continental Army mutinies and their class nature are in _Voice of a People's History of the United States_ by Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove. New Jersey's votes for women is at "Rethinking Women's Suffrage in New Jersey," Jan Allen Lewis,  http://www.rutgerslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/archive/vol63/Issue3/Lewis.pdf.

Shay's Rebellion is described as having affected the constitutional convention in David Szatzmary's _Shay's Rebellion_. A counter argument is at Robert Feer's "Shay's Rebellion and the Constitution" at  http://personal.tcu.edu/gsmith/GraduateCourse/Colonial%20PDF%20Articles/RobertFeer.pdf. Feer's argument is severely undermined by him providing many contrary pieces of evidence in that very essay.

The constitutional convention's secretive nature, including no notes being taken, is at "The Federalist Papers #51," <http://fd.valenciacollege.edu/file/jhelligso/federalist.pdf>

Votes against the constitution are at Sol Bloom, "Questions & Answers Pertaining to the Constitution,"  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html.

Political scientist Larry Sabato's proposals are in his _A More Perfect Constitution_. The entire book is online at <http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/23_proposals.htm>.

Notes for Article 1

One of the many sources on the drop in gun deaths and crime is at Daniel Wood, "US Crime Rate at Lowest Point in Decades," _Christian Science Monitor_ ,  www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now. See also CNN Staff, _Cable News Network_ , "Study: Gun Homicides, Violence, Down Sharply in Past 20 Years," www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/. See also Margot Sanger-Katz, _New York Times_ , "Gun Deaths Are Mostly Suicides,"  www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html?_r=0

The background of the founders is at "The Founding Fathers- A Brief Overview,"  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html. For religious background, see Franklin Lambert's. The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America.

Camp David negotiating is described at "Camp David Accords: Jimmy Carter Reflects 25 Years Later," <http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1482.html>.

Public distrust of NAFTA and GATT is at Cynthia English, "Opinion Briefing-NAFTA,"  http://www.gallup.com/poll/113200/opinion-briefing-north-american-free-trade-agreement.aspx. The wealth of US congressmen is at Jennifer Manning, "Membership of the 113th Congress-A Profile,"

 www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%2BR%5CC%3F%0A.

See also Viveca Novak, "Freshmen Congressmen Make Congress Even Wealthier,"

 www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/new-congress-new-and-more-wealth/

Austin being the largest city without its own congressional district is at Gardner Selby, "Austin Legislator Calls Austin Largest US City Without Congressional District Anchored In It,"  http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jul/17/elliott-naishtat/austin-legislator-calls-austin-largest-us-city-wit/.

Notes for Article 2

Comparing the elections of 1876 and 2000 is at Manning Marable, "Stealing the Election: The Compromises of 1876 and 2000,"  www.colorado.edu/journals/standards/V7N2/FIRST/marable.html.

An uncensored version of John Garner's quote is at "11 Insults About Being Vice President,"  http://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/08/11-insults-about-being-vice-president/000342-004455.html and at Robert Slayton's _Empire Statesman_ online at  https://books.google.com/books?id=bOahalX-CxQC&pg=PA372&lpg=PA372&dq=john+garner+warm+piss&source=bl&ots=PEoQONOdft&sig=8IHXdanPWU9fgLgV2dvnsSppumo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFEQ6AEwB2oVChMInK_WsPWOyQIVA6UeCh0tYggM#v=onepage&q=john%20garner%20warm%20piss&f=false pg. 371.

The makeup of the US Senate is at Jennifer Manning's "Membership of the 112th Congress-A Profile," <http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/R41647.pdf>.

Education for liberation rather than passivity is most famously argued in Paolo Freire's landmark _Education as the Practice of Freedom_ and _Pedagogy of the Oppressed_.

The wealthy's lack of philanthropy, proportionately compared to non-wealthy, is at Ken Stern,"Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity,"  www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/.

Florida's vote purging under Katherine Harris is archived at Scott Hiassen, Gary Kane, and Elliot Jaspin, _Palm Beach Post_ ,"Felon Purge Sacrificed Innocent Voters,"  https://web.archive.org/web/20041010061949/http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/election2000/election2000_felons2.html

Ken Blackwell's role in disenfranchising many Ohio voters is at Bob Fitrakis, _Free Press_ , "More Than a Million Ohio Voters Purges in Runup to 2008 Election,"  http://freepress.org/article/new-free-press-study-reveals-more-million-ohio-voters-purged-run-2008-election-%E2%80%93-republican and Pete Shuler, _City Beat_ , "Ken Blackwell's Disgraceful Election Machinations,"  http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-9128-ken-blackwells-disgraceful-election-machinations.html.

John Anderson's support is at "About John Anderson," www.noholdingbackbook.com/about-john-anderson/. Attempts to limit his ballot access are at George Merry, Christian Science Monitor, "Anderson Still Battling to Get on State Ballots,"www.csmonitor.com/1980/0923/092335.html.

Notes on Article 3

British limits on campaign spending are at Claire Feikert, "Campaign Finance: United Kingdom," <http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/uk.php>.

Notes on Article 4

British limits on time allowed for campaigning are also at www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/uk.php.

Notes on Article 5

Australia's very minor fines for not voting are at "Voting in Australia: FAQs," www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm.

Iroquois concepts of dual US and tribal citizenship are described at length in Kevin Bryneel," Challenging American Boundaries: Indigenous People and the "Gift" of US Citizenship,"

 www.academia.edu/1613614/Challenging_American_Boundaries_Indigenous_People_and_the_Gift_of_U.S._Citizenship An example of at least nominal or theoretical US government recognition of this is at Office of the Press Secretary, "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,"  http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040923-4.html.

Notes for Article 6

Citizens United opposition from McCain and Nader are at, respectively, Kasie Hunt, _Politico_ , "McCain Feingold Diverge on Ruling,"  http://www.politico.com/story/2010/01/mccain-feingold-diverge-on-ruling-031810 and Ralph Nader, _Counterpunch_ , "The Supremes Bow to King Corporation,"  http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/01/22/the-supremes-bow-to-king-corporation/.

Corporate charters' limits in early America are described at Thom Hartmann, _Truth Out_ , "Unequal Protection: The Early Role of Corporations in America,"  www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america.

The Bill of Rights proposal to limit corporate power, especially monopolies, is at Andrew Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, "The Founder's Constitution,"

<http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html>.

Workplace deaths estimates are at Sarina Gleason and Kenneth Rosenman, "Early Numbers Show Decrease in Workplace Deaths,"  http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2014/early-numbers-show-decrease-in-workplace-deaths-in-2013/

How many jailed for the Savings and Loan Scandal is at _New York Times_ , Two Financial Crises Compared,"  www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/14/business/20110414-prosecute.html?_r=0.

The West Virginia Mine Wars' deaths, mostly caused by private armies, are at _West Virginia State Archives_ , "West Virginia's Mine Wars," <http://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html> and _West Virginia Mine Wars Museum_ , "History," <http://www.wvminewars.com/history/>.

The Taft Hartley Act's intent and practice of union breaking is at Steven Wagner, _History News Network_ , "How Did the Taft-Hartley Act Come About?" <http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1036>.

How many Americans support unions compared to how many are in one is at Andy Kiersz, _Gallup Union Poll_ , "Americans Want Unions, www.businessinsider.com/gallup-union-poll-2015-8.

Growing inequality in America is at numerous sources, among them Nicholas Fitz, _Scientific American_ , "Economic Inequality: It's Far Worse Thank You Think,"  www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/, Drew Desilver, _Pew Research Center_ , "Global Inequality: How the US Compares,"

 www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/19/global-inequality-how-the-u-s-compares/, and Anna Kordunsky, _Christian Science Monitor_ , "Income Inequality: How does the US compare to other countries,"  www.csmonitor.com/World/2014/0129/Income-inequality-How-does-the-US-compare-to-other-countries/US-in-global-context.

Notes for Article 7

Scholarship that admits genocide was committed against American Indians includes most notably David Stannard's _American Holocaust_. One can also point to how the field of Genocide Studies routinely studies and admits Native genocide, such as _Yale University Genocide Studies Program_ , "Case Studies," <http://gsp.yale.edu/case-studies>. California Indian Genocide in particular has been the focus of much recent study, such as _Indian Country Diaries: PBS_ , "California Genocide," www.pbs.org/indiancountry/history/calif.html and outstanding, badly needed books like Brendan Lindsay's _Murder State_ and Clifford Trafzer's _Exterminate Them_.

Holocaust Studies being taught in German public secondary schools is at Gunter Wehrmann, _German Information Center_ , "Holocaust Education in Germany,"  https://web.archive.org/web/20141220190548/http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1998-no-frames/holocaust-ed-in-germany.htm.

The frequent lack of tribal sovereignty over outsiders is described in detail at _Tribal Court Clearinghouse_ , "General Guide to Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country," <http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/jurisdiction.htm>

The New Deal for Indians is described at _History Matters_ , "A Bill of Rights for Indians," <http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5059/>.

The Termination policy from the late 1940s to the 1960s is described in Donald Fixico's _Termination and Relocation_.

Walter Plecker's scientific racism and efforts to reclassify all American Indians in Virginia as "negro" is at "Battles in Red, Black and White: Virginia's Racial Integrity Law of 1924," <http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/poca/POC_law.html>.

The best source on fraudulent groups posing as American Indian tribes is an organization I have been part of for over a decade, New Age Frauds Plastic Shamans or NAFPS at www.newagefraud.org.

Tribes' legal status defined by the courts as domestic dependent nations is at Vincent Ferraro, <https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/cherokee.htm>

Schwarzenegger's anti-Indian bigotry during his election campaign is described in half a dozen articles gathered at _Blue Corn Comics_ , "Stereotype of the Month Entry 10/7/04," www.bluecorncomics.com/stype4a2.htm. Governor Pataki's history of contention with Native tribes is at William Glaberson, _New York Times_ , "Trying to Unite Fractured Tribe While Fighting State Over Taxes,"  www.nytimes.com/1997/04/22/nyregion/trying-to-unite-fractured-tribe-while-fighting-state-over-taxes.html?pagewanted=all.

The Black Hills as holy to the Lakota is at Ruth Hopkins, _Indian Country Today_ , "Reclaiming the Sacred Black Hills,"  http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/28/reclaiming-sacred-black-hills.

The Dawes Act fractionating of reservations is at "Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 1831,"

 http://lawschool.unm.edu/tlj/tribal-law-journal/articles/volume_2/welliver/index.php.

The Kingdom of Hawaii's illegal overthrow by the US is at Eugene Tyler Chamberlain, "The Hawaiian Situation,"  http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4050.

Hawaii's illegitimate statehood vote is at Alexandria Martin, "Hawaii's Statehood," www2.fiu.edu/~harveyb/hawaiianstatehood1.html.

Puerto Rico's population being larger than 20 states is at Sonia Collazo, Camille Ryan, Kurt Bauman, _US Census Bureau_ , "Profile of the Puerto Rican Population in the US and Puerto Rico,"  www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/acs/paa2010/Collazo_Ryan_Bauman_PAA2010_Paper.pdf. Puerto Rico's independence movement crushed by violence and their sometimes violent resistance is at Maryann Battle, "Violent Struggle for Puerto Rican Independence Shatters Families on Both Sides of the Fight," <http://cronkite.asu.edu/buffett/puertorico/independista.html> and Katherine Rodriguez Perez, "Reports on the Ponce Massacre,"  http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1569&context=etd_hon_theses.

Guam's lack of self-rule for the first 60 years of US control is at Michael Lujan Bevaqua, Guampedia, "American Style Colonialism," <http://www.guampedia.com/american-style-colonialism/>.

Washington DC's lack of local self-rule for most of its history is at Robert Byrd, "District of Columbia Home Rule," <https://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/16/byrd.pdf>. Puerto Rican representatives' unanimous opposition to imposed US citizenship is at Henry Franqui-Rivera, "National Mythologies: US Citizenship for the People of Puerto Rico," www.redalyc.org/pdf/855/85529051004.pdf p.6. The gag order forbidding discussing Puerto Rican independence is at AJ Vicens, "The Lost History of Puerto Rico's Independence Movement," <http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/159210>.

US Virgin Islanders' support for independence is described in William Boyer's _America's Virgin Islands: A History of Human Rights and Wrongs._ The independence activists known as the VI Five jailed on dubious charges of murder is at Haniff Shabazz Bey, _Prison Issues_ ,"Haniff Shabazz Bey Memoir,"  www.library.umass.edu/spcoll/umarmot/category/social-change/prison-issues/.

Notes for Article 8

American support for the wars in Vietnam compared to Iraq is at Mark Lorell, Charles Kelly Jr., "Casualties, Public Opinion, and Presidential Policy During the Vietnam War,"  www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R3060.pdf and _Pew Research Center_ , "Public Attitudes Toward the War in Iraq,"  www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/.

The US Army numbering 140,000 in the 1930s is in Steven Waddell's _United States Army Logistics,_ p. 6.

One of the founders' opinions against a standing army for the US is at Alexander Hamilton, "Federalist Paper No. 26," www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed26.htm and George Washington, "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment," <http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s6.html>. Washington was against a large standing army, but in favor of a military academy and a small army.

A history of US filibusters or private invasions is at Robert May, "Manifest Destiny's Underworld," <http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/page/526>.

Grant's Peace Policy reducing battles between the US Army and Native tribes by three fourths is in Gregory Michno's _Encyclopedia of Indian Wars_ , p. 362.

One list of US invasions from 1890 to World War II is at Zoltan Grossman, "From Wounded Knee to Syria," <http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html>. Also see William Blum's _Killing Hope_.

Obama arguing he can use authorization for the Iraq War and apply it to military strikes and aid against ISIS is at James Arkin, _Real Clear Politics_ ,"Latest Push for ISIS War Authorization Fails,"  www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/17/latest_push_for_isis_war_authorization_fails.html.

Nixon and GW Bush saying they ignored public opinion, in particular antiwar demonstrations, is in Rhodri Jeffrey Jones, _Peace Now_ p.5. See also Ishaan Tharoor, _Time_ , "Why Was the Biggest Protest in World History Ignored?"

 http://world.time.com/2013/02/15/viewpoint-why-was-the-biggest-protest-in-world-history-ignored/

Japan's constitution renouncing war is at "The Constitution of Japan,"  http://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html.

The firing of Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975 orchestrated by US and UK intelligence is at John Pilger, _The Guardian_ , "The 1975 Coup That Ended Australian Independence,"  www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence.

Attempted assassinations of Castro are most extensively detailed in _638 Ways to Kill Castro_ from Channel 4 documentaries.

Hillary Clinton's adviser's role in the Honduras military coup is at _Telesur_ , "Hillary Clinton Implicated in Honduras Coup, Emails Reveal,"  http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Hillary-Clinton-Implicated-in-Honduras-Coup-Emails-Reveal-20150707-0022.html.

The War Powers Act never being successfully used to stop a war is at Alan Greenblatt, _NPR_ , "Why the War Powers Act Doesn't Work,"  www.npr.org/2011/06/16/137222043/why-the-war-powers-act-doesnt-work.

Franklin Roosevelt choosing to avoid trying to halt or limit the Holocaust has been the subject of much recent scholarship, notably Rafael Medoff's _FDR and the Holocaust_ and David Wyman's _The Abandonment of the Jews._

Nixon seeking to block India's Prime Minister Indira Gandhi from halting the Bengali genocide is most extensively discussed in Gary Bass's _The Blood Telegram._

Bill Clinton's admission he could have limited genocide in Rwanda is at Tania Bryer, _CNBC_ , "Bill Clinton: We Could Have Saved 300,000 Lives in Rwanda," www.cnbc.com/id/100546207.

The UN stopping or preventing wars is at _United Nations_ , "60 Ways the United Nations Makes a Difference,"  www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/visitors/shared/documents/pdfs/Pub_United%20Nations_60%20ways.pdf.

Few congressmen's offspring enlisting for the last two wars is at Sheryl Gay Stolberg, _New York Times_ , "A Nation at War: Children of Lawmakers,"  www.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/us/a-nation-at-war-children-of-lawmakers-senators-sons-in-war-an-army-of-one.html.

Notes for Article 9

Puerto Rico's deliberately confusing independence referendum is at Juan Gonzalez, _New York Daily News_ , "Puerto Rico's Complex Statehood Vote,"  www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gonzalez-puerto-rico-complex-statehood-vote-article-1.1201608.

Disruption caused by California's Proposition 13 is at Michael Marois, James Nash, _Bloomberg_ , "California Schools Suffering as Proposition 13 Tax Cap Breeds Fiscal Chaos,"  www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-12/california-schools-suffering-as-proposition-13-tax-cap-breeds-fiscal-chaos.

Larouche's organization collecting signatures by fraud for a referendum to spread AIDS hysteria is at Kevin Roderick, _Los Angeles Times_ , "Two Groups Cited in Probe of Suspect Prop 64 Petitions,"  http://articles.latimes.com/1986-09-30/news/mn-10260_1_larouche-organizations.

The recall that removed California Governor Gray Davis is most extensively described in Alex Gibney's _Enron: Smartest Guys in the Room._

The number of birthers in the general public is described at Lymari Morales, _Gallup_ , "Obama Birth Certificate Convinces Some But Not All Skeptics,"  www.gallup.com/poll/147530/obama-birth-certificate-convinces-not-skeptics.aspx.

Notes for Article 10

Early fire departments and their history of theft is at Tina Dupuy, _Huffingtonpost_ , "Firefighting in the 1800s,"  www.huffingtonpost.com/tina-dupuy/firefighting-in-the-1800s_b_247936.html.

The Pinkerton Detective Agency's failures in the Civil War are described at Cate Lineberry, "The Union's Spy Game," _New York Times_ ,  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/the-unions-spy-game/?_r=0.

The role of private contractors as torturers in Abu Ghraib is described at Noah Bierman, _Los Angeles Times_ , "Few Have Faced Consequences for Abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq,"  www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-abu-ghraib-lawsuit-20150317-story.html.

High turnover of agents in Iraq is described in Ali Allawi's _The Occupation of Iraq,_ p. 179.

The Blackwater massacre of civilians and the killing of the Iraqi Vice President's bodyguard by a drunken Blackwater mercenary is at Matt Apuzo, _New York Times,_ "Ex Blackwater Guards Given Long Terms for Killing Iraqis,"  www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/ex-blackwater-guards-sentenced-to-prison-in-2007-killings-of-iraqi-civilians.html and Eric Schmitt, _New York Times_ , "Report Details Shooting by Drunken Blackwater Worker,"  www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/world/middleeast/02shooting.html. Mercenaries outnumbering US troops in Iraq is at Christian Miller, _Los Angeles Times_ , "Contractors Outnumber Soldiers in Iraq," <http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/04/nation/na-private4>.

The Praetorian Guard often choosing the next Roman Emperor is at "Praetorian Guard,"  www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spqr/army-praetorian-guard.htm. Mercenaries' destructive role in the Thirty Years War is in Peter Wilson's _The Thirty Years War._

Some US military planes costing more than solid gold is at _Brookings Institute_ , "B-2A Stealth Bomber Test,"  www.brookings.edu/about/projects/archive/nucweapons/b2atest. "Hercules/Spruce Goose" is at www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/hk-1.htm. Frequent M16 jams are at CJ Chivers, _New York Times_ , "How Reliable in the M16 Rifle?"  http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/.

A history of Israeli defense industry as publicly owned or in public-private partnership is at the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, "Israel Science and Technology: Defense Industry," www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Economy/eco1.html .

US healthcare's and pharmaceuticals's higher cost, and a lower US life expectancy are at Jason Kane, _PBS Newshour_ , Health Costs: How the US Compares With Other Countries."  www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/, Nadi Kounang, _CNN_ , "Why Pharmaceuticals Are Cheaper Abroad," www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/health/us-pays-more-for-drugs/, and Henry Blodget, _Business Insider_ , "Look Where the US Is On This Chart of Life Expectancy vs Healthcare Spending,"  www.businessinsider.com/life-expectancy-vs-healthcare-spending-2014-3.

US public schools' lower dropout rates is at Richard Fry, _Pew Research Center_ , "US High School Dropout Reaches Record Low Driven by Improvements Among Hispanics, Blacks,"  www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-high-school-dropout-rate-reaches-record-low-driven-by-improvements-among-hispanics-blacks/. Private university pupils getting more public money than public ones is at Robert Reich, "Why the US Government Spends More Per Pupil at Elite Private Universities Than Public Universities," <http://robertreich.org/post/99923361875>.

Evidence of Rupert Murdoch not being conservative is at David Folkenflik, "Five Myths About Rupert Murdoch," _Washington Post_ ,  www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-rupert-murdoch/2013/11/08/341837ea-47bf-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html.

The number of global warming deniers among the US public is at Andrew Dugan, _Gallup_ , "Americans Most Likely to Say Global Warming Is Exaggerated,"  www.gallup.com/poll/167960/americans-likely-say-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx.

The First Amendment not covering libel is at Legal Information Institute, "Libel: Wex Legal Dictionary," www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel.

Notes for Article 11

The earliest American racist immigration laws are at Jana Evans Braziel, "History of Migration and Immigration Laws in the US," www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html.

An example of the bans on Native languages and ceremonies is at "Revival," www.bsu.edu/eft/ancestors/p/section7.swf.

Social Security not covering most minorities in its early years is at Larry Dewitt, "The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act," www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html.

The Foreign Miners Tax aimed at Chinese and Mexicans is at _PBS_ , "Mexicans in the Gold Rush,"  www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldrush/peopleevents/p_mexicans.html and _PBS_ , "This Land of Gold and Hope,"  www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/program/episodes/three/goldandhope.htm.

Voter ID laws being deliberately aimed at minorities is at Christopher Ingraham, _Washington Post_ , "Study Finds Strong Evidence for Discriminatory Intent Behind Voted ID Laws,"  www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/03/study-finds-strong-evidence-for-discriminatory-intent-behind-voter-id-laws/.

The US Department of Agriculture's long history of discrimination against minorities is at Fazal Raman, _Academia.Edu_ , "Report on Racism and Discrimination in the US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Justice, Federal Court System, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Other Agricultural Institutions, the Scientific Establishment, and US Society in General,"  www.academia.edu/8109550/Report_on_racism_and_discrimination_in_the_US_Department_of_Agriculture_US_Department_of_Justice_Federal_court_system_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission_other_agricultural_institutions_the_scientific_establishment_and_the_US_society_in_general.

Southern states issuing special license plates that aid the white supremacist Sons of Confederate Veterans is at Mark Potok, _Huffington Post_ , "Once Again Racism Rears Its Head In the Sons of Confederate Veterans,"  www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-potok/once-again-racism-rears-u_b_821869.html.

Singling out some Muslims, requiring them to register after the September 11 attacks, is at Sam Dolnick, _New York Times_ , "Antiterrrorism Registry Ends But Not Its Affects,"  www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/nyregion/antiterrorism-registry-ends-but-its-effects-remain.html?_r=0.

Evidence of a long continuous drop in some bigoted opinions is at Anna Maria Barry-Jester, "Attitudes Toward Racism and Inequality Are Shifting,"  http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/attitudes-toward-racism-and-inequality-are-shifting/.

Notes for Article 12

A Clinton administration member resigning over free football tickets is at Robert Rankin, _Philly.com_ , "Espy Resigns as Secretary of Agriculture,"  http://articles.philly.com/1994-10-04/news/25873674_1_patricia-dempsey-donald-smaltz-agriculture-secretary-mike-espy

Ford's pardon of Nixon costing him the election is at Ken Gormley, David Shribman, _Wall Street Journal_ , "The Nixon Pardon at 40,"  http://www.wsj.com/articles/ken-gormley-and-david-shribman-the-nixon-pardon-at-40-ford-looks-better-than-ever-1409955912.

George Bush Sr.'s part in the Iran Contra Scandal is described at "Understanding the Iran Contra Affair- George HW Bush,"  www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/profile-bush.php.

Martha Stewart's crime and punishment for it is at "Martha Stewart's Insider Trading Scandal,"  https://danielsethics.mgt.unm.edu/pdf/martha%20stewart%20case.pdf.

Social Security as a regressive tax is at Salvatore Babones, _Truth Out_ , "Flat Tax for Social Security,"  www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22701-sixteen-for-16-number-6-flat-tax-for-social-security.

The extremely low stock tax (fee) is described at Securities and Exchange Commission, "SEC Fee-Section 31 Transaction Fee," www.sec.gov/answers/sec31.htm.

Notes for Article 13

British failures at lemon socialism are at Steve Schifferes, _BBC News_ , "The Lessons of Nationalization," <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7250252.stm>.

The failed $7 trillion bailout of banks in the 2000s is at Staff, The Week, "The Federal Reserve's Breathtaking $7.7 Trillion Bank Bailout,"  http://theweek.com/articles/479867/federal-reserves-breathtaking-77-trillion-bank-bailout. The successful bailout of savings and loans in the 1980s is at FDIC, "The Savings and Loan Crisis and Its Relationship to Banking," www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/history/167_188.pdf

Mining and chemical companies often not paying for cleanup of their pollution is at Kevin Bogardus, _Public Integrity_ , "Bankrupt Companies Avoid More Than $700 Million in Cleanup Costs,"  www.publicintegrity.org/2007/05/03/5620/bankrupt-companies-avoid-more-700-million-cleanup-costs

Amazon's tax exemption (still ongoing in part) is at Robert Wood, _Forbes_ , "3 Ways to Still Avoid Sales Taxes Online,  www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/03/04/3-ways-to-still-avoid-sales-tax-online/.

Notes for Article 14

A discussion of holy poverty is at Connie Rossini, Contemplative Homeschool, "God Calls You to Holy Poverty,"  http://contemplativehomeschool.com/2013/07/12/god-calls-you-to-holy-poverty/.

Ayn Rand inspiring Satanists is at the Church of Satan, "Satanism and Objectivism," www.churchofsatan.com/satanism-and-objectivism.php.

The Astors' notorious parties during the Great Depression are described at PBS History Detectives, "1930s High Society,"  www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/1930s-high-society/.

Elvis chartering flights to get sandwiches is at Kristen Browning Blas, Denver Post, "Elvis Presley's Fool's Gold Sandwich Was Born in Denver,"  www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/ci_26274398/elvis-presley-sandwich-fools-gold-what-if-movie. Aaron Spelling's mansion is described at Alex Veiga, _ABC New_ s, "Most Expensive Home for Sale, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7189672&page=1.

Michael Jackson's home is described at Chelsea White, _Daily Mail_ , "This Is It! After Years of Teasing, Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch for Sale for an Astonishing 100 Million,"  www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3101512/After-years-teasing-Michael-Jackson-s-Neverland-Ranch-sale-astonishing-100m.html.

Nike's Phil Knight's notorious record is at Steve Boggans, _Common Dreams_ , "We Blew It, Nike Admits to Mistakes Over Child Labor," www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1020-01.htm and "Tell Nike to Just Do It" <http://spot.colorado.edu/~shortk/nike.html>.

US CEOs' pay compared to Japan's is at Roberto Ferdman, _Washington Post_ , "The Pay Gap Between CEOs and Workers Is Much Worse Than You Realize,"  www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/the-pay-gap-between-ceos-and-workers-is-much-worse-than-you-realize/ An early example of George Will on CEO pay is at George Will, _Observer Reporter_ , "Times Are Good in the Executive Suite,"  https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19910829&id=bX9eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5WENAAAAIBAJ&pg=1507,9629377&hl=en

Median US income is at US Census Bureau, "Historical Income Tables, People," www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people./ Median US wealth is at Marina Vortovitsky, Alfred Gottshalck, Adam Smith, US Census Bureau, "Distribution of Household Wealth in the US,"  www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20distribution%202000%20to%202011.pdf.

Trillions in concealed wealth is at Frederick Allen, _Forbes_ , "Super Rich Hide 21 Trillion Offshore Study Says,"  www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/23/super-rich-hide-21-trillion-offshore-study-says/. Al Capone's sentence for income tax evasion is at FBI, "Al Capone" www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/al-capone.

Notes for Article 15

Extensive debunking of September 11 conspiracies' bad science is at _Popular Mechanics_ , "Debunking the 9-11 Myths: Special Report," www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/.

GOP leaders as birthers is at Josh Israel,Think Progress, "7 Birthers Speaking at Republican Convention,"  http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/24/743791/birther-convention/ and Gabriel Winant, _Salon_ , "The Birthers in Congress," www.salon.com/2009/07/28/birther_enablers/.

The 1800 election smears are at Kerwin Swint, CNN, "Founding Fathers' Dirty Campaign,"  www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/22/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans/. Sally Hemmings' relationship with Jefferson is at "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings: A Brief Account,"  www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-brief-account.

Jefferson's long antislavery stance is in John Kaminski's _A Necessary Evil_ starting on p. 256. The death toll of the slave trade is heavily argued. One estimate is in Joseph Inikori and Stanley Ingerman's _The Atlantic SlaveTrade_ pgs 119-122. Milton Meltzer's _Slavery_ argued a death toll of one third just from "seasoning," the breaking of slaves upon arrival in the Caribbean, here quoted in <http://necrometrics.com/pre1700b.htm>. A death toll of up to 50% is argued by Herbert Klein, Stanley Engerman, Robin Haines, and Ralph Schlomovitz, "Transatlantic Mortality: The Slave Trade in Comparative Perspective,  http://web.stanford.edu/~hklein/Klein_etal_Mortality_ST_WMQ-2001.pdf.

Bill Clinton becoming more popular after the Lewinsky scandal is at Frank Newport, Gallup, "Presidential Job Approval: Bill Clinton's High Ratings in the Midst of Crisis 1998,"  www.gallup.com/poll/4609/presidential-job-approval-bill-clintons-high-ratings-midst.aspx. Most Americans opposing impeachment is at Keating Holland, CNN, "A Year After Clinton Impeachment, Public Approval Grows of House Decision,"  http://archives.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/16/impeach.poll/ As one can see, the article contradicts its own title.

Notes for Amendments That Don't Belong in a US Constitution

The highest deficits being during World War II and doing little harm to the US are at Brooks Washington, "Fiscal Factcheck," www.factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/. Pledges making term limits unneeded is at Robert Struble Jr., Political Science Quarterly, House Turnover and the Principle of Rotation,"  http://www.tell-usa.org/totl/13-publications_files/PSQ_House_Turnover_1979.pdf. Term limits as a slap against FDR by Republicans is in Michael Korsi, _Presidential Term Limits_ _in American History_ , chapters 5 and 6.

The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause covering gender is at "Reed v. Reed Significance," <http://law.jrank.org/pages/24338/Reed-v-Reed-Significance.html>.

Violent crime and gun deaths dropping were previously cited in Notes for Article 1. Public support for background checks is at Mike Lillis, _The Hill_ , "Poll: 92% of Gun Owners Support Universal Background Checks,"  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks.

Extremely low support for outlawing abortion is at Gallup, "In Depth Topics A to Z: Abortion," www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx.

American Indian traditions of same sex marriage are at Walter Williams, "The Two Spirit People of Indigenous North Americans,"  www.firstpeople.us/articles/the-two-spirit-people-of-indigenous-north-americans.html.

Founders first ordering official flags are discussed in Mark Leepson's, _Flag: An American Biography_ , pointing to the first US naval flags in 1775. A national flag didn't come until 1777.

Estimates of European lack of religious affiliation are at WIN Gallup International, "Losing Our Religion," www.wingia.com/web/files/news/290/file/290.pdf. The polls shows 30% as atheists in west Europe and a fifth more "not religious."

Other Works by Al Carroll

1. _Ira Hayes and the Monument at Iwo Jima: The Meaning of His Life in Native and White Memory_ , work in progress.

2. _Survivors: Family Histories of War, Colonialism, and Genocide_ , Academia.edu,  www.academia.edu/14825444/Survivors_Family_Histories_of_Surviving_War_Colonialism_and_Genocide, 2015.

3. _Presidents' Body Counts: The Twelve Worst and Four Best American Presidents Based on How Many Lived or Died Because of Their Actions_. Amazon Kindle, 2014.

4. _Medicine Bags and Dog Tags: American Indian Veteran Traditions from Colonial Times to the Second Iraq War_. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008.

5. "Bill Clinton and Rwandan Genocide," Academia.edu,  https://www.academia.edu/8321993/Bill_Clinton_and_Rwandan_Genocide.

6. "The Four Biggest Myths About Gun Control," Academia.edu _,_

 https://www.academia.edu/7338127/The_Four_Biggest_Myths_About_Gun_Control.

7. "Why the US Should Put Native Tribal Sovereignty in a New Constitution," _Indian Country Today_ ,

 http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/10/23/why-us-should-put-native-tribal-sovereignty-new-constitution, 10-23-14.

8. "How Would You Change the Constitution?" _Counterpunch_ ,

 http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/05/how-would-you-change-the-constitution, 9-5-14.

9. "The 12 Worst Presidents Ranked by Their Inhumanity," _History News Network_ ,

<http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/156038>, 6-29-14.

Reprinted as "12 Most Inhumane Presidents," _LA Progressive,_

<http://www.laprogressive.com/most-inhumane-presidents>, 6-30-14.

Reprinted as "Most Inhumane Presidents," _The Beacon_ ,

<http://www.beaconmedia.us/?p=1241>, 6-30-14.

10. "The Moral and Practical Failures of Libertarianism," _Counterpunch_ ,

 www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/09/the-moral-and-practical-failures-of-libertarianism-and-small-government-conservatism, 5-9-14.

Reprinted, same title, _Wall Street Examiner_ ,

<http://wallstreetexaminer.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=109417>, 5-9-14.

Reprinted, same title, _World News_ ,  http://article.wn.com/view/2014/05/09/The_Moral_and_Practical_Failures_of_Libertarianism_and_Small, 5-9-14.

11. "How Presidents and the Public Have Ignored Right Wing Terrorism," _Articles Base_ ,  www.articlesbase.com/journalism-articles/how-presidents-and-the-public-have-ignored-right-wing-terrorism-6981936.html, 4-22-14.

12. "Seven Genocides That Presidents Refused to Stop," Academia.edu _,_

 www.academia.edu/6823924/Seven_Genocides_That_Presidents_Refused_to_Stop.

13. Entries on "Argentina War Crimes" and "El Salvador War Crimes" from _Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide_ , New York: Facts on File, Revised Edition, 2011.

14. Biographical and Historical Entries in _Encyclopedia of Latino/a History_ , New York: Facts on File, 2008.

15. Book Review, " _Chiricahua Enduring Power: Naiche's Puberty Ceremony Paintings_ ," _Southwestern Historical Quarterl_ y, Volume 111, No 3, January 2008, p 346-348.

16. "If Columbus Fought Afro-Phoenicians and Pizarro Fought Maoris: Other Possible Diasporas to the Americas," from _Alternate Histories: Native Americ_ a, Croton-on-Hudson, NY: Golson Books Ltd., 2006.

17. Biographical Entries from _Americans at War on the Home Fron_ t, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006.

18. "Ending Spiritual Genocide: New Agers' Abuse of Native People, and What To Do About It," _Bristle_ , Bristol, United Kingdom, 20, September 2005, www.bristle.org.uk.

19. "Would You Buy a Plastic Eucharist From This Man?" from _They Call Us Indians_ , (Goteborg, Sweden: The World in Our Hands Foundation, 2004.)

20."Shamans and Shame-ons," from _The Encyclopedia of Pseudo-Science_ , Vol. II, Michael Shermer ed., New York: Society of Skeptics Press, 2003.

21. "Native Films," H-AmIndian Academic Listserv, www.asu.edu/clas/h-amindian/nativefilms.htm, 2003.

22. "American Indian Veterans with an Emphasis on Code Talkers," Arizona State University Libraries, Labriola American Indian Data Center, archived at  https://web.archive.org/web/20071111080610/http://www.asu.edu/lib/subject/CodeTalkers.htm, 2003.
