Clean Sheet USA: Constitutional Reform

[Burncycle360]

We delved into this somewhat in the other thread regarding election reform or rather (since that is functionally impossible) what would desired changes hypothetically look like and why.

 

Here we are looking at federal level changes or even clarifications on how the Federal Gov should conduct themselves, and either expanding or reducing their roles and responsibilities to avoid the pitfalls we've found along the way.  For brevity I put Constitutional reform since it might include that, but I'm also interested in Government initiatives that turned out to be a bad idea in retrospect (ie student loan subsidies) but changing is difficult due to perceived dependency upon them

 

Examples might include Organization, Term lengths and limits, addition or modification of branches of gov, tax or fiscal changes, the fed and central banking, the way laws are made, necessary cabinets and other tasks, debt, public servant ownership of private stocks, responsibilities, education, the military and so on. 

 

Were you dictator for a day, tasked with righting the ship so that all anyone in state has to say is "steady as she goes", what would you like to see, what issue would it address, what are some of the tradeoffs or potentially negative 2nd order downstream effects and what could be done to reap the benefits while ameliorating the tradeoffs.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Burncycle360

[Tim Sielbeck]

I'd implement a requirement for a uniform standard for federal elections with a paper ballot trail required. The government is required to follow all laws that the government passes.  Not allow courts to make rulings that have the effect of laws, ie. "Qualified Immunity."  Not allow bureaucracies to create rules, only enforce the rule congress gives them.  Require balanced budgets.  Flat tax rate.  No person working in an elected position can get a pay increase while holding the office.  Consolidate various like programs of various agencies under one agency.  TERM LIMITS.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Tim Sielbeck

[Burncycle360]

From the other thread:

1) Unless in a state of existential crisis with a supermajority vote, annual budgets will  be passed on time, and without deficit, or no sitting members of Congress is eligible for reelection.

2) Bills should not include unrelated riders, and should be voted on separately. My assumption is that bills with unrelated riders is so "I'll vote for your bill if you vote for mine" or to force through pet projects under the guise of something else, and neither of those should be permitted. If the bill won't pass on its own, then it won't pass, it has no business passing through deception. Further, if one congressman breaks their promise during a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" then so be it, let their reputation suffer accordingly and it'll sort itself out.

3) Bills should be as least as rigorous as scientific research papers before passing, including the following sections:

    i. Short, plain language abstract summary describing the law
    ii. Legal / Technical language of the law (Lawyer version)
    iii. Plain Language version of the law (Layman version)
    iv. Section describing intent of the proposed law (Desired end result)
    v. Rationale behind this approach (Why is this the approach taken to achieve the desired aims, and not another approach? What other proposed approaches were considered, and why were they rejected? What are the tradeoffs?)
    vi. Red teaming (3rd party review to determine potential abuse vectors or less obvious downstream effects)
    vii. Knock on effect mitigation (Issues exposed by red teaming and how these will be ameliorated)
    viii. Escape Hatch (unforeseen effects despite all of the above efforts) usually in the form of a mandatory sunset clause with periodic review for renewal
    ix. Risk Benefit Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis
    x. Metrics of Success (determining the success of the law in achieving intended aims) and timetables for periodic review
    xi. Internal audit by 3rd party (conflicts with existing laws, 3rd party lawyers check constitutionality, bias check)
    xii. Voter's personal opinions for every voter (typically a short statement or paragraph) for posterity
    xiii. Peer Review
    xiv. Judicial Review (constitutionality before the law is passed, not years and millions of dollars afterwards) including personal opinions of panel of judges for posterity.
    xv. Recordings of proceedings (proposals, debates, changes, individual voter opinions the "federalist papers") for future generations to understand the mindset of the lawmakers


______

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Burncycle360