21st Century Platform: a generous reply

from John Citoyen

Readers of this blog will know that we posted a draft political platform here about two posts back. It’s easy to find. The title was Our Political Platform: a draft. We may update the title to 21st Century Platform in future posts

Reader and member of this blog, John Citoyen, has posted some generous and insightful responses. For those with no French language background, “citoyen” is French for “citizen.” Even in America during the revolutionary period, and much more so in France, citizens were often addressed as “Citizen John,” “Citizen Delegate,” “Citizen Burchell,” and so on. Citizen John’s responses deserve a reply, and rather than post them in the original interior “comments” thread where they might be easily missed, our comments and responses are posted here today. The suggestions of John Citoyen will be in bold type and our reply in standard case:

Modifications suggestions:

1) Compulsory service could include a national endowment payout. According Thomas Piketty (Capital in the 21st century Capital and Ideology), a large part of the inequality problem is as you suggest, tied to wealth. But the money ought to be redistributed in the form of an endowment given to every person who completes the mandatory service (in addition to the free public education thru grad school if qualified)

This is a great suggestion. I’ll edit the original to add it to the proposal.

2) I'm not too sure about private banking vs public but I certainly think banking ought to be not-for-profit. Seems like it should be more of a cooperative similar to credit union.

Public banking is non-profit with the proceeds after administrative costs going to further public use, treasury, and/or public works as provided in the charter. Right now, the TRILLIONS of proceeds bled from the lives of our citizens by private banking go into the pockets of the rich — end of story. Rather than ban private banking (which would be fine by us), our proposal is to charter publics banks with the expectation that they will eventually drive private banks out of existence, in whole or in part. Hope blooms eternal.

Perhaps no one has done more to educate and promote public banking than Ellen Brown: https://publicbankinginstitute.org/public-banks-101/

3) Executive orders should be limited to the administrative responsibilities of the executive branch but be controlled by needs separate oversight. This will require much discussion. e.g. the USPS is still lead by DeJoy.

Tend to agree on the whole. The USPS is an an independent agency of the executive branch. Seems to me that the director serves at the pleasure of the Chief Executive? If so, the POTUS is the problem when it comes to DeJoy. This seems unsurprising since we are served by a doddering, incompetent POTUS in the control of the war-party plutocracy.

4) Unfortunately, I don't think elimination of overseas war is practical. DO you intend this to be only deployment of troops? Perhaps a rescinded AUMF would eliminate most. We definitely need an act of Congress for a major commitment but I think we need an senior military command officer's advice. Hoping one will chime in.

Is there a need or justification - moral or political - for anything other than a defensive war? When a republic engages in extra-territorial warfare, hasn’t it ceased to be a republic and become some kind of imperialist adventure?

5) SCOTUS has become dysfunctional, but I would prefer to minimize the risks of political decisions getting masked as constitutional issues and the "wink and nod" given on these issues. Citizens United is an abomination as is Heller. I have seen proposals that could make the it easier to 'rotate' an(U of PA ) by assigning a kind of Emeritus status after service 18 years. This giving each President a chce to appoint 2. I would prefer more of a lottery system with the temporary assignment of Appellate Judges to hear constitutional cases.

The people through their elected representatives have the right to legislate and to amend the Constitution as needed. Sovereignty resides in the citizens, not the court. Constitutional review is to be found NOWHERE in the Constitution of the United States of America. Let us know if you can find it. Judicial review on constitutionality is a power that was appropriated unilaterally by the (Federalist) Marshall Court in Marbury v Madison, 1803. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison

Historically speaking, the SCOTUS has been a consistent and overbearing force of reaction and conservatism. Perhaps the sole and sadly-brief exception was the much-slandered Warren Court. We can see no need for judicial review by any court above the reach of the citizens of the nation. Such a system strikes us as oligarchy, not republicanism.

Things to add:

1) The Insurrection Act of 1807 needs to be repealed. It gives the President far too much leeway to declare an insurrection and renew it. A would-be dictator could use it to curtail most civil rights.

Repealed ? or reviewed and reformed? We agree that the law as it stands is in need of review, but there HAVE been times when it has arguably been both necessary and well-used. An example of good use would be the desegration struggles in the 1960s when both Eisenhower and Kennedy used at on states that refused to comply with federal law. We do not support insurrectionists and secessionism of any sort. One of our favorite mottos is from the Civil War song Battle Cry of Freedom: “The Union forever, hurrah boys hurrah! Down with the traitor and UP with the star.” We understand the concerns very well, especially in light of the potential presidency of an individual who apes the language and posture of Mussolini and others. But we would recommend circumspection, study, and review in lieu of precipitate action.

There is a valuable, balanced, and circumspect overview of the act here:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained

While NOT a fan of the Wikipedia, the article on the Insurrection Act provides a good overview and is not their worst:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

2) The right to vote should be made constitutional via amendment. All voting in federal elections need to be uniform. Same rules, same hours of voting same poll density etc. Enough of the Jim Crow shenanigans.

Agree 100%. This is already, IMO, a matter of Federal jurisdiction by virtue of 14th Amendment protection and simply awaits an executive and Justice Department with the will to enforce it.

3) Eliminate the electoral college. The President should be a national popular vote. Too much cost and far too much suspense and opportunity for fraudulent manipulation. The laws that each state uses to decide electors need to be the same across the board at a very minimum.

This may become a matter of practical necessity. At its best, the law was meant to balance the influence of weaker, less populous states (say … South Dakota) against the overbearing power and influence of larger, more populous, and wealthy states (say … California). Elimination of the law would necessitate the prior elimination of the Money-Power aka plutocracy from public elections. Otherwise it would just amplify the power of the big-money states.

4) Eliminate gerrymandering. e.g. I live in a district that has a narrow swatch that reached me. The reason was so that a solid district could absorb voters who might vote for another candidate and defeat the candidate who was less solid. But of course, now my US Rep has little appreciation for the needs of my area and effectively my vote does not matter to her.

Agreed. We believe that gerrymandering should be abolished and legislative districting based on a population standard (500,000 ?) and an orderly administration of the traditional and already surveyed township and range. This is a tough issue and there are a number of different solutions being proposed and modeled.

The Brennan Center is again a good resource on this knotty problem:
https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/gerrymandering-fair-representation/redistricting/redistricting-reform

5) 2 Senators for each State is also ridiculous. (I know this will be a tough one). But the idea that a state with one representative can have 2 senators. Perhaps these states need at least 5 reps befor they get a 2nd senator.

The Senate was originally appointed by the legislatures of the respective states. This was changed in the populist reforms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the adoption of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in 1913.

The rule of “two Senators for each state” was another effort to balance the power of the more populous states over the smaller and persumably less populous. There was orginally and still is to some degree an element of a “council of elders” that would dampen the democratic enthusiasms and tumults of the House of Representatives. We are inclined to leave the system in place for now WITH THE PROVISO that public elections should be instituted, dark money prohibited, and Citizens United overturned or revoked. We tend to believe that these latter reforms will provide substanial renewal to democratic republicanism in the USA.

6) US Senate should not get to make rules that prevent a vote on a bill after ample time to debate. Much good legislation dies because the Senate has decided that they can "debate" forever wh(e)n they really do nothing... cloture should only be necessary within a mandatory debate window of 2 weeks. Nor should "blue slips" be honored to table candidates for appointment.

We tend to agree, but this is a challenging problem. Shall the Senate not make its own rules? If not, how much time IS actually adequate for a $500B defense bill? Two weeks? We tend to agree with you on the filibuster, John Citoyen, but it is important to remember that the filibuster is evil when used against something one favors and tends to be essential in a case one opposes. Can debate time of individual legislators be limited? Shall riders and amendments be absolutely abolished? Should they be abolished only when unrelated to the primary bill?

********
John Citoyen, thank you AGAIN. 21st Century Restoration is honored by your thoughtful and USEFUL proposals and suggestions. Watch for a revision and update of the first draft of a 21st Century Platform in the near future.

Other readers remember, this platform is FREE to read, share, and comment. Help us out by spreading the word.

Self Portrait with a Phrygian Cap
by Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy-Trioson (1767 - 1824).