J.P. McJefferson

MAKING A MOVE

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Sun, 17 Nov 2024 15:02:00 +0000

I'm moving over to Substack. Check it out at: jpmcjefferson.substack.com

Also, setting up shop on Blue Sky:

@jpmcjefferson.bsky.social

Was it all in vain?

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Tue, 12 Nov 2024 02:11:00 +0000

Seems ironic that on this Veterans Day, when I think of my two fathers (biological & adopted) who both served actively in WWII in the South Pacific, that i’m asking myself, was it all in vain?

Those many years ago, the country, somewhat reluctantly, fought to soundly defeat a fascist Nazi takeover in Europe. Perhaps had we not entered that war, the takeover would have succeeded and eventually bled into the U.S. where the seeds had already been planted.

Now, almost 80 years later, the American electorate, willingly elected, in a free & fair election (nonviolent war), a fascist Nazi to lead these United States and have given him unprecedented control over every branch of government.

That war, those many years ago, which we won with massive blood and treasure investment, bought us 80 years of democracy without the disruption of fascist involvement in our U.S. government.

Had we not entered that war so long ago, and faced the possible fascist takeover at that time, we would have had these 80 years to figure out how to respond and regain our democratic roots.

Now we must begin anew…

Constitutionally-Authorized Dictator

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Thu, 07 Nov 2024 11:53:00 +0000

I refer to the referenced article, "Trump's new world order," below, and would retitle it, "The Most Powerful Man In The World." Imagine control of the Executive Office, the Senate, the House (either outright or by bribes or bullying), the U.S. Military, the Supreme Court, topped with total Immunity from laws. With icing included like unlimited funding via the government and/or personal or indirect through the likes of Elon Musk (the richest man in the world) and inroads to the control of major media & information distribution sources e.g. Fox News, "X", and threats to major media outlets that may disagree. And, the entire government (all agencies) headed and leadership-staffed by loyal followers.

No imagining.... IT'S ALL REAL!!! He is truly a Constitutionally-authorized Dictator, a new form of democracy in America. Not just on "day one," but 4-years for sure (maybe more). Yes, we still have elections and an opposition party, BUT, would you want to run for office or participate in this system as an opposition player? Yes, we still have free speech & a somewhat free press, BUT, would you want to take on this power structure?

Constitutionally Authorized Dictatorship with the backing of the popular vote is where we are. . . What he does with his new found power I have no idea, but basically it's whatever he wants...

I would refer readers to the AXIOS, November 7, 2024 publication, entitled, "Trump's new world order"

Axios AM special edition: Washington's new world order, by Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen.

See Wikipedia for extensive discussion, analysis and references:

"Unitary Executive Theory" and "Constitutional Dictatorship."

Trump & Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:47:00 +0000

Trump & Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3

Should Donald Trump be on the ballot in 2024? Now before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), appealed from the recent 4-3 decision of the Colorado Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure that the Trump-loaded SCOTUS will find some bizarre interpretation of the obvious and allow the 4-time indicted, twice-impeached former President, with 91 criminal charges to run again. I also think it is fascinating that the two leading challengers to Trump's GOP campaign -- Haley & DeSantis -- are both saying that we should let the people decide, rather than following the law. What a new and innovative way to handle high-level legal matters in this country.

Anyway, Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3 (14-3), couldn't be clearer, and the intent of the Congressional drafters is also clear (discussed in the Colorado decision). We've known about 14-3 and the potential legal chaos it would cause if it wasn't resolved before the 2024 election. I was one of the many people who called for this issue to be addressed and dealt with months and months ago. And, it's clear that a resolution can only be made by a decision of SCOTUS. However, in typical American government fashion, advance planning is rarely on the agenda, and as predicted we are now in the middle of an active Presidential campaign, and a legal nightmare threatening the fabric of our sacred U.S. election process. Had this been resolved before the presidential campaign much of this legal drama could have been avoided.

Following the Civil War, Congress decided that they didn't want persons, who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, but who wanted to overthrow the government, shouldn't be able to run for public office. They enacted the 14th Amendment, Section 3 as a new restriction/requirement in order to run for any public office. It all makes perfect sense. Why would you want to allow someone to run for office who took an oath to support the Constitution, but had been active in trying to overthrow the government OR to someone who assisted ("aid or comfort") to those who tried to overthrow the government?

Even though the language and intent seem obvious, the drafters even provided a method to provide relief from the new requirement in case there might be some extreme extenuating circumstances. It had to be an extreme exception; that is why the tough, 2/3rd vote of Congress to exempt it, was required. So Congress could exempt Trump from the requirement and end the entire argument right now.

While it all seems straightforward, the legal beagles, fly-specking the language have come up with two major concerns. (1) is the Presidency really a "civil or military" "office," and, (2) did Trump participate OR provide "aid or comfort" in an "insurrection" even though he has not yet been convicted?

On the first question, it's hard to believe that the drafters would specify "a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold ANY office, civil or military" and not intend to include the President of the United States. Even if you could stretch your legal imagination to conclude that the "presidency" is not a public office; you would also have to determine the "Commander in Chief" is not the highest "office" in the U.S. "military." You would also have to ask yourself, why the drafters wouldn't want a Senator or Representative, etc. OR "an officer of the United States" to run for public office, but it would be fine to run for the presidency.

On the second question, while I don't agree, I would say you can argue legally about whether Trump, "engaged in insurrection or rebellion," since he has not yet been convicted; however, I think it is irrefutable that he provided "aid or comfort to the enemies" of the country. At the Washington DC Ellipse on January 6, 2021, there can be no question that Trump incited & encouraged radicals who have now been convicted & are serving time for seditious conspiracy and have been determined to be enemies of the state. Since then, Trump has continued his "aid or comfort" saying, if elected, he will pardon many of the enemies.

So, bottom line, it's the Constitution, the language and intent seem clear; you have to follow it; amend it; or throw it out! What's the precedent for other sections?

Access the complete 213-page Colorado Supreme Court 4-3 decision, plus dissents.

Angry Bear Blog: Trump & Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3

MSNBC: Judge Luttig: ‘The Supreme Court should affirm this decision’ - Trump removed from Colorado ballot

December 28, 2023 [Update]

Clarification of court decisions on Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3.

General media reporting, various headlines, and news bites have left the impression that the Michigan & Minnesota Supreme Court decisions are in direct contrast to the Colorado decision. This is not the case. It is important to distinguish between eligibility for the primary election as opposed to the general election.

Below, as explained by Elizabeth M. Welch who wrote a dissent in the Michigan case, is a summarized legal explanation.

"Significantly, Colorado’s election laws differ from Michigan’s laws in a material way that is directly relevant to why the appellants in this case are not entitled to the relief they seek concerning the presidential primary election in Michigan."

There is "...no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office. . . [under Michigan law] the Secretary of State is not legally required to confirm the eligibility of potential presidential primary candidates."

"I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ ruling on this issue, which still allows appellants to renew their legal efforts as to the Michigan general election later in 2024 should Trump become the Republican nominee for President of the United States or seek such office as an independent candidate..." [emphasis added]

CNN also reports that, "The Minnesota Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion last month, finding that an “insurrectionist ban” case involving Trump should be dismissed with regards to the GOP primary, but that the challengers could try again if he wins the nomination."

Michigan Supreme Court Order

Thursday, December 28, 2023 [Update]

Maine Secretary of State Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows issued the attached decision regarding three challenges brought by Maine voters to the nomination petition of Donald J. Trump, for the Republican primary for the President of the United States.

In the decision, Secretary Bellows said,

“I conclude… that the record establishes that Mr. Trump, over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power. I likewise conclude that Mr. Trump was aware of the likelihood for violence and at least initially supported its use given he both encouraged it with incendiary rhetoric and took no timely action to stop it. . .
“The events of January 6, 2021 were unprecedented and tragic. They were an attack not only upon the Capitol and government officials, but also an attack on the rule of law. The evidence here demonstrates that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing President. The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government, and Section 336 requires me to act in response.”

Secretary Bellows has suspended the effect of her decision until the Superior Court rules on any appeal, or the time to appeal has expired.

Access a Press Release from the SOS & link to the Maine decision.

January 30, 2024 [Update]

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell program discusses the upcoming February 8, 2024, hearing of SCOTUS on Constitutional Amendment 14-3 (Trump v. Anderson). The focus is on the amicus brief filed by 3 prominent Harvard & Yale history professors who delve into the history behind Section 14-3 and present to the court the historical rationale of the amendment for the court's, so-called originalists, to consider.

* The link to the Lawrence O'Donnell program. (See the first 28 minutes)

* The link to the amicus brief of the history professors.

March 4, 2024 [Update]

SCOTUS Final Holding: Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates, the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot.

* The link to the SCOTUS case log with all briefs & filings:

Chatting With AI On Better Government

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Fri, 15 Dec 2023 17:44:00 +0000

What ideas do you have for improving U.S. governmental decision-making?

ChatGPT

Improving U.S. governmental decision-making is a multifaceted challenge that involves addressing various aspects of the political process. Here are some ideas that could contribute to enhancing decision-making within the U.S. government:

Increased Transparency:

Implementing greater transparency in government operations, including making information on decision-making processes, policy formulation, and expenditures more accessible to the public.

Civic Education:

Investing in civic education to ensure that citizens are well-informed about the political system, policy issues, and the decision-making process. An informed citizenry is essential for holding leaders accountable.

Digital Innovation:

Leveraging technology for improved governance, such as developing user-friendly platforms for citizens to engage with the government, provide feedback, and participate in decision-making processes.

Evidence-Based Policymaking:

Promoting the use of evidence-based approaches to policymaking, relying on data and research to inform decisions and measure the effectiveness of policies.

Bipartisanship and Collaboration:

Encouraging bipartisanship and collaboration between political parties to reduce polarization and promote consensus-building. This may involve creating more incentives for bipartisan cooperation.

Campaign Finance Reform:

Addressing issues related to campaign financing to reduce the influence of money in politics and ensure that decisions are made in the best interest of the public rather than special interest groups.

Term Limits:

Considering term limits for elected officials to prevent the entrenchment of power and encourage a more dynamic and responsive political landscape.

Ethics and Accountability:

Strengthening ethics regulations and accountability mechanisms to ensure that public officials act in the best interest of the people and are held responsible for any unethical behavior.

Independent Oversight:

Enhancing the role and independence of oversight institutions to ensure that government agencies operate efficiently and ethically.

Public-Private Partnerships:

Exploring opportunities for public-private partnerships to bring in expertise from outside the government, fostering innovation and efficiency in decision-making processes.

Community Engagement:

Actively involving communities in decision-making processes, especially on issues that directly affect them, to ensure that diverse perspectives are considered.

Regular Review and Adaptation:

Establishing mechanisms for regular review and adaptation of policies to ensure they remain effective and relevant in a rapidly changing world.

Implementing these ideas would require a concerted effort from government officials, civil society, and citizens alike. It's essential to recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and a combination of these approaches may be necessary for comprehensive improvement.

Very good response. Looking closer at Bipartisanship and Collaboration. You suggest "creating more incentives for bipartisan cooperation." Please expand on what incentives you have in mind.

ChatGPT

Certainly! Encouraging bipartisan cooperation can be challenging, especially in a political climate that often experiences polarization. To foster a more collaborative environment, policymakers can consider implementing the following incentives:

Recognition and Awards:

Publicly recognizing and rewarding bipartisan efforts through awards or commendations. This could include acknowledging lawmakers who successfully work across party lines to pass legislation or address key issues.

Committee Leadership Opportunities:

Providing leadership opportunities on key committees to individuals who demonstrate a commitment to bipartisanship. This could involve appointing leaders who have a track record of working collaboratively with members from both parties.

Policy Innovation Funds:

Establishing funds or grants to support policy innovation that arises from bipartisan collaboration. Lawmakers could receive additional resources or funding for projects that involve joint efforts and yield positive outcomes.

Constituent Recognition:

Emphasizing the positive impact of bipartisan cooperation on constituents. Communicating success stories and emphasizing how collaboration leads to better outcomes for the public can create a positive feedback loop.

Media Visibility:

Encouraging media outlets to highlight and celebrate instances of bipartisan collaboration. Positive media coverage can contribute to the public's perception of cooperation as a desirable and effective approach to governance.

Policy Priority for Bipartisan Issues:

Identifying and prioritizing issues that have bipartisan support. By focusing on areas where common ground exists, lawmakers may find it easier to work together, leading to more productive legislative sessions.

Constituent Engagement:

Actively involving constituents in the process and demonstrating how bipartisan cooperation aligns with their interests. Public support for collaborative efforts can create pressure on lawmakers to engage in bipartisan initiatives.

Professional Development:

Offering professional development opportunities related to effective communication, negotiation, and conflict resolution. Building these skills can empower lawmakers to navigate political differences more effectively.

Post-Congress Opportunities:

Creating post-congressional opportunities for individuals who have a history of bipartisan collaboration. This could include positions in think tanks, advisory roles, or other positions that value a collaborative approach to problem-solving.

Regular Bipartisan Meetings:

Establishing regular meetings or forums where lawmakers from different parties can come together in a less formal setting to discuss common goals and concerns. Informal interactions can help build trust and relationships.

It's important to note that these incentives should be designed with care to avoid unintended consequences or reinforcing negative behavior. The goal is to create a political environment where working across party lines is seen as a constructive and beneficial approach to governance. Combining multiple incentives and strategies may be most effective in promoting a culture of bipartisanship.

Are you aware of the differences in makeup and operations of U.S. House & Senate Ethics Committees and the other standing committees?

ChatGPT

Yes, I can provide a general overview of the differences in makeup and operations between the U.S. House and Senate Ethics Committees and other standing committees.

House and Senate Ethics Committees:

1. Purpose:

House Ethics Committee: Responsible for investigating and enforcing ethical standards for members of the House of Representatives.

Senate Ethics Committee: Performs a similar role but for members of the Senate.

2. Composition:

Both committees are comprised of members from the respective chambers, and they include an equal number of members from each political party. Members are appointed by the leadership of each party.

3. Jurisdiction:

The Ethics Committees have the specific jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct, violations of rules, and other ethical issues involving members of their respective chambers.

4. Confidentiality:

The Ethics Committees often operate with a level of confidentiality to protect the privacy of those involved in investigations.

Other Standing Committees:

1. Function:

Standing committees in the House and Senate are responsible for specific areas of legislation and oversight. For example, there are committees on appropriations, foreign relations, judiciary, etc.

2. Composition:

Membership on standing committees is based on factors such as seniority, expertise, and party affiliation. The number of members varies depending on the committee.

3. Jurisdiction:

Standing committees have jurisdiction over legislation and policy related to their specific areas. They conduct hearings, markup bills, and make recommendations to the full chamber.

4. Term Limits:

Standing committee members typically serve on committees for an extended period, and there may not be term limits. This allows members to develop expertise in their committee's subject matter.

5. Public Hearings:

Standing committees often conduct public hearings to gather information on proposed legislation and to hold government officials accountable through oversight.

6. Legislative Work:

While Ethics Committees focus on investigating ethical violations, standing committees are more involved in the legislative process, shaping and advancing bills related to their jurisdiction.

In summary, the House and Senate Ethics Committees are specialized bodies tasked with enforcing ethical standards, while other standing committees focus on legislative work and oversight within specific policy areas. The composition, function, and operations of these committees reflect their distinct roles within the legislative process.

Are you aware of the differences in staffing of the Ethics Committees as opposed staffing of other standing committees?

ChatGPT

Yes, there are differences in the staffing of Ethics Committees compared to other standing committees in the U.S. House and Senate. Here are some general distinctions:

Ethics Committees:

1. Professional Staff:

Ethics Committees have professional, non-partisan staff who are responsible for assisting with investigations and providing legal and ethical expertise.

2. Non-Partisan Nature:

The staff of Ethics Committees is expected to be non-partisan, serving the committee's purpose of upholding ethical standards without regard to party affiliation.

3. Legal and Investigative Roles:

Staff members on Ethics Committees often include attorneys, investigators, and other professionals with expertise in ethics and legal matters.

4. Confidentiality:

Given the sensitive nature of ethics investigations, the staff of Ethics Committees typically operates under strict confidentiality rules.

Other Standing Committees:

1. Committee Staff:

Standing committees have their own professional staff, but the nature of their work is more varied and focused on legislative matters related to the committee's jurisdiction.

2. Policy Experts:

Staff on standing committees often include policy experts, legislative analysts, and researchers who work on issues within the committee's purview.

3. Partisan Nature:

While there are non-partisan roles within standing committee staff, the overall staffing structure may have a more partisan character, especially in terms of leadership roles.

4. Legislative Support:

Staff on standing committees play a crucial role in supporting the legislative work of the committee, including researching policy issues, drafting legislation, and providing support during hearings.

5. Public Engagement:

Unlike the often confidential nature of the work of Ethics Committees, staff on standing committees may engage in public outreach, communicate with constituents, and participate in public hearings.

It's important to note that the specific staffing structure can vary between different committees, and individual committee rules and practices may influence the roles and responsibilities of staff members. Additionally, the staffing structure of committees can be subject to changes based on the priorities and decisions of committee leadership.

With all of the above information as background, do you think that bipartisan decision-making might be enhanced if all standing committees in the U.S. Congress had makeup, staffing and operations similar to the Ethics Committees?

ChatGPT

Implementing the makeup, staffing, and operations of Ethics Committees across all standing committees in the U.S. Congress could potentially enhance bipartisan decision-making in certain aspects, but it comes with both advantages and challenges. Here are some considerations:

Potential Advantages:

Non-Partisan Expertise:

Having non-partisan professional staff with expertise in ethics and legal matters could contribute to more objective analysis and decision-making, reducing the influence of partisan considerations.

Confidentiality:

The confidentiality characteristic of Ethics Committees could encourage a more open and honest exchange of ideas, allowing members to address sensitive issues without immediate public scrutiny.

Uniform Standards:

Applying similar standards across all committees might contribute to a more consistent approach to ethical considerations and decision-making processes throughout Congress.

Potential Challenges:

Specialization:

Standing committees cover a wide range of policy areas, and some may require specialized knowledge that goes beyond ethics and legal matters. Applying a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for committees dealing with complex policy issues.

Public Accountability:

The public may expect transparency and accountability in legislative matters, and the confidentiality associated with Ethics Committees may not align with the need for openness in certain policy areas.

Policy Expertise:

Standing committees often require deep policy expertise to address complex issues. While Ethics Committees focus on ethical standards, other committees need staff with a broader range of policy expertise to handle legislative matters effectively.

Balancing Bipartisanship and Efficiency:

While fostering bipartisanship is essential, committees also need to operate efficiently to address the diverse and time-sensitive issues within their jurisdictions. Striking the right balance is crucial.

Political Climate:

The success of such a shift would also depend on the broader political climate, the willingness of members to embrace a more collaborative approach, and the commitment to bipartisanship at the leadership level.

In summary, adopting the makeup, staffing, and operations of Ethics Committees across all standing committees could contribute to a more non-partisan and ethical approach to decision-making. However, the practicality and success of such a change would depend on careful consideration of the unique needs of each committee and a commitment from members to prioritize bipartisanship and collaboration in their work.

Perhaps you took my suggestion too literally. I should have been more clear. I would still be advocating full transparency and staffing specialties would be consistent with the focus of the committee. I'm suggesting the idea of non-partisan professional staff and equal party membership with co-Chairs would improve bipartisan decision-making. I would also suggest a return to the so-called "regular order" process. What do you think?

ChatGPT

Thank you for the clarification. Your suggestion of adopting some features of Ethics Committees, such as non-partisan professional staff, equal party membership, and co-Chairs across all standing committees, could indeed contribute to fostering bipartisan decision-making. Additionally, advocating for a return to the "regular order" process could bring further benefits. Here's an analysis of these suggestions:

Non-Partisan Professional Staff and Equal Party Membership:

Advantages:

Objective Expertise: Non-partisan professional staff can provide objective expertise, contributing to evidence-based decision-making.

Reduced Partisan Bias: Equal party membership promotes a balanced representation, potentially reducing the influence of partisan bias and encouraging collaboration.

Challenges:

Implementation Logistics: Transitioning to such a model would require careful planning and agreement among members, as well as potential adjustments to committee rules.

Policy Expertise: Committees dealing with specific policy areas may still require members with specialized policy knowledge, and balancing this with equal party representation could be challenging.

Return to "Regular Order" Process:

Advantages:

Transparent Decision-Making: The "regular order" process emphasizes transparency, allowing for public scrutiny and input throughout the legislative process.

Committee Empowerment: Committees play a more central role in the legislative process, allowing members to contribute to bill development and amendments.

Challenges:

Time Constraints: Returning to a more deliberative process may require more time for committee work, potentially slowing down the legislative process.

Partisan Pressures: Even with a return to regular order, partisan pressures may still exist, and achieving true bipartisanship would depend on the political climate and individual members' commitments.

Combined Impact:

Combining these suggestions could create a more collaborative and transparent legislative environment. However, it's crucial to recognize that institutional changes alone may not be sufficient. Political culture, leadership commitment, and individual members' willingness to engage in bipartisan efforts remain significant factors.

Considerations:

Flexibility: Any proposed changes should allow for flexibility to accommodate the unique needs and complexities of different committees.

Public Engagement: Emphasizing transparency should go hand-in-hand with increased public engagement to ensure that decisions reflect the interests of the broader public.

In summary, your suggested changes have the potential to enhance bipartisan decision-making and transparency. Implementing these changes would require careful planning, collaboration among members, and a commitment to fostering a more cooperative legislative environment.

AI Understands The Importance Of Independent Congressional Rules

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Sun, 05 Nov 2023 11:40:00 +0000

The Artificial Intelligence (AI) application ChatGPT understands the importance of independent reviews of Congressional Rules. ChatGPT says independent reviews are, "essential for various reasons."

Too bad "Real Intelligence (RI)" can't seem to recognize those essential reasons.

A simple inquiry, and AI reveals those reasons.

Research related to independent reviews of U.S. House & Senate operating rules

ChatGPT

I'm sorry, but as of my last knowledge update in January 2022, I don't have access to specific, up-to-date research papers or studies related to independent reviews of U.S. House and Senate operating rules. However, I can provide you with some general information on how these reviews might be conducted and why they are important.

Independent reviews of the operating rules of the U.S. House and Senate are essential for various reasons:

1. Transparency and Accountability: Such reviews can help ensure that the rules governing legislative bodies are transparent and accountable. They can help identify and address any potential biases or partisan favoritism in the rules.
2. Fairness and Equity: Independent reviews can assess whether the rules provide for a fair and equitable process for all members of Congress, regardless of their political affiliation or seniority.
3. Efficiency and Effectiveness: Evaluating the rules can lead to recommendations for making the legislative process more efficient and effective. This can include streamlining procedures and reducing unnecessary delays.
4. Modernization: Over time, the needs and expectations of the legislative process may change. An independent review can help identify areas where the rules need to be modernized to adapt to the evolving political landscape and technological advancements.
5. Bipartisanship: An independent review can promote bipartisanship and consensus-building, as it typically involves a diverse group of experts who are not aligned with any particular political party.

To find the most up-to-date research on this topic, you can search academic databases, such as JSTOR, Google Scholar, or your university's library resources, for recent studies, articles, or reports related to independent reviews of U.S. House and Senate operating rules. Additionally, you can look for research conducted by organizations or think tanks that focus on government and political processes. Be sure to use keywords like "Congress rules review," "House and Senate operating rules," and similar terms to narrow down your search.

Has there ever been a comprehensive, independent review of U.S. House & Senate operating rules?

ChatGPT

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, there have been efforts to review and reform the rules and procedures of the U.S. House and Senate, but it's important to note that the extent of these reviews can vary. There have been instances where committees or commissions were established to examine specific aspects of congressional rules and procedures. However, a comprehensive, fully independent review of all rules and procedures governing the U.S. House and Senate at a single point in time is less common.

Here are a few notable examples of efforts to review and reform congressional rules:

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970: This act established the Commission on the Operation of the Senate and the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. These bodies were tasked with conducting comprehensive reviews of congressional operations and recommending reforms. Their work led to significant changes in committee structures and procedures in both the House and Senate.
Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC): The BPC, a think tank, has conducted various studies and provided recommendations for congressional reform, including changes to Senate rules like the filibuster. While not a government entity, the BPC's reports and recommendations have had an impact on discussions about congressional rules.
House and Senate Rules Committees: Both the House and Senate have committees responsible for overseeing their respective rules. These committees can consider changes to specific rules, but their reviews may not always be fully independent or comprehensive.
Internal House and Senate Reforms: From time to time, individual members of Congress or party leadership may propose rule changes or reforms. These proposals are usually debated and voted on by the respective chambers.

It's important to keep in mind that the specific procedures for reviewing and changing congressional rules can be influenced by political dynamics, party control, and the will of the members. The depth and scope of these reviews can vary widely depending on the circumstances.

To determine whether there have been any recent comprehensive, independent reviews of congressional rules since my last update in January 2022, you would need to consult the latest news, government reports, or academic research on the subject, as well as any developments that have occurred since then.

"Rules Of The Game," February 21, 2023, J.P. McJefferson

"A Brief History of Congressional Reform Efforts," Donald Wolfensberger, Wilson Center, April 22, 2013

"Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress," (this committee from the 117th Congress is no longer standing)

See "X", #CongressionalRulesReform

Rules of the “Game”

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Tue, 21 Feb 2023 13:31:00 +0000

Rules of the “Game”

The "Rules" are the rules of the House and Senate. The "Game" is the future of the United States of America. For all their greatness, the Founders made a huge mistake when they gave Congress the ability to make and change their own rules.

Imagine for a minute if workers were allowed to make their own rules or change them at will. There would be no need for unions to negotiate with management. Imagine the dysfunction and confusion for business and commerce. Or, imagine if the players on a sports team could establish their own rules or change them when things weren't going right. There would be no need for referees. You get the point; players and workers cannot be permitted to create and change the rules which they must follow. Is it any wonder that our ability to govern is out of control and we can no longer deal rationally with the critical issues of our time?

The House Speaker fiasco that played out in D.C. in January was completely the result of a ridiculous set of "House rules" that were created by Republican & Democrat members over many years. The problem is not really Kevin McCarthy, Donald Trump, MAGAs, or Republicans. It is a simple matter of rules that permit and allow chaos, gridlock, dysfunction, and encourage polarization that benefits party politics over what's best for the country and good government. How long are the American people going to put up with this insanity?

I have written extensively about this "Congressional rules" subject before in a blog post entitled, "New Rules To 'Discourage and Restrain' (October 2020). The title relates to a warning espoused by President George Washington in his 1796 farewell address when he said, "the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. . ." Before that, I posted, "SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Part" in 2018 which also referenced a number of posts before that. Back then the polarization and dysfunction in Congress were considered to be undermining the basic foundation of our democracy. Since then they have become tragically worse.

The prophetic President Washington put the burden on the public to watch over the then-new, democratic republic and not let the "mischiefs of the spirit of party... [and] the spirit of revenge... [lead to] more formal and permanent despotism." He said it is the "duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. . ." As a free country with a huge, historic investment in our democracy we have to accept the burden of our duty to protect it from what Washington would call, "the spirit of party." Should we chose not to accept the burden of interest and duty, we should not complain about our eventual transition to despotism. We should also accept the fact that if we don't accept the duty, we are not "a wise people."

As said, the "game" the Members of Congress are playing is the future of the United States. The future which involves dealing with serious, game-changing issues of voting rights, climate change, gun control, abortion, race relations, immigration, artificial intelligence, world peace, trade relations, social media, Social Security, Medicare, healthcare, pandemic management, and so much more.

The nonsensical rules of the game which Congress has established were not created by the Founders or mandated by the Constitution. It's paradoxical that the Framers of the Constitution, who were deeply concerned about the disruptive nature of factions or political parties, did not envision the dysfunctional nature of allowing the "workers for the people" to create their own operating rules. In almost an aside to the otherwise brilliance of the Constitution, they simply said, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." (Article 1, Section 5). Apparently, at the time, they could not imagine how critically important these rules would be in carrying out their vision of a democratic republic and how they could be politically manipulated (Washington's, "mischiefs of the spirit of party") to completely destroy the concept of democracy.

Thus, over the years, the rules of the game have been created by power-hungry, full-time politicos that accommodate their individual self interest and bolster the interest of their Party first & foremost, not necessarily the interest of the public or the country as a whole. For Congressional members who indicate over and over that they "work for the people," we must ask the question, under what other game or business do the players or the employees develop their own rules?

Only under that kind of system could you have rules where one person could negotiate changes, additions, or deletions in any rule as a ploy to get elected as the leader. Only under that kind of system could you have a situation where a few renegade Members could hold the entire membership of the House of Representatives or Senate hostage until they got the concessions they wanted. Only under that kind of system could you make it nearly impossible for a large majority of Members to bring an item to the Floor of the House or Senate for a vote of the full body. The House and Senate established rules make all that possible and completely frustrate the ability to govern for the good or will of the country at large.

If we want a functioning government, we must have House & Senate rules, created or overseen by some respected, independent body. Rules that apply equally and consistently to all, and can only be changed by some formal, fair process – not at the whims of the party in control. The existing Congressional rules and the processes by which they are created are far too politically entangled and volatile. Developing Congressional rules that make sense and encourage good government must be Step #1 in getting at the heart of the out-of-control political polarization in the United States. Without such an effort the country will not be able to address the critical issues of the day or preserve the democratic republic for which we have spent enormous blood and treasure to maintain for nearly a quarter of a millennium.

One of the problems as a country in trying to deal with the issue of political polarization is that we are too easily distracted by various individual issues and personalities and fail to focus on the root cause of the problem. To make lasting changes in the faulty decision-making process that currently exists in addressing all major issues, there must be a dedicated focus on the root causes.

If the "good forces" of America were to unite and focus their staff and financial resources on the issue of changing Congressional Rules, I truly believe it would go a long way toward addressing the political polarization in our country. Among the "good forces," there are literally hundreds of organizations, university centers, and thousands of staffers and retired politicos that are involved in advancing specific issues related to good government and government reform that could be focused on such an effort.

Congressional rules have consistently been identified as a main cause of the dysfunction and widespread low approval ratings among the public. In response, Congressional Select and Joint Committees have attempted to identify and propose changes. Laws like the The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 and another act in 1970, the Joint Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reforms, and the recent Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress have all analyzed, proposed, and adopted some reforms. However, these efforts all suffer the same defect; a sitting Congress investigating and seeking reforms to its own actions in an active political environment, i.e. making its own rules. Additionally, most efforts have been carried out in the underbelly of Congress without widespread public exposure and input and overshadowed by the hotly contested issues of the time. A high visibility, focused, unbiased, independent, professional review with a goal of good government is needed.

As mentioned above, the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5, simply says that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." The important word is "may" as opposed to "shall." While this wording implies that the House and Senate can, themselves, develop their own rules of proceeding, it does not in any way prohibit the development of rules of proceeding by some independent, outside source which would then be adopted by the House and Senate.

At a minimum, there is absolutely nothing to prevent some outside respected source from conducting a deep dive review of Congressional rules and recommending changes that would minimize political polarization and advance rational, governmental decision-making. Such an initiative could be the rallying point for a a massive public campaign to address the current, widely accepted, public agreement on the dysfunction of Congress. It will not be easy to change Congressional rules, either voluntarily with Congressional support or by some kind of external public initiative.

As a starting point, a rules review could examine strengthening the legislative committee process to a more "Regular Order" process. The Congressional Research Services (CRS) indicates that "Many Members and commentators view this sequential pattern (regular order) as the ideal or 'best practices' way to craft the nation’s laws. Regular order is a lawmaking process that promotes transparency, deliberation, and the wide participation of Members in policy formulation." If regular order is considered by experts to be a "best practice" method to develop legislation, why have we let it slip away to an extremely untenable politically dominated process.

Additionally, the House and Senate Ethics Committees operate completely differently from all of the other 200-plus Committees and Subcommittees in Congress. The Ethics Committees' rules require "Professional, Nonpartisan Staff" & Equal Party Representation "to provide a fair procedural framework." Why shouldn't we be providing "a fair procedural framework" for all of the legislative committees?

As it stands now, Committee staff are being paid to implement one-sided solutions, gotchas & revenge actions on opposing party Members and positions. To make it even worse, and to further fuel the political polarization, existing rules provide two-thirds of available funding to the majority party and one-third to the minority party. Equally funded "professional, non-partisan" legislative committee staff and equal party representation with co-chairs on committees could actually work on developing real solutions & employ dispute resolution & mediation techniques to resolve political differences. This structure would also eliminate the creation of non-productive, distracting, political revenge investigations, and strengthen Executive oversight.

Universities might even start to offer new associate and undergrad degrees in PoliMed (political science + mediation & dispute resolution) and advanced degrees in PoliDep (domestic relations & political diplomacy) to fill the many new job positions of "professional, non-partisan" legislative committee staff in state and federal government.

Additionally, the rules that that control how legislative matters are brought up for a Floor Vote are critical to the dysfunction and polarization issues in Congress. In the Senate, the filibuster and reconciliation rules are major obstacles to effective legislating. Similarly, the fact that any, one Senator can derail or delay action with Senatorial "Hold" procedures is outdated and disruptive. In the House, the informal Hastert Rule used by Republicans requires that the Speaker will not schedule a floor vote on any bill that does not have majority support within their party (majority of the majority) even if the majority of the all members of the House would vote to pass it. Even more frustrating, changes in the House Rules over that last three decades have given more and more power to the Speaker to basically control whether a bill ever receives a Floor Vote, even if the “majority of the majority” agrees.

These are just a few examples of rules and procedures that are being followed in the House and Senate that impede effective governing and increase polarization and dysfunction in Congress. An effective, functioning government, that must make decisions, critical to the future of the country, cannot be burdened by these politically, self-imposed restrictions that allow the Congress to conduct its operations contrary to the will of the public and voting electorate.

As said previously, it will not be easy to implement Congressional Rule Reform. But, considering the dire strait of our current government, on the verge of a collapse of fundamental democratic principles of rule of law, and individual rights, the difficulty cannot be a deterrent. As our very first President said, it is the "duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. . ."

An initial step must be to focus on this major root cause of polarization – Congressional Rules. Short of a Constitutional Convention, a massive coordinated public campaign must harness the vast economic resources and human energy of the "good forces" to educate the public and call for the in-depth investigation and analysis of the existing rules. That effort must be followed by specific recommendations for improvement and an acceleration of the campaign at the state and federal level to effectuate changes through lobbying, to obtain individual legislator commitments and commitments from candidates at the ballot box in future elections to make the changes.

There is a glimmer of hope, even within the now GOP-controlled House. The House Committee on Administration has voted to establish a Subcommittee on Modernization. The Subcommittee will attempt to pick up the work of the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, or ModCom, or the “fix Congress” panel, organized in 2019 under Democrat leadership. The Select Committee was disbanded for the 118th Congress; however, this new Subcommittee could be a focal point for lobbying efforts of the public initiative to change Congressional rules.

Many observers, including the President himself, have said, “Something must change.” One change, that is within our grasp and could make a huge difference in the decisions we make as a country, is Congressional Rules. Now is the time to make the change.

###

1. CRS Report: The “Regular Order”: A Perspective November 6, 2020

2. CRS Report: The Legislative Process on the House Floor: An Introduction, Updated December 14, 2022

3. CRS Report: Administration of the House of Representatives: Actions Taken During a New Congress and Following a Majority Change, Updated December 5, 2022

4. CRS Report: Eight Mechanisms to Enact Procedural Change in the U.S. Senate, Updated December 2, 2020

5. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Our Common Purpose: Reinventing American Democracy for the 21st Century, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2020

6. Negotiating Agreement in Politics, American Political Science Association, 2013

7. Analysis of House Rules Changes for the 118th Congress

8. Serial No. 117-22 (House Hearing) - What's the Big Idea? Innovative Approaches to Fixing Congress

9. If We Want Congress to Work Differently, We Have to Do Things Differently, Derek Kilmer (D-WA) & William Timmons (R-SC), Newsweek, January 4, 2023

10. The Congressional Institute efforts on Congressional Reform

11. State of the Congress 2022, The Congressional Management Foundation and the Partnership for Public Service first annual assessment, July 2022

The Big Unconstitutional Lie

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Tue, 28 Dec 2021 12:43:00 +0000

The Big Unconstitutional Lie

The First Amendment is not a license to undermine the foundation of the U.S. government, just as it is not a right to undermine our system of jurisprudence. Creative legal thinking can stop Trump's Big Unconstitutional Lie. Innovative legal action and amendments to the Electoral Count Act could put an end to Trump's relentless disinformation campaign on the "Big Lie."

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that, “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Despite First Amendment Constitutional protections there are legally established limits to free speech in the United States. My premise is that Donald Trump, a powerful and influential man, has violated those limits and is guilty of sedition as well as other Federal crimes as are now being identified by the House Select Committee on January 6, 2021. Since the 2020 election and continuing to this day, Trump has been on a relentless rampage at rallies, interviews, speeches and any venue available, to spread lies and misinformation on how the elections were rigged and stolen from him by various corrupt means. He still claims he actually won the election. He has been steadfast in his refusal to concede. Until Trump; concession by the losing Presidential candidate had become the traditionalistic symbol of American democracy and the customary prerequisite to the peaceful transition of political power.

For this discussion it is also important to draw some differentiation between two distinct time frames. One, from pre-election 2020 until the official transfer of power on January 20, 2021; and two, from January 20, 2021 until now. The major distinction is that there are legal differences and different prosecutorial options regarding crimes and malfeasance that occured while Trump was still the official President of the United States. The investigations of the House Select Committee are specifically focused on the time period when Trump was President.

The January 6th House Select Committee is zeroing in on the facts surrounding the 187 minutes (3 hours, 7 minutes) while Donald Trump watched the attack on the U.S. Capitol which was intended to violently overturn the results of the election of the President of the United States of America. It is becoming very clear by the numbers of persons who contacted Trump and requested him to call off the attack that Donald Trump had the ability to stop the brutal and deadly assault -- but he did not. His involvement in the planning and carrying out of the insurrection and his refusal to stop the onslaught and the crimes he is guilty of will become clear in time. However, it is critically important that we do not lose sight of the fact that this same man who participated and oversaw this heinous crime against the United States is still on the loose. Now, as a private citizen he is freely peddling his lies and propaganda with the same intent -- to gain control of the country through illegal means.

This article deals primarily with Trump as an ex-President; the time period after Joe Biden became the official President. It is the period following all of the 2020 election drama, confusion, uncertainty and the many Trump-instigated legal and rhetorical challenges to the election. Following the January 6th insurrection, the January 20 transfer of power and the emergence credible facts and evidence Trump simply doubled down on his Big Lie.

I draw this distinction because I am concerned about Trump's activity as a private citizen. This is when he began his official refusal to honor the traditional symbol of American democracy in the peaceful concession and transfer of power. Following the inauguration and swearing in of the new President he continued his tyrannical, unfounded claims designed to spread groundless, fallacious lies and misinformation about the 2020 election. His actions as a private citizen incited significant unrest among the electorate causing doubt and uncertainty in the integrity of the American system of elections -- the very foundation of democracy.

The actions of the twice impeached ex-President while he was in office were odious in their own right, however, his persistent and relentless actions as a private citizen have undermined the foundation of American democracy. He is not an insignificant individual -- he is an assumed billionaire with extensive resources; an ex-President; an individual who received 74 million popular votes; an individual who incited an insurrection on the U.S. government; the de facto leader of the Republican party; and an individual with considerable influence, connections and oratory skills. It is not an overstatement to say that this man who has mesmerized, captivated, riveted and altered the behavior of an entire political generation has the wherewithal to threaten the underpinnings of the democracy.

At this point, it is important to reflect on the incredible, prophetic wisdom and warning of the very first President of the United States, George Washington in his farewell address to the country following eight years in the leadership of a new nation in 1796, 225 years ago:

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. . . This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. . . The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge. . . The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. [emphasis added]

What Is Trump's Intent?

It may be good to reflect for a minute about what Trump was doing and saying following the election and up to his speech from the Ellipse, near the White House on January 6, 2021, that incited the assault on the U.S. Capitol. I say this because it is important to establish his intent. What did Donald Trump intend to happen by all of his actions? His actions, including telephone calls, planning, speeches and directed legal activities and involvements were designed to invalidate and alter the results of what nearly all objective observers agreed was a free and fair election. The intent of the rally speech by Trump and his compatriots at the Ellipse was to convince the thousands of protesters, beyond a doubt, that the election was rigged. The mantra of lies, the drumbeat of malicious false statements of material facts were intended to mislead and incite them into actions which predictably turned violent and resulted in an insurrection. Trump's words are not obscure or concealed:

"All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they're doing. And stolen by the fake news media. That's what they've done and what they're doing. We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved.

"Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with: We will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election." [https://tinyurl.com/mry4w7sp]

The intent of the January 6th insurrection incited by leader Trump, was to stop the legally required counting and approval of the electoral votes and to retain Trump as the illegal President of the United States. Donald Trump's intent was to incite the protesters to take whatever actions necessary to retain him illegally as President. He may not have known exactly what the incited, angry mob of thousands of protestors might do, but mob mentality and mob violence are rarely predictable. His intent was clearly to incite the protestors to attempt to stop or alter a required legal governmental function. There could hardly be a more clear example of sedition -- the organization and incitement that tends toward rebellion or insurrection against the established order of lawful authority.

Now, over a year after the legal and official transfer of power on January 20, 2021, we must ask, "What is Donald Trump's Intention Now?" A year after the election results have been certified by the individual state Secretaries of State & Governors, voted by the Electors, certified by Vice President Pence, the Senate and the House of Representatives, subjected to numerous state audits and third-party audits, at least 63 lawsuits filed and lost by Trump and others (including three Supreme Court reviews), and even a review by the former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr. It should also be emphasized that in the same 2020 elections that Trump is contesting 35 Senators, 435 House Members and 11 Governors were elected throughout the U.S., none of whom are claiming the elections were corrupt or rigged.

With evidence and proof now compiled, "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the highest legal standard) that there was no widespread corruption or irregularities of the 2020 national election for President, it seems clear that Donald Trump is intent, obsessed even, with becoming an illegal President and disrupting the legal framework of the American democratic republic and our system of laws and government. By holding rallies around the country he continues to incite large numbers of the general voting public to take whatever actions necessary to have him proclaimed the illegal President of the United States. Just as he desired to be the illegal President on January 6, 2021, his desires have not changed. Despite the evidence and proof, Trump is insistent on instilling doubt in the validity of the 2020 Presidential election to undermine public confidence in its results.

With his continued insistence that the 2020 election was corrupt, rigged and stolen from him, we can only assume that he is well aware of the overwhelming preponderance of universally accepted evidence and yet he continues his reckless disregard for that truth. His absolute refusal to accept the reality of his loss and concede to Joe Biden reveals that he still wants to perpetuate the belief that he won the election. His intention is to convince the public of that falsehood and to continue to reject the Constitutionally and legally prescribed election processes of the states and country. His intention is to incite people (masses of people) to believe his Big Lie and rebel against the government or governing authority. That is why, after his solid defeat, he continues holding rallies around the country to spread his propaganda. No other President in the history of the United States has categorically refused to concede defeat to a duly elected and inaugurated President over one year following the election.

What Is Trump Saying?

Trump, a man with a peppered history of many, many, smaller lies, began spewing his public Bigger Lies when he claimed for years that Barack Obama was not an American. Then, after he actually won the 2016 election, he was not satisfied with the fact that he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. So he began his spiel that millions of illegal aliens had corrupted the vote count and the 2017 inauguration was the biggest ever (which it wasn't). Before the votes were even counted in 2020, Trump had declared he was the winner and then from election night through the January 6, 2021 insurrection and finally following the inauguration of President Joe Biden, he continued to perpetuate every lie that he or his followers could think of to declare a Trump victory.

After refusing to concede, and unlike any ex-President before him, he has launched a denial campaign in venues around the country to continue his incessant, unrelenting lying about how the election was corrupt, rigged and stolen from him. Through all his lies there is a common thread -- there is never any proof of his allegations no matter how often they are repeated or how often they are investigated -- they are just lies and the important point is that he knows they are lies.

According to the experts on sociopathic lying:

A sociopath is someone who lacks empathy and does not think, live or behave following commonly-accepted social norms and morality. Someone who lies, cheats, and steals, for instance, might be indicted as a sociopath... The term "sociopath" is also often used to describe someone who is extremely manipulative, cunning, and charming, and is often associated with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), which is similarly characterized by being charming, manipulative, and self-focused... Both Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) and NPD have been linked to sociopathic behavior, and it is easy to confuse the two. People with both disorders are prone to lying, cheating, and manipulating to get what they want.

It seems clear that Trump falls within this realm of personality disorder. Seriously, can anyone believe Donald Trump does not know or understand the truth? Only the criminally insane could claim such a defense. So with that knowledge, Trump, a popular national figure, has with malice, purveyed known falsehoods with reckless disregard of the truth. Those utterances have serious consequences and do not enjoy constitutional protection under the First Amendment.

While we often hear media reports that Trump continues to say the election was stolen, we rarely get a feeling for the details and depth of the lies and misinformation and the passion by which he delivers it. No other ex-President has ever held numerous nationwide rallies to denigrate his opponent and denounce the election that elected him. Trump is continuing his rants to the public through rallies, interviews, right-wing reporting and TV coverage even now -- over a year following the election. There is no reason to believe that he will not continue this knowing and reckless disregard for the truth for the next three years.

In many respects much of the public has grown numb and desensitized to this repeated harsh rhetoric. It is important to not forget Donald Trump's intent and his unrelenting drive to achieve his fanatical, obsessive dream of ultimate control. As a reminder and just one example, I have included an extensive excerpted litany of the lies, falsehoods, and the inciting nature of his propaganda from a recent Trump rally held in Des Moines, Iowa on October 9, 2021, (An hour and 41 minutes rant). It is estimated that there were around 20,000 in attendance. I have edited the transcript for just the election and voting comments. The rest of the transcript is laced with lies and misinformation as well. Those comments, however distasteful, would almost certainly receive First Amendment freedom of speech exemptions because they would be considered as simply campaign rhetoric subject to opinion. The election and voting comments, however, because of their seditious nature and proven falsehood, should qualify as special, narrow exemptions to the sacred concept of freedom of speech. Trump said:

Trump Lies Never Stop

Rant: 11 months following the election

"The election was rigged. . . You have to fight. Bring our country back. . . It’s a corrupt elections bill. . . like the elections aren’t bad enough and corrupt enough. . . I never conceded. Never. Never conceded. No reason to concede. . . when you hear these numbers of swing states, there was no reason to concede. They shouldn’t have conceded. They did the honest thing, attacking our country. . .

That’s because it’s fake news. They are the enemy of the people. . . I think this is going to be a communist country. We’re not letting it happen. . . They [the media] are sick people and they’re really hurting our country. . . the media is corrupt. . . the elections are totally corrupt in our country. They have been for a long time. But never like they were this last time. . .

All of these calamities are the direct, predictable and disastrous consequence of a totally corrupt election. It’s all because of the corrupt election. They rigged the election. And now based on the rigged election, they’re destroying our country. That’s not a mandate. That’s a destruction of our country. Remember this, it’s not about me being robbed of an election. This is about the American people, having their country taken away from them.

That’s what it’s really about."

(The audience shouts "Trump won, Trump won, Trump won, Trump won, Trump won." & Trump responds, "We did, We did.")

"Arizona forensic audit. . .massive irregularities. . . 284,412 ballot images were... corrupt or missing. . . auditors discovered that millions of the election related files, the files were deleted during and after the election, in violation of federal law.

"DeKalb County, Georgia, that violated the chain of custody rules, 43,000 [votes]. . . I needed 11,779 votes, and they have 40,000 here and 20,000 here. In Pennsylvania, they were reportedly hundreds of thousands of more votes than there were voters. . . "In Michigan, the legislature found that over 300,000 people were listed on the voter rolls, even though they hadn’t voted in over 20 years. Oh, and again, in Detroit, which is known as the single most corrupt election venue in the country. . .
This election was rigged. They said that. This election was rigged.

. . .we must pass a complete overhaul of our entire election system to ensure it’s free, fair, honest, and able to be fully and quickly audited.

They’re destroying our country. As bad as that is, the single biggest issue. . . is talking about the election fraud of 2020 Presidential election. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. . . we did far better in 2020 than we did in 2016. It was a rigged election. . . I got almost 75,000,000, probably I got 85,000,000 but who the hell knows?

But they called it the big lie. But the big lie turned out to be the corrupt election itself. . . there’s so much evidence, it’s pouring out of our ears. We’ve never had so much evidence. . . the people of this country, whether it’s Arizona or Georgia, or Wisconsin or Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and if you look at all of Michigan and others, the people get it more so than the politicians.

Links to other recent rally speeches including Arizona & Texas in 2022 (It actually gets much worse!)

Sedition & Freedom of Speech

Sedition means: words or speech that incite people to rebel against the government or governing authority. Words that inspire a revolution that overthrows the government are an example of sedition. Organized incitement of rebellion or civil disorder against authority or the state, usually by speech or writing.

Sedition is a concept that cannot be taken lightly. On one hand it can be a serious crime against the government. On the other hand it can easily be misused as a threat to those who think differently than the existing authorities or governing leaders. The principles of sedition, treason and freedom of speech are closely intertwined.

As explained in a UCLA Law Review:

"The roots of seditious libel lie in the English crime of treason, which punished overt acts 'against the person or government of the King,' such as plotting his death, declaring war on him, or aiding his enemies. . .

[In the United States] . . . the rationale for punishing seditious libel in the early Republic was identical to that in England — that is, punishment was necessary to maintain the status and honor of lawmakers and the stability of the nation. Such reasoning turned the Act into a powerful political tool in the hands of Federalist officials who silenced speech critical of the incumbent administration. Many soon came to understand the Sedition Act as a misguided exercise of power. . . In 1964 [Supreme Court decision], New York Times v. Sullivan finally pronounced seditious libel 'inconsistent with the First Amendment.' . . .The Court thus concluded that the combination of factual error and defamatory content alone was insufficient to 'remove the constitutional shield' from speech about public officials." See: Lies, Honor, and the Government’s Good Name: Seditious Libel and the Stolen Valor Act, March 2012, https://tinyurl.com/2p8bf4vy

Over the years the courts have narrowed and further narrowed the types of speech and writings that do not receive First Amendment, freedom of speech protections. Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories: Obscenity; Fighting words; Defamation (including libel and slander); Child pornography; Perjury; Blackmail; Incitement to imminent lawless action; True threats; Solicitations to commit crimes. Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected. See Freedom Forum Institute, https://tinyurl.com/5n6nrpks

In an interesting article in the Ohio State Law Journal, Rescuing Our Democracy by Rethinking New YorkTimes Co. v. Sullivan, David A. Logan explores the problems of lies and misinformation in our society in light of Court rulings to protect freedom of speech and honor the First Amendment. He indicates:

"Our democracy is in trouble, awash in an unprecedented number of lies— some spewed by foreign enemies targeting our electoral processes, others promoted by our leaders, and millions upon millions spread by shadowy sources on the internet and, especially, via social media. Chief Justice John Roberts recently warned that '[i]n our age . . . social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale,' causing harm to our democracy. The internet has become our 'public square,' something beyond the imagination of the Supreme Court when it issued its groundbreaking 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. . .

"New York Times defanged defamation law, recognizing that our democracy needs to protect even speech that is false. But with more than half a century of perspective, it is now clear that the Court’s constraints on defamation law have facilitated a miasma of misinformation that harms democracy by making it more difficult for citizens to become informed voters. The time has come to ask a once heretical question: “What if New York Times got it wrong?”

As Logan indicates, the Courts have gone to extremes to "protect even speech that is false." False statements, even deliberate lies, against the government may be protected (See New York Times). While some "seditious libel" may be able to be punished, political statements are likely protected.

While the Courts are extremely cautious in limiting freedom of speech (as they should be), as discussed above they have over the years carved out narrow exceptions where it makes sense to limit freedom of speech. Considering the unique nature of Donald Trump and his presence on the American political scene, I would like to suggest a new, specific exception to freedom of speech and suggest a legal rationale for that exception.

I would draw a similarity to the exception made for perjury. In the freedom of speech Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Alvarez, No. 11–210. Argued February 22, 2012—Decided June 28, 2012, Justice Kennedy in the plurality opinion discusses perjury as a First Amendment issue and indicates, "As for perjury statutes, perjured statements lack First Amendment protection not simply because they are false, but because perjury undermines the function and province of the law and threatens the integrity of judgments." He cites United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U. S. 87, 97 (1993), “To uphold the integrity of our trial system . . . the constitutionality of perjury statutes is unquestioned”.

The Justices indicate that perjury statutes are at the foundation of our system of laws and thus take on extreme importance in relation to the concept of free speech. It is essential that witnesses under oath tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth or be appropriately punished for not doing so. Otherwise our legal and judicial system of laws and government would collapse.

Likewise one could argue that the act of voting and the results of that voting is the centerpiece of American democracy and government. False statements about the conduct and results of the nation's elections, made doggedly by an influential individual with reckless disregard of the truth, are likely to interfere with the public confidence in the electoral system and could undermine the function of government and threaten the integrity of elections. Therefore such statements should not enjoy First Amendment protection.

There should be a specific statute that prohibits the transmission, distribution and utterance of such false statements which are contrary to the finalized and legally approved results of the national electoral process of the United States.

In the meantime, it seems that there is sufficient legal precedent within Supreme Court decisions and precedents for the Department of Justice or some other body to bring a First Amendment challenge to Donald Trump's persistent lying and reckless, malicious and seditious attacks on the government and his dissemination of knowingly false information of the results of the 2020 Presidential election (the so-called "Big Lie").

On one hand it seems there would be legal justification for a challenge to anyone who engaged in such activities or actions; while on the other hand, it would seem blatantly obvious if such activities or actions were carried out by a former candidate or defeated President of the United States or persons holding or previously holding Executive or Congressional office.

The January 6th Select Committee of the House of Representatives has already found...

The claims regarding the 2020 election results were advanced and amplified in the weeks leading up to the January 6 assault, even after courts across the country had resoundingly rejected Trump campaign lawsuits claiming election fraud and misconduct, and after all States had certified the election results. As part of this effort, Mr. Trump and his associates spread false information about, and cast doubts on, the elections in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, among other states, and pressed Federal, State, and local officials to use their authorities to challenge the election results.

As indicated previously, Trump has continued to this day in his efforts to spread false information and cast doubts on the election results in an attempt to undermine confidence in the election and the government of the United States.

#VotingRightsIsSolution

EPILOG

Electoral College Results for 2020 are finally deposited in the National Archives on January 6, 2022. Thereafter, lying with malice or reckless disregard for truth about the results should be considered criminal & subject to fines and penalties. Penalties should be extreme for Public Officials & Public Figures who must bear responsibility for peddling known lies that undermine the integrity and confidence of the American electoral system and the democracy itself.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has addressed the First Amendment Freedom of Speech issue as it relates to lying, misinformation and disinformation relating to voting issues. They have said:

"Supreme Court jurisprudence has long established that certain categories of low-value speech are outside the realm of First Amendment protection. Obscenity, defamation, incitement, and fraud have historically been considered by the Court as unworthy of First Amendment protection. Deceptive election speech regarding voting is fraudulent and therefore unprotected. . . The distinguishing element between false statements which are protected and those which are unprotected is the existence of a malicious intent [citing US v. Alvarez (2012)]. The Court has steadfastly held that when an individual communicates a false statement of fact about a matter of public concern, the speaker can be held to account only upon a showing of intent; this avoids the risk of punishing innocent mistakes [citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)]. . . To hold a person accountable under the model law [proposed by the Lawyers’ Committee], the complainant must show that the defendant made a false representation of a material fact knowing that the representation was false and demonstrate that the defendant made the representation with the intent to mislead the audience [citing Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Assocs., 538 U.S. 600 (2003)].

As emphasized by Justice Alito in his dissent in the Alvarez case, ". . . there are broad areas in which any attempt by the state to penalize purportedly false speech would present a grave and unacceptable danger of suppressing truthful speech. . .it is perilous to permit the state to be the arbiter of truth." To avoid the chilling effect on Freedom of Speech we must be extremely careful and assure that the government is not the sole arbiter of truth. To regulate the Big Lie and not offend the First Amendment case law, we must be able to define and articulate the real, hard truth and as well, disclose the arbiter of that truth.

1. The Truth: Logging results in the National Archives defines the final, hard truth. This act defines the end of the Electoral College process which is defined in the Constitution and law and is subjected to a year long public inspection opportunity following the January 6th Joint Session of Congress to officially and finally count the electoral votes. The process involves many individuals and is performed on a strict timeline that is set in law. No individual, agency or political entity controls the process.

2. The Arbiter: Likewise, the final, hard truth is not defined by any state or federal government, individual, agency or political entity. Instead, the final electoral vote count is established by an elaborate and complex United States electoral system and process that consists of the electoral population; multiple state agencies and officials; many private and legal counters, inspectors, reviewers and observers; and the Electoral College process (above) and further reviews by state government and private entity audits and public inspections and legal investigations and reviews of the results of over approximately a year and three-months time period. Collectively, this elaborate process and the many individuals and entities involved are the final arbiters of the hard truth of electoral voting results that is uncontestable and logged within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) as part of the permanent record of the United States of America.

As indicated above, the reason we must be insistent on regulating Donald Trump's Big Lie or other similar lies now or in the future, is to maintain and preserve the integrity and confidence of the American electoral system and the democracy itself.

"Without electoral integrity, leaders and officials lack accountability to the public, confidence in the election results is weak, and the government lacks necessary legitimacy. Electoral integrity allows for peaceful resolution of conflict, open dialogue, debate, and information sharing among leaders and the public. Integrity depends on public confidence in electoral and political processes. It is not enough to reform institutions; citizens need to be convinced that changes are real and deserve their confidence. To ensure that elections have integrity, other factors outside of the electoral institutions themselves need to be taken into account and strengthened. Election officials, judges and courts must have independence that is respected by politicians." ACE Electoral Knowledge Network

"Mis- and disinformation can undermine public confidence in the electoral process, as well as in our democracy. Elections are administered by state and local officials who implement numerous safeguards to protect the security of your vote pursuant to various state and federal laws and processes. This resource is designed to debunk common misinformation and disinformation narratives and themes that relate broadly to the security of election infrastructure and related processes. It is not intended to address jurisdiction-specific claims. Instead, this resource addresses election security rumors by describing common and generally applicable protective processes, security measures, and legal requirements designed to protect against or detect large-scale security issues related to election infrastructure and processes." The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)

We have election laws and an electoral process in the United States that results in the official and final selection of our President and Vice President. When the results are legally and finally approved it should be illegal to say they are not real. This would be a Big Seditious Unconstitutional Lie.

#VotingRightsIsSolution

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Added References

* Stop The Big Lie Act (very rough draft)

* The Conspiracy To Overthrow The 2020 Election

* Links to other recent rally speeches including Arizona & Texas in 2022

* RESOLVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT’S CIVIL WAR: POLITICAL FRAUD AND THE DEMOCRATIC GOALS OF FREE EXPRESSION Martin H. Redish & Julio Pereyra, December 2020

* A First Amendment Balancing Act, The Regulatory Review, by Brianna Rauenzahn, December 10, 2020

* Second Thoughts: A Response to David A.Logan’s Rescuing Our Democracy by RethinkingNew York Times v. Sullivan, by David A. Anderson

* Wikipedia: False statements of fact

* Congressional Research Service: Freedom of Speech and Press:Exceptions to the First Amendment

* Wikipedia: Freedom of speech

* FALSEHOODS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT, by Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Spring 2020

* FACTS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT, by Frederick Schauer, UCLA School of Law, July 2012

* The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, the world’s largest online community and repository of electoral knowledge.

* ELECTION SECURITY RUMOR VS. REALITY, The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), November 2, 2021

* The clear and present danger of Trump's enduring 'Big Lie', by Melissa Block, NPR, December 23, 2021

* Disinformation kills. Now what are we going to do about it?, Dr Alexi Drew, Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Policy Institute at King’s College, London, January 11, 2021

* Washington Gov. Jay Inslee says lying about elections should be a crime, OPB, January 6, 2022

* Lawyer Lies and Political Speech, The Yale Law Journal, Renee Knake Jefferson, October 24, 2021

Steps To An American Voting Rights Act

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:12:00 +0000

Steps To An American Voting Rights Act

The right to vote for Americans is currently in jeopardy due to the continued perpetuation that the 2020 election was stolen (the "Big Lie") by Donald Trump and many in the Republican Party. A massive effort is underway in state legislatures across the county to place restrictions and processes on voting and elections to make it more difficult for certain groups (minorities, students, poor and others) and to exercise various legislative controls and interventions in actual election results.

My last posting, "Voting Rights Plus Everything Else" discussed the fact that voting rights is the one issue that overshadows all other issues and is the foundational issue to American democracy. I emphasized that it is so easy to get distracted with the many other issues that are popular including Climate Change, Infrastructure, Health Care, Police Reform, Immigration, Civil Rights, Gun Control, SCOTUS Packing, New Statehoods, Campaign Finance & Election Reform, Taxes, Minimum Wage, Women's Rights, etc., etc.

Many of these issues will take months or years to debate and resolve, and will take time to garner full and adequate public and Congressional support. But, voting rights must be resolved immediately and remains the most critical issue to provide a path to save our democracy and provide solutions to so many other issues going forward. With Democrats in narrow control of the House, Senate and Executive Office there seems to be a lack of that serious focus and urgency being paid to this most critical issue. The urgency relates to the absolute necessity of overriding significant Republican efforts at blatant voter suppression in their hopes of winning back the House and Senate in the upcoming midterm elections, now less than 17 months away. Even if measures were passed yesterday they will take time to effectuate within federal and state governments and will likely be subject to preliminary court challenges, interpretations and clarifications.

Many Democrats including President Biden seem to be riding high on the current wave of normalcy and have lost sight of the fact that it will all come crashing down in an instant if a few votes are transferred in the midterm elections. Many astute political observers are predicting that an upcoming Republican takeover of the House is highly probable in the midterm elections. Additionally, Democrats seem to be ignoring the political reality that they do not currently have 60 votes or even 50 votes in the Senate to override a filibuster or institute filibuster changes to address any of their issues; including voting rights.

Also as part of the current political reality many Democrats seem unwilling to accept that many of the items on their campaign and election reforms wish list are simply not ripe for mainstream public acceptance at this time. What is ripe and seems to have widespread public acceptance is making sure that the public is afforded an easy, convenient and fair opportunity to vote and that new and proposed Republican voter suppression efforts are overturned and prohibited in the future. [Opinion piece on Democrats dilemma.]

There are three major components to the voting rights legislative debate: (1) Elements of the 800+ page For The People Act (H.R.1/S.1); (2) Elements of & proposed amendments of S.4263, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act; and (3) Necessary amendments & clarifications to the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

As part of the voting rights Congressional debate as well as considerations of other legislative issues there has been considerable attention to the filibuster and possible "carve out" exceptions, modifications or outright elimination. Discussions on the future of the filibuster vary depending on the issue and are politically complex and not easily resolved. The filibuster establishes an arbitrary, non-Constitutional Senatorial rule requiring at least 60 votes to approve legislation. It does not apply to budgetary matters under an exception known as "reconciliation" nor to administrative, judicial and Supreme Court appointments under carved out exceptions which have been approved by both Democrats and Republicans under separate actions by a simple majority vote. The Senate reconciliation process may be utilized only three times per year (some exceptions) for spending, revenue, and the federal debt limit matters.

As it relates to voting rights, it is critically important to emphasize the political reality that currently exists. The reconciliation process does not apply and Democrats do not currently have 60 votes to override a Republican filibuster or 50 votes to effect a change in the filibuster rule. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), Kyrsten Senema (D-AZ) and a few other Democrats have raised serious objections to eliminating or carving out exceptions to the filibuster. The objectors have suggested on occasion that they might be willing to consider some modification to the filibuster rule but they have not agreed to any specifics. The strong objections are primarily based on two reasons: (1) a belief that bipartisanship in decision making is good and necessary in the U.S. Senate; and (2) when party control changes Democrats will be subject to majority Republican decisions with no ability to stop them. It should be noted that Democrats have used the filibuster many times in the past to stop Republican actions when they have been the minority party. [Summary of current political debate.]

While some Democrats wish the party could unite and pass voting rights legislation by a majority vote and others seem to be acting as if the political reality does not exist, that simply is not possible. Democrats must start with a basic acceptance of the current political reality; otherwise there is no hope. As part of that reality they must proceed with the assumption that they will likely not receive 10 Republican votes to override a filibuster. Considering the timing and urgency of the matter, that leaves only one option: they must work exceedingly hard in negotiations to craft a bill that has nearly 100% of Senate Democratic and Executive Office support and addresses policy concerns of potentially objecting members and proceed to convince all party members of the extreme importance and the fact that there is no other option other than passing the bill with 50 Democratic votes and most likely the tie breaking vote of the Vice President. [UPDATE 6/16/21: Manchin outlines policy requirements for For The People Act] & [Manchin says 55 vote filibuster might be possible]

As mentioned above, the matter is exceedingly urgent, it is the most important issue facing the Biden Administration and the Democratic party, and it is one of the most complex legislative construction endeavors in the history of the country. It requires all hands on board and an intensive effort on the part of all Democratic members and the President.

The following is a starting point and step by step outline of actions that could lead to passage of voting rights legislation.

Start with the fact that Senators Manchin and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) wrote a letter to Congressional members on May 17, 2021. They put their feelings and positions in writing to their colleagues. They must be held accountable. In their letter they said:

“Protecting Americans’ access to democracy has not been a partisan issue for the past 56 years, and we must not allow it to become one now. . . Inaction is not an option. Congress must come together — just as we have done time and again — to reaffirm our longstanding bipartisan commitment to free, accessible, and secure elections for all… We can do this. We must do this.”

This letter must be the foundation of the negotiating effort and launch pad for what must be done. Senator Manchin's insistence on bipartisanship and preservation of the filibuster must be presented to him directly and challenged with his own words -- "We can do this. We must do this." Manchin must be forced to confront his own dilemma of the reality that if Congress will not come together then what is the option if as he says, "Inaction is not an option."

The two Senators point out and remind in their heartfelt letter that:

"Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 passed the United States Senate 98-0 without a single dissenting vote. Protecting Americans’ access to democracy has not been a partisan issue for the past 56 years, and we must not allow it to become one now..."

I would suggest the following steps to passing voting rights legislation.

1. H.R.1/S.1 For The People Act

This 800-page bill comprising a Democratic wish list of election and campaign reform issues must be stripped-down and focused on just making it easy, convenient and fair for people to vote and to override Republican voter suppression efforts. Other sections, many of which are very important but not essential to the preservation of our democracy, need to be deferred to a later time for further discussion and consideration. Increasing voter access via polling places and drop boxes, allowing for no-excuse mail voting, at least 15 days of early voting, eliminating nonsense restrictions like water to voters, polling intimidators, etc. and overriding other Republican suppression efforts must be included. Other sections, particularly controversial campaign financing sections and even gerrymandering sections are still highly controversial, even among some conservative Democrats and Independents, and should be debated later.

Additionally, there has been recent discussion of important sections that need to be added to the bill nullifying Republican efforts that may provide for legislative overrides of election results or other interference in the state election certification process. Overall the bill should assure that elections are free, easy, convenient and secure for the voting public.

2. H.R.4/H.R.4/S.4263, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

The bill and proposed amendments by Senator Manchin, with 47 cosponsors, is designed to address the SCOTUS concerns (2013 Shelby County v Holder decision) of preclearance based on old data (i.e. decades-old misdeeds, rather than current discriminatory practices) and discrimination against certain states (i.e. unequal burdens on certain states) by requiring preclearance for all 50 states. This bill needs to be finally negotiated with amendments among Democrats. [Discussion of Manchin proposal & relation to other efforts.]

Note: Now there is a new urgency with the July 1, 2021, Supreme Court decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee which will further limit challenges under the Voting Rights Act. [Article on the decision.]

3. Electoral Count Act of 1887

An article in The Bulwark has exposed the many faults of this 1887 and the serious need to update and clarify this act to among other things, exclude any Congressional override of certified state elections. This must be included as part of the overall effort to address voting rights. This is the Act that calls for the January 6th meeting and the supposed perfunctory Congressional approval which precipitated the insurrection. The Act is a literal joke and a nightmare of legal mumbo-jumbo which is discussed in this article. I think many people simply assumed that this was somehow addressed in HR1/S1.

4. Combine 1,2, & 3 into one new American Voting Rights Act

5. Launch a major, nationwide educational campaign on the new bill

6. Put the bill to a vote of the Senate before Labor Day

Encourage willing and concerned Republicans to join in the effort with their support.

7. If Republicans filibuster the bill carve out a “voting rights exception” to the filibuster.

8. Convince & Hold Accountable Manchin and any other doubters

There is no other way if you are to hold to your statement that, "We must do this... Inaction is not an option." To save our democracy and preserve free and fair elections for the public the Act must be passed with at least 50 Democratic votes + VP if needed (i.e. if no Republican votes).

UPDATE: From (CNN) Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia said Wednesday (6/16/21) he wouldn't rule out supporting S1 -- the sweeping elections overhaul bill Congress is considering -- and is open to backing it as long as some changes are made.

Read Manchin's proposed changes below, obtained by CNN. Manchin's proposal is detailed and was immediately supported by Stacey Abrams and immediately rejected by Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who said he expected all Republican Senators to vote against it. [See GOP reaction article].

UPDATE#2: On June 22, 2021, the U.S. Senate voted on a cloture motion to end the filibuster and proceed with discussion of the For The People Act which would require 60 votes to continue. All 50 Republican Senators voted to stop discussion and all 50 Democratic Senators voted to proceed. Discussion of Voting Rights in the U.S. Senate is stalled for the time being. [See article]

UPDATE#3: (7/28/21) Finally, months too late, as reported by the Washington Post, a small group of Senate Democrats convened to hammer out a revised voting rights bill that might be released as soon as this week after Republicans filibustered the sweeping, For the People Act last month. Reportedly, the bill will include Senator Manchin's concerns addressed in his 3-page framework and the adoption strategy seems to be headed toward "a small carve out on filibuster for voting rights." [See the WP newsletter report] [7/30/21, Politico article on new voting rights bill] [7/30/21 ABC News article summarizing recent progress]

UPDATE#4: (8/12/21) Brief article summarizing the urgency & uncertainty of Democrats' ability in addressing Voting Rights and therein the future of democracy in the U.S. Nothing is more important.
Democrats Are Running Out of Time to Protect Voting Rights, Mother Jones, by Ari Berman
As Republicans pass state-level restrictions and prepare to gerrymander, national legislation is stalled.

UPDATE#5: (8/24/21) In May 2021, Senators Joe Manchin(D-WV) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) wrote to the House & Senate leadership reminding that:

" Since enactment, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been reauthorized and amended five times with large, bipartisan majorities. Most recently, The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 passed the United States Senate 98-0 without a single dissenting vote. Protecting Americans’ access to democracy has not been a partisan issue for the past 56 years, and we must not allow it to become one now." [Emphasis added]

Bipartisanship has now left the voting rights issue. On August 24, 2001, H R 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, passed the U.S. House of Representatives completely along party lines, with 219 Democrats in favor and all 212 Republicans opposed. It is expected that the bill will now face steep Republican opposition in the U.S. Senate. Democrats say the bill would make it more difficult for states to restrict future voting access and Republicans say the bill is federal overreach into the state's role in election processes. In June Senate Republicans blocked approval of H.R.1, the For The People Act the other major voting rights bill sponsored by Democrats [See Update#2 above].

[NPR article on the House vote]

UPDATE#6: (9/8/21)

(1) Dems: Save the bipartisan hard infrastructure & #VotingRights bills by linking them & dropping the $3.5T reconciliation bill until after the Midterms. Dems & Biden need a big boost for Midterms.

(2) Democrats, you must accept the fact that the $3.5T soft infrastructure reconciliation proposal is not going to pass this fall. Drastic cuts will only weaken the programs. It needs much more development, discussion and public education. You can't expect the public to accept such a complex bill which has not even been fully drafted or released yet. Further pursuit now is only going to delay or deny the hard infrastructure and voting rights legislation which will doom Midterm success. The future of democracy and critical legislation depends on Democrats keeping and expanding Congressional control.

(3) In the HOUSE, Speaker Pelosi must call for the preparation of a substitute for H.R.4, (John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, passed 8/24/21)) to include elements of HR1, & the Electoral Count Act which are acceptable to all Democrats including Senator Manchin & other Democratic moderates. At this point, Democrats must accept all of the voting rights provisions that can be approved by all Democrats. Other desired voting rights provisions can be worked on following the 2022 Midterms. The Substitute Voting Rights bill should be linked to the bipartisan $1.2T "Hard Infrastructure" that passed the Senate with 19 Republican votes. The House should pass the linked bills and send them to the Senate.

(4) In the SENATE; Senate Majority Leader Schumer should bring the linked Infrastructure & Voting Rights bills up for a vote. There should be an incentive for at least some of the 19 Republicans to support the combined package & all Democratic Senators should be supportive because the bills include their previously approved Infrastructure votes & their recommendations for Voting Rights legislation. Only 10 Republicans are needed. If there are not 10 Republicans, Democratic Senators MUST carve-out a Voting Rights exception to the filibuster and pass the combined package with 51 votes. The public will know that they tried to include Republicans to support critical Infrastructure needs and Voting Rights for ALL voters.

(5) On September 14, 2021, Senate Democrats introduced the Freedom to Vote Act. Here is Senator Klobuchar's summary: https://tinyurl.com/3w579mcd

Here is the full text: https://tinyurl.com/f4zn3e2

Democrats should now link the new Freedom to Vote bill to HR4 (John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021), a revised Electoral Count Act (the source of the January 6 insurrection) & the "Hard" Infrastructure bill & pass the package NOW! All Senate Democrats are now on board. 

Democrats should give the Senate GOP a chance to vote for the whole package. Nineteen (19) of them voted previously for the "Hard" Infrastructure package. If they refuse to find a minimum of 10 Republican Senators to support the package; Democrats should immediately pass the Hard Infrastructure package via reconciliation & the Voting Rights package by a Filibuster Carve Out exception.

Senate Democratic Moderates should support the "carve out" because Republicans will have been given an opportunity to support the infrastructure package which they previously approved and a very basic Voting Rights package to preserve the rights and freedoms for Americans to vote. Voters must be reminded that Republicans were willing to deny the public critically needed infrastructure and basic voting rights for pure political "party over country" power.

Democrats in turn must drop their insistence to link the hard infrastructure package to their $3.5 trillion "soft/social" infrastructure package. While the $3.5T package contains many important and beneficial programs it has barely been drafted and contains many complex details. The public and decision makers need to have more time to develop, discuss & understand this important legislation. Work on social" infrastructure package can begin immediately following the passage of hard infrastructure and voting rights legislation which is essential in advance of the 2022 Midterms.

Epilogue #1: (6/23/21) Unfortunately, Democrats have skipped some critical steps in the process and have basically taken Step #1; put it to a vote -- Step #6 -- and proved that Republicans would continue to filibuster the bill with their unanimous 50 votes against cloture.

All is not lost yet, but it is essential that Democrats quickly take stock and accelerate actions to complete the missing steps.

The three major elements of voting rights legislation (listed above) must be combined and carefully crafted to address the most critical aspects necessary to override the widespread Republican Party voter suppression laws and legislation underway in statehouses across the country. This new American Voting Rights Act must have 100% support from all Senate Democrats and the Biden Administration.

Then proceed with Steps 5, 6, 7, & 8. Step #5 is exceedingly important and must be thorough and comprehensive.

Epilogue #2: (12/2/21) Unfortunately, Democratic leadership and POTUS have let the major reforms needed on voting rights and voter suppression slip away.

The leadership, distracted by infrastructure and Build Back Better, failed to prioritize and deal with the urgency of the lynchpin of American democracy -- the right to vote -- upon which all other issues depend.

While the GOP has been emphatic and successful in frustrating and altering that right to their advantage, POTUS, with the power of the bully pulpit, should have taken control with a vengeance to defend that fundamental right; including the critical rationale and need to carve out an exception to the Senate filibuster rule in order to enact reforms.

He should have prioritized and explained the importance of voting rights above all else. He should have quashed the nonsensical internal bickering within his party and presented the public with relentless, hard hitting, flag waving oratory to save the U.S. democracy. He should have also individually dealt seriously with any unreasonable obstruction or interference by members of his party.

Instead, he let it get out of hand and has placed the future of U.S. democracy on the brink. Even if Democrats were to pass some reform legislation now; it's probably too late to be effective against a barrage of GOP lawsuits that would delay or halt implementation prior to the November 8, 2022 Midterm elections. Those elections will likely determine the future of democracy in America.

Additionally, it appears that even the legislation that is being proposed does not address the intrinsic legal ambiguity within the antiquated Electoral Count Act of 1887 which was the root cause and erroneous justification for the January 6, 2021 insurrection and assault on the American democracy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: See comments below.

Virus-free. www.avg.com

Voting Rights Plus Everything Else

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:08:00 +0000

There are so many issues it's easy to get distracted -- Climate Change, Infrastructure, Health Care, Police Reform, Immigration, Civil Rights, Gun Control, SCOTUS Packing, New Statehoods, Campaign Finance & Election Reform, Taxes, Minimum Wage, Women's Rights, etc., etc.

Yet, there is one issue; just one issue, that overshadows them all. The most foundational issue, common to all, is voting rights. With sensible, uniform voting rights for all citizens that encourage voting and don't inhibit it, who knows how we might address all these critical issues. If we suppress the right to vote we suppress the will of the public; and if we suppress the will of the public, we suppress or distort the will to address these issues. Currently, on some issues there is no overarching public or political will to address the issue and so it will not be adequately addressed. On other issues there may be strong public will but, no overarching political will -- again, the issue will not be adequately addressed. If voters are not inhibited or disenfranchised in some way, the all important public will can be expressed in each new election (local, state, & federal). Until voter suppression is stopped and the public is allowed to freely express its will through voting for political leadership and direction little, if any, progress will be made on all of the major issues facing the country.

There is no more important issue than expanding voter rights and stopping blatant voter suppression.

Take climate change for example. . .

The challenge to address climate change is particularly difficult because of its global nature, over which we have only limited and indirect control. It’s doubtful the challenge will ever be met. However, if we focus on issues within the United States and under our government control, addressing climate change is no different than the many other critical issues that must be addressed and solved. While there is no specific proposal to address U.S. involvement in the issue, there is general public support for doing something. That public support may change dramatically depending on a specific proposal, however, there is no clear political support among the existing mix of Congressional legislators so it's highly unlikely that anything will be done. Free and uninhibited voter expression in upcoming elections could change that dynamic.

And how about infrastructure which we can more directly control. . .

On infrastructure there appears to be broad, bipartisan support for President Biden's fairly specific proposed $2.2 trillion infrastructure plan. Yet despite the public support, political support is fairly split and the opposition is entrenched based on definitional and funding issues.

What if Democrats called the Republican’s bluff? Republicans in Congress continue to say they are for infrastructure, but Democrats define it too broadly, their proposal is too big, and they propose increases in the corporate income tax rate and perhaps taxes only on persons making more than $400,000, all of which they are against.

As an alternative strategy to meet the public will, why don’t Democrats say to Republicans, tell us the parts of the infrastructure bill that you think are overreach or not germane. If Republicans won’t officially identify their objections, Democrats should do it based on various, on-record comments from Republican leaders. It appears that a small group of Republicans have rallied around a reduced infrastructure bill (conforming to their definition) of about $600 to $800 billion. Then, repackage the bill to near Republican standards and call it Infrastructure (Part A). Now, bring the Part A bill to the floor for a vote and see how many votes it gets or if Republicans filibuster it.

If it passes, it will at least be a starting point and Biden and Congressional Democrats can claim victory — they compromised and got something done on a huge issue. Democrats also should develop and and widely publicize their Part B bill and highlight the additional features that go beyond the Part A bill. If the Part A bill doesn't pass (I can almost guarantee that), Biden and Dems can expose the blatant hypocrisy of Republicans and their obstructionist agenda and focus solely on political power. If the Biden infrastructure bill (Part A&B) continues to be popular Democrats should attempt to pass it by whatever means and, if necessary, expose opponents to the public will in the midterm election.

By not focusing like a laser on the most critical and foundational issue of all -- voting rights -- I am seriously worried that Democrats are going to undermine what may be a one-time opportunity to save democracy as we know it. Despite the idiocy and corruption of the Trump years he continues to command control of the GOP (a factoid I simply don't understand). In typical Democratic fashion, with the narrowest margin of political control, Democrats are falling into their self-made trap of ideological overreach, lack of focus and confusing communications. This shortsightedness gives Republicans all the buzz words and soundbites they need to spread lies and disinformation throughout the electorate. Typically, Democrats try to push too much, too fast, beyond the middle ground of basic, widely accepted support for necessary reforms -- the so-called Overton window.

It is a time when filibuster reform (not elimination) and plain and simple "voting rights" (exclusive of distracting issues like campaign financing & election reforms) should be the number one priorities. Voting rights in particular is the critical underpinning upon which all other reforms depend; now and in the future. I'm afraid Democrats are not focused on the prize and instead are laying the groundwork for the Republican barrage of "see, I told you so" -- misleading attacks on spending & taxes, packing SCOTUS, reparations, green deals, defunding police, 2nd amendment rights, new statehoods, and other highly controversial and complicated issues that are all important but scare the electorate, do not have overwhelming public support and dominate the news media and overshadow the basic priorities.

Democrats cannot even muster unanimous support from their own Party on many of these issues and as the 2022 midterm election approaches there is no time to waste. If Dems lose their narrow political control in the midterms, all is lost. Filibuster reform and voting rights legislation to stop voter suppression are essential to any future Democratic agenda and must be accomplished well in advance of November 2022, to allow time to implement reforms. I don't see a focused effort to make that happen.

###

Footnote #1:

Several Republicans Senators have now put forth a $568 billion counter proposal to the Biden $2.2 trillion plan [https://tinyurl.com/r3rbd6w]. The GOP members include:

Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) along with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and John Barrasso (R-WY), and Mitt Romney.( R-UT).

The following is a listing of GOP v. Biden proposals for common infrastructure items. The numbers in parenthesis indicate the middle "compromise" between the two proposals. All numbers are in billions and the GOP proposed number is indicated first. See a comparison of the two plans: https://tinyurl.com/efkmpmz2

Roads and bridges 299 - 205 ($252B);

Public transit systems 61 - 85 ($73B);

Rail 20 - 80 ($50B)

Drinking water & wastewater infrastructure 35 - 101 ($68B)

Ports & inland waterways 17 - 17 ($17B)

Airports 44 - 25 ($34.5B)

Safety 13 - 0 ($6.5B)

Broadband infrastructure 65 - 100 ($82.5)

Water storage 14 - 0 ($7B)

As it turns out the two plans are only $45 billion apart on generally common items ($568 v. $613). If you split the differences on the common items a compromised total would be about $590 billion.

Consistent with my suggestion above I would propose that President Biden and Senate Democrats immediately package the compromised numbers on the common items into the Infrastructure Part A bill. Currently it is proposed to finance the effort over 15 years with a hike in the corporate income tax rate to 28%, up from 21%. The Administration could also call for a compromise here also -- to say 25%.

Democrats should call the Republican's bluff and put the Part A completely compromised bill to a vote in the Senate & see if the GOP will support it (I doubt it). If it fails to pass, Democrats should immediately pass the bill through reconciliation, claim their victory for getting something done for the American people, and emphasize the GOP's refusal to compromise in the upcoming midterm elections.

President Biden and Congressional Democrats should then package the remaining elements of the proposal into a Part B bill to include their items such as electric vehicles, climate change, elderly infrastructure via caregiving & caregivers, clean manufacturing & rural community energy, energy efficient housing, research and development, educational infrastructure, workforce development, and VA hospitals. Democrats should work separately to build and gain public support for these items.

###

Footnote #2:

J.P. McJefferson

@JPMcJefferson

Mitch McConnell made SCOTUS appointments AN EXCEPTION to the filibuster. If Dems can rally 50 votes on issues, Chuck Schumer should make #VotingRights; U.S. #Insurrection; & #CivilRights AN EXCEPTION. #filibuster #FilibusterOrDemocracy #bipartisanship

https://tinyurl.com/yf7me8ne

J.P. McJefferson

@JPMcJefferson

May 30

NOTHING WILL CHANGE FOR THE BETTER -- gun laws, climate change, police practices, abortion laws, the filibuster, infrastructure, minimum wage, civil rights, health care -- IF THE PUBLIC IS DENIED VOTING RIGHTS! Fix it now! #VotingRights 
http://tinyurl.com/99vhav5s

J.P. McJefferson

@JPMcJefferson

May 29

Sen. Joe Manchin said, "You have to have faith there's 10 good people." WRONG Joe; Only 6! Joe, it's time to wake up. You can't compromise with liars, tricksters & traitors. Now what? #Congress #bipartisanship #Filibuster #filibusterreform #Senate 
https://tinyurl.com/386rztac

What Goes Around Comes Around

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:08:00 +0000

Back in 2016, as the Obama Administration was coming to a close and before the country experienced the trauma of the Trump Administration, I did a post that urged then Vice President Joe Biden to exercise an important duty of the Vice President -- i.e. issuing an advisory opinion about internal Senate procedure. As the old saying goes in politics, "What goes around comes around." So here we go again debating whether we should once again change the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate.

Although Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) now claims a change would ruin the integrity of what was once considered “the world's greatest deliberative body,” both parties have changed this Senate rule before when it suited their political ambitions at the time. As the rule has been chipped away, misused, twisted and distorted in recent years, maybe it's time to put it to bed or develop a workable replacement. As it currently stands it is one of the most destructive and divisive components of Congressional decision-making. It has led to an untenable and undemocratic trend of roller coaster governance by Executive Order. It is not a Constitutional requirement; it is simply a Senate rule that may be changed by a simple majority vote of the Senate. Unfortunately, V.P. Biden did not follow up on my request, but it still seems timely. So I'll pass it along again.

July 12, 2016

V.P. Biden Could Lead Gridlock Reform

An Open Letter To Vice President Biden

Mr. Vice President, now is the time for you to

exercise one of your important duties.

Dear Mr. Vice President,

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice, has indicated that “Although often overlooked, one of the duties of the vice president is to act as president of the Senate, including issuing advisory opinions about internal Senate procedure.”¹

I am writing to you to remind that you are in a very unique position at a critical point in our nation’s history to issue an historic Advisory Opinion on internal Senate procedures that could be a highlight of your legacy and a manifesto to challenge and guide the future operations of the United States Senate.

First of all, as President of the U.S. Senate you are in the foremost position to issue such a manifesto. Secondly, your 36 year career as an active U.S. Senator, combined with nearly 8 years as Vice President and Senate President, has given you a perspective unmatched by any individual. Thirdly, your apparent retirement from elected office, gives you a credibility and neutrality which is necessary to speak on a controversial issue that demands bipartisanship, yet defies resolution because of its powerful political scope that benefits both major political parties. Finally, as the Obama Administration draws to a close and a new Presidency has yet to be decided, and a new Congressional session looms, the timing could not be better to set the stage for a new era Senatorial reform.

As you and all Washington, DC insiders know well, certain Senate procedures and rules are a major contributor to governmental gridlock and dysfunction. The excessive increase in the so-called “silent filibuster”; the arcane procedure known as a Senatorial “hold”; and the ability of Senate Leadership and Committee Chairs to ignore Constitutionally-mandated functions (advise and consent) because there are no specified procedural time limits (e.g. Supreme Court appointment), are a few examples of rules and procedures that demand changes.

Some will argue that such changes require a two-thirds vote of the Senate, but that argument has been dispelled by both Republicans and Democrats.

Again, citing the Brennan Center, “The Constitution nowhere requires a two-thirds vote for changing Senate rules and does not even mention filibusters. The Constitution states that ‘each house may determine the rules of its proceedings,’ and the document requires a two-thirds vote only for impeachments, expelling a member, ratifying treaties, overriding presidential vetoes, and proposing constitutional amendments. There is simply no reason to believe that the framers of the Constitution thought a two-thirds vote could be required for the Senate (or the House) to change its rules. The straightforward inference is that, as a constitutional matter, only a simple majority is required.”²

Without going into the details of these extreme extra-parliamentary practices that both parties have self-imposed on House & Senate procedures, it is these very practices that have led, in large part, to the current dysfunctional government and the increasing public unrest.

It is my opinion that if you dig deep into the search for solutions you can find it in the simple concept of "majority rule." For the last several decades inside political manipulation by both parties has undermined this basic concept, and as a result given rise to a devilish concept of "minority rule." This nightmarish concept defies compromise and feeds on government stagnation, obstruction and inaction on increasingly perplexing problems and issues that demand action -- that's why the public is mad – that’s why they have lost their trust and respect for government.

Not only do these practices grind decision making to a standstill, but they allow for increased leverage for lobbyists and moneyed influences. These practices are the "demons of democracy" and have led to the public’s perception that Congress is basically useless as a governing body – e.g. approval ratings less than 10%.

As Thomas Jefferson pointed out way back in 1809, "Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." He also said, "All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes."³

The “demons of democracy” have so distorted the democratic process envisioned by the Founders and the Constitution, as to make it unrecognizable. No elected President (Democrat, Republican or Independent) can achieve their stated or envisioned goals for the country because of these constraints. The result is that the majority public and winning candidate are denied any opportunity to see their vision actually implemented.

We must have trust in the majority rule system as it may not always deliver the results that we, as an individual, envision; however, if decisions are really bad, the majority corrects itself by changing direction. The founders believed in the concept of majority rule and we have now drifted away from that cornerstone.

Mr. Vice President, your leadership on this vital issue at this critical time can help turn the tide of what is becoming a dangerous decline in the public’s belief in our democratic form of government and our political leaders from both major parties. . .

Please use your position, experience and authority to address these critical issues in an Advisory Opinion on internal Senate procedures.

¹ The Filibuster Myth, Frederick A. O. (“Fritz”) Schwarz, Jr., January 15, 2013. Brennan Center

²The Filibuster Myth, Frederick A. O. (“Fritz”) Schwarz, Jr., January 15, 2013. Brennan Center

³ Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337 & Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

Bipartisanship On Hold

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Sun, 31 Jan 2021 17:37:00 +0000

Bipartisanship On Hold

I've always been an advocate of bipartisanship and compromise in politics. It started in the late 1970's when I was a young civil engineer and community planner that had transitioned from an environmental consulting firm and began working for a prominent environmental advocacy organization. I think my experience in community planning, explaining plans and concepts to diverse groups (industry, government & NGOs) and conducting many public hearings and meetings helped me understand the varying differences of group opinions and perspectives.

Because of my education and experience I was able to bridge a relatively large gap between legal, technical practitioners in the environmental field with citizen activists clamoring for a cleaner, less threatening environment. Both groups had their political pipelines to the movers and shakers at the state capitol. I became a credible negotiator between many diverse groups including the politicians.

I began to realize the power of accomplishment that could be achieved when these diverse groups worked together, resolved differences and compromised on solutions. Those were my roots in bipartisanship and I later went on to establish a set of bifurcated nonprofit and for profit corporations to focus on bipartisan objectives, unbiased information and compromised solutions to environmental issues. The whole deal consumed 46 years of a lifetime.

So it was only natural when I retired to start a blog on the "Underpinnings of a Broken Government." Through the years I had seen the advantages of bipartisanship, but I had also seen the many obstacles in the way of constructive solutions to problems and issues.

Back in early 2016, a volatile political year, when I began the blog, I posted a number of missives on gridlock and the dysfunctional Congress. That's when observers were concerned with what I called gridlock gimmicks such as filibusters; cloture votes; senatorial holds; the Hastert rule; Speaker control; Majority Leader control; Rules Committees control; avoidance of Regular Order; refusing to act; timing delays; riders and unrelated matters; and on and on. All in all it's a massive collection of procedures, policies, traditions, formal and informal rules all being used and manipulated by the majority and minority political parties in Congress.

The concerns were the growing dysfunction of Congress and the near paralyzing effect on government. Then we transitioned to Donald Trump and the evolution of a much different political atmosphere in the country. What I had previously called the traditional, conservative Republicans were captivated by the Pied Piper of Divisiveness and gravitated to his persistent lies and misinformation which they accepted blindly. With schoolyard nicknames, lies, conspiracy theories and a Twitter account, he showed Republicans a new brand of politics and they welcomed it with open arms.

What at first may have appeared as a novel new "kick'm & shove'm" wild west style of politics that turned political norms upside down, quickly started to amplify an already known bigoted underbelly. What followed was a wildly distorted, Republican voted tax cut, appointment of three Supreme Court justices, the Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, scandal upon scandal, an impeachment, immigration crisis, a mismanaged pandemic needlessly killing tens of thousands, a revolving door of firings, resignations and replacement sycophants; embarrassment and disaffection among our allies, sinister new relations with our enemies and increasingly tyrannical behavior from the Oval Office.

The country waded through the long slog of this hideous epoch of American political history and approached the 2020 election in the midst of a pandemic. The public was confronted with continuous and persistent fabricated claims that the election was guaranteed to be rigged by Democrats and fraudulent if it yielded anything other than a Donald Trump victory.

Despite the fact that the Trump presidential approval averaged in the low 40s and never reached 50%, his corrupt, despotic style had morphed a large majority of the Republican Party and many Independents into a new political entity with a radically distorted vision of American democracy and the Constitution. Although 81 million persons voted for Joe Biden; 74 million voted for Donald Trump after experiencing four abysmal years of incompentent, bigoted, autocratic leadership. Additionally it is important to note that in spite of the large Biden popular vote victory, Donald Trump, probably the most odious President in U.S. history, could have been reelected by the Electoral College with the shifting of approximately 50,000 votes in 3-4 states. A similar small number of votes (about 80,000) could have allowed Hillary Clinton to defeat Trump in the 2016 Electoral College as well as winning 3 million more popular votes.

Unfortunately, the 2020 election and large popular vote Biden victory did not settle the differences between Democrats and the new, Trump-laced Republican Party. Trump and his compatriots launched a crazed, obsessive, delusional legal rampage challenging the election results claiming widespread fraud and a stolen election. The results were repeatedly conclusive in some 61 separate court cases in federal and state courts including three decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court -- there was no fraud; it was a completely fair and proper election.

Following the official Electoral College vote on December 14, 2020, the rage did not stop and disassociated itself from reality and is now referred to as the "Big Lie". Despite the conclusion that the election was completely fair and legitimate, Trump continued his fraudulent claims and even threatened state officials in an attempt to find additional votes that would allow him to alter certified results and declare an illegitimate win. A cult-like movement demanding "Stop the Steal" developed around Trump's efforts to perpetuate the Big Lie.

Finally, at the last official decision point in the process; on January 6, 2021, before the inauguration of President Joe Biden on January 20, Trump and his immediate cohorts made good on what they had promised would be a "wild" time, by whipping a crowd of hostile insurgents into a frenzy with lies and angry rhetoric. They encouraged them to march on the U.S. Capitol in an effort to forcefully persuade House and Senate members and the Vice President to overturn the U.S. presidential election results to Stop the Steel and award the presidency to Donald Trump. The insurgents threatened assassinations, hangings and extreme violence. What resulted was the worst, most violent invasion of the Capitol and assault on the U.S. democracy in American history. [Storming of the United States Capitol]

Hours later, when the insurgence was finally put down, the House and Senate resumed their review and deliberation of the election results. Seventy percent (70%) of House Republicans and twenty percent (20%) of Senate Republicans voted to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. Subsequent efforts to impeach Donald Trump for the second time and hold him accountable and provide consequences for such seditious presidential actions were rejected by ninety-five percent (95%) of House Republicans. Preliminary actions in the U.S. Senate trial on the impeachment have already revealed that ninety percent (90%) of Senate Republicans are opposed to the impeachment trial.

Through their recorded votes to overthrow a legitimate U.S. election and their recorded votes to reject holding Donald Trump accountable for his seditious involvement in the presidential election and the Capitol insurrection, the Republican Party has overwhelmingly demonstrated that it holds a perverse, perverted and far from traditional view of American democracy and the U.S. Constitution. Now, several weeks beyond the egregious insurrection and the inauguration of a new President, Donald Trump continues his contentions and conspiracy theories of a fraudulent and stolen election. Likewise Republicans in Congress and their leadership continue to confer with Trump on the Party's direction, resist imposing any punishment or consequences for his actions and some still believe the election was stolen.

The aftermath of the Donald Trump presidency has left many questions and uncertainties regarding the state of the Republican Party and its future. Large majorities of the Party seem to have a far different view of the representative democratic republic and the traditional norms of U.S. politics. Until the Republican Party examines itself and clarifies its current extreme positions and its expectation for interaction in more traditional U.S. politics and governance, the concept of true bipartisan resolution of problems and issues facing the country is impractical and quixotic.

While it may be possible to find an exceedingly small percentage of Republican legislators to align with Democrats to address issues and solve problems, the barometer of good governance should be consistency with widespread public opinion -- not the level of bipartisanship.

*See comments below

Americanship v. Political Powership

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:14:00 +0000

I wrote about this back in March 2017, but it's time to revisit this historic time in bipartisan politics.

Fall of 2000. It was a tumultuous time in American politics. The November election had resulted in close votes, hanging chads, contested elections, recounts, court challenges, uncertainty, protests, and public unrest.

The country was deeply divided. Following weeks of uncertainty after the election, George W. Bush was finally pronounced the winner when he received only 537 more votes than Al Gore in a Florida recount. The controversial recount finally ended with a U.S Supreme Court 5-4 split decision to stop the vote recounting and overruling a 4-3 Florida Supreme Court split decision in favor of Gore. That gave Bush 271 Electoral College votes compared to Al Gore's 266; but, Gore received over 540,000 more popular votes than Bush. Adding to the deep political division of the country, Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate received a total of over 2,800,000 popular votes, drawing them away from the primary candidates. The level of national unrest and divisiveness among the American electorate could not have been higher.

If it all sounds familiar, it is. And, American politics has never quite been the same since. Further, similarities on top of the dramatic Presidential race arise in the fact that the down-ballot U.S. Senate races resulted in a 50-50 split between Republicans and Democrats. A situation that could easily repeat itself depending on the results of two runoff elections in Georgia in early January 2021.

Washington politicos were in a tizzy. How would they govern? How would the public react to such a narrow and disputed margin of power when Gore actually won the popular vote and the contentious Supreme Court involvement? There were calls for compromise, bipartisanship and getting the parties to work together. Bush's VP Dick Cheney could break what was at the time thought to be numerous tie votes, but what would be the public reaction?

In the midst of the confusion and uncertainty, Senate leaders Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Trent Lott (R-MS) worked diligently through the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season to craft a remarkable and unprecedented "powersharing agreement" based on what they said was the concept of trust and bipartisanship. Among other items, the agreement provided for Republican chairs of all Senate committees after January 20, 2001; equal party representation on all Senate committees; equal division of committee staffs and operating budgets between the parties; procedures for discharging measures blocked by tie votes in committee; a restriction on the offering of cloture motions on amendable matters; restrictions on floor amendments offered by party leaders; eligibility of Senators from both parties to preside over the Senate; and general provisions seeking to reiterate the equal interest of both parties in the scheduling of Senate chamber business.

At a press conference, Senator Lott said, "nobody can win on 51 votes. . . [it's] not what the American people expect from us". The full Senate (including then Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)) approved the agreement by voice vote without objection and Daschle and Lott praised it as "miraculous", "historic", “a big down payment on the bipartisanship”, “a serious dose of reality”, “a framework for bipartisanship, nonpartisanship, Americanship.” Despite the many accolades, the agreement only survived for five months when the politicians quickly traded its many advantages for a few percentage points of political power as one member switched parties resulting in a 51-49 split. One has to ask, why do Americans have to sacrifice miraculous, historic, reality, bipartisanship, nonpartisanship and above all Americanship for a few votes of political powership?

From the Congressional Record, January 5, 2001, (107th Congress, 1st Session Issue: Vol. 147, No. 3 — Daily Edition). Senators Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Trent Lott (R-MS) on the Senate Floor discussing Senate Resolution 8, The Powersharing Agreement. [See the full text] The agreement was expanded by a leadership colloquy on January 8, 2001.

Mr. DASCHLE. The other day, I quoted the writer Thomas Wolfe who said:
America is not only the place where miracles happen, they happen all the time.
If the resolution I will soon introduce is not miraculous, it is, at the very least, historic. It is also fair and reasonable. The details and the spirit of this agreement, which I expect the Senate to pass later today, should enable us to conduct our Nation's first 50/50 Senate in a most productive and bipartisan manner.

I especially thank the Republican leader, Senator Lott. We will enter into a colloquy in a period of time to be later determined, but I must say, without his leadership and his sense of basic fairness, this agreement would not have come about. He and I have spent many hours over the last several months, and now weeks, and certainly in the last several days, negotiating the details of this agreement. He spent many more hours consulting with the members of his caucus about it. He and they deserve credit for taking this unprecedented step. . .

Our negotiations involve many difficult issues and many strongly held opinions. Neither party got everything it wanted. Both sides made concessions. Both caucuses made principled compromises. That is the essence of democracy.

This agreement accurately reflects the historic composition of the Senate. More important, I believe it reflects the political thinking of the American people. It calls for equal representation on Senate committees. Every committee would have the same number of Republicans and Democrats. And it specifies that Republicans will chair the committees after January 20. It allows for equal budgets and office space for both caucuses, at 50/50.

One of the most vexing questions we struggled with during our negotiations was how to break ties when committees are divided equally. We have agreed that in the event of a tie vote, either leader can move to discharge a bill or nomination. The Senate will then debate the motion to discharge for four hours, and that time will be equally divided. There will then be a vote on the motion. If the motion passes, the bill or nomination would be placed on the calendar.

Similarly, the resolution allows committee Chairs to discharge a subcommittee in the case of a tie vote and place the legislative item or nomination on the full committee agenda.

We arrived at this process after much thinking and exchange of ideas. Senator Lott has been concerned that equal representation on the committees could lead to gridlock. While I do not share that concern, I believe this was a fair concession to get this agreement. . .

Today's agreement makes a big downpayment on the bipartisanship we owe our country. Democrats and Republicans made significant concessions, putting the national interest first and putting party aside. . .

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wouldn't say this is my preferred result, but I think it is a reasonable one with a serious dose of reality. We have work to do and we need to begin it now, not in a week or two or three or four. We need to conclude the assignment of our Members to the all important committees that will be having hearings on the nominees. . .

I would prefer to have a clear advantage on every committee and a clear advantage number-wise on everything. While that is preferable, it is not the reality. . .

What we have here, as difficult as it may make life for us, as difficult as it may be for our committee members and our chairmen and ranking members to make this situation work, it is going to require additional work, but it can be done. It is going to force us to work together more than we have in the past. No doubt. I do not think that is bad. I think this is a framework for bipartisanship. There has been a lot of talk about that word, and I am sure there are some people in this city, in this Chamber, who smirk at that, laugh at that. People across America are saying: I have heard enough of that; let's get some results here. . .

It is a framework to see if we really mean it. It can force us to live up to the truest and best meaning of that word-- nonpartisanship, Americanship, that is what we ought to call it--to find a way to get to these issues. . .

This is a classic case of extending the hand of friendship, of good faith. Will it lead to tremendous accomplishments or will that hand of friendship be bitten or the posterior kicked by one side or the other? It could, but we have to start from a position of good faith and reach out and say we are going to make this work.

If it does not work, then the American people will see. If these 50/50 committees do not function, then we can talk about obstructionism, and one way or the other, the American people will know who is trying to make it work and who is stalling it. If we come to this floor and have a debate on a tax bill and it passes this Senate by whatever number and does not get to conference or is tied up in conference or is killed in conference, do you think the American people are going to stand for that? I do not think so. We cannot let that happen. [emphasis added]
 

On May 24, 2001, Republican James Jeffords left the party to become an Independent and began caucusing with the Democrats, thus breaking the 50/50 party split in the Senate. While it only lasted five months, the discussion above is refreshing in today’s extreme, mega polarized Congressional and public atmosphere. There are many lessons to be learned here and we should reflect on the words.

Yes, it's a different time with many different actors. President-elect Joe Biden has promised to try to work with Republicans and get things done in a cooperative and bipartisan way. It is a statesman-like aspiration and endeavor that many would call foolhardy, unrealistic and untenable in today's political environment.

The 2001 shared power agreement and its rationale may provide a beginning point for discussion of the need to change the committee power structure that currently exists and is doomed to produce one-sided solutions to exceedingly complex problems and issues. The current debate over a nationwide health care system is a great example. What good does it do if one party narrowly passes a comprehensive health care plan by a couple of votes that is then overturned or gutted with the next transition of political power a few years later.

We keep repeating this senseless act of governance over and over in a political environment that could not be more divided and appears to be entering a new era of obscurity and darkness. Former President Barack Obama recently said something to the effect that our politics have ventured into a new space where not only do politicians spread lies and misinformation without consequences; but, truth itself no longer matters.

With this as a starting point for the new President, the idea of working cooperatively to devise bipartisan solutions to the great issues of our time becomes dubious at best. It will take a masterful degree of wizardry and communication skills to create a foundation to even begin discussions along these lines. Hopefully President Biden can tap his own years of political experience and construct a governing nucleus by appealing to the more reasoned and informed members of both parties. Additionally he can seek out influencers outside of Congress and input from seasoned party elders that have viewed the current state of affairs and can assist by sharing their insights and positions of leadership to communicate to their political constituencies and the public. I have suggested various powersharing ideas on this blog.

The bottom line as I have said before, what is our choice? We either work together or we settle for continued political chaos, massive unrest and riotous division among the populous. Additionally, nothing is accomplished; problems go unresolved; and our international reputation is diminished to the largest banana republic on the globe. We need to reflect on the words of our very first President in 1785, when he commented on a similar troubling time, "We are either a United people or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation... If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it."

Backgrounder Document: Congressional Research Service Report RS20785. The Senate Powersharing Agreement of the 107th Congress (2001-2003): Key Features

"Crisis Point" - Sen. Tom Daschle & Trent Lott discuss their January 2016 book.

New Rules To "Discourage and Restrain"

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Sun, 11 Oct 2020 12:27:00 +0000

New Rules To "Discourage and Restrain"

If you have followed this blog you know that my focus has been on the dysfunctionality of the United States Congress; a critical element in the three-pronged governance structure of American democracy as established in the Constitution. It has been my contention that Congress sets and controls the tone for our political discourse. Of course the President is a key contributor, however, a rationally functioning Congress has the power through its "checks & balances" and oversight responsibilities to correct or override a bad acting President.

No matter who's President, little if anything good gets accomplished as long as Congressional gridlock and dysfunction persist. The survival of the Trump Party will be tested in November, but we must remember the gridlock and dysfunction that was present before Trump will not magically disappear. The country will still be divided after Trump and it will take many years for our political system to evolve with the ever changing demographics of the country.

Congress receives extensive media attention and the general public is constantly exposed to the various characters that represent the public and their behaviors. In fact, a recent poll confirms that, "Most Americans think divisiveness is driven from the top down, by leaders, and not driven by the public itself" [https://tinyurl.com/y4kehpea]. In a deeply divided nation, with the political power oscillating narrowly between the parties and chambers, the extreme ends of both parties have had the loudest voice and perpetuated rhetoric that has become increasingly contentious, disrespectful and polarizing.

Congress is the mechanism that is supposed to provide a “check and balance” on our political direction. Congress -- the House of Representatives and the United States Senate; both Democrats and Republicans -- have so misused and distorted their responsibilities that the nation is now left without the ability to make even basic decisions or provide the oversight necessary for the survival of our country and the democracy itself [https://tinyurl.com/wsmq55o].

The Founders warned us some 240 years ago [https://tinyurl.com/y27gaj3g], and were seriously worried whether the democracy could withstand the relentless influence and power of political parties. They used terms such as "evil" and indicated that the instincts, the "spirit of party" were "inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind." They said the turbulence of those passions in party disputes were so strong that party victory would be more important than truth or right itself. Their predictions have now become the new reality of American government.

Somehow, despite the overwhelming passions for party and political power the nation has survived over the years. But like a slow motion train wreck it has degenerated to its current state of near total dysfunction. While the Founders were prophetic in their warnings and vision of possible failure of the democracy they were crafting, they ultimately granted too much power and authority to the very political parties that they feared.

In what maybe one of the most insightful visions into the future ever, George Washington warned in this farewell address in 1796:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. . ."

Unfortunately, the Founders did not include in the Constitution a mechanism that would "discourage and restrain" the behaviors and practices of political parties which they feared the most. Instead, in a serious error of judgement, counter to their own inclinations, they made the faulty assumption that Congress would act in the best interest of the country and citizens. They simply said in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution that, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

[See, Constitution Annotated for Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: Rule of Proceedings for legal interpretations and citations https://tinyurl.com/y6jnqt7q]

So the dysfunctional, tribalistic gridlock that we find ourselves in today is really self-imposed and is the product of years of political maneuvering, manipulation and tweaking of the rules of operation. As citizens we want, need and deserve better. Congress, in general, is not responsive to the wishes of large majorities of the population (e.g. gun control, health care, witnesses in the impeachment trial, policing reforms, mail voting, additional economic stimulus, wearing masks, child care, restrictions on lobbying, etc.).

"Nearly 75 percent of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, think there is more common ground among the public than the media and politicians portray, according to a Public Agenda report, Divisiveness and Collaboration in American Public Life [https://tinyurl.com/y4kehpea]. The report on polling conducted one year ago indicates that, "Americans also view political leadership as a central factor that exacerbates divisiveness — and that could help to reduce it. [and express] . . .a powerful yearning from Americans across all party lines for a more collaborative brand of politics that moves the country forward."

Interestingly, the report also indicates that, "Both Republicans and Democrats indicate that they could imagine finding common ground with about half of people who identify with the opposing party. Republicans and Democrats also see about a quarter of those in their own parties as so extreme they could not imagine finding common ground with them."

Congress has proven time and again that it is not capable of determining its own "Rules of Proceedings" for the good of the country. Instead the rules are twisted and designed to benefit the party in power, preserve the party structure and discourage alternatives. A new Constitutional Amendment offers a great opportunity to correct this serious oversight of the Founders which is the cause of much of the gridlock and dysfunction of the Congressional system. A new Amendment MUST include some basic ground rules of operation that could only be amended with, for example, a three quarters (3/4 ) vote of the House or Senate or both, depending on the specific rule.

Obviously a new Amendment cannot include all of the details of a system of new "rules of proceeding" but it can mandate a process for creating such rules and defining how they relate to the Constitutional requirements of Article I, Section 5. To translate this concept into proposed Constitutional amendment language I would offer as a starting point something like the following:

Proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

"Section __. There is established in the legislative branch an independent, National Commission On Congressional Rules, whose purpose shall be to review, revise, amend and establish baseline rules of proceedings for the U.S. House and Senate to fulfill the requirements of Article I, Section 5. The Commission shall establish rules of proceedings designed to establish rational, unbiased decision making and to encourage true bipartisanship in fulfilling the Congressional responsibilities in developing legislation, conducting Executive branch oversight and exercising its review and approval functions. Congress shall enact enabling legislation for the establishment of the Commission."

[Note: As a possible model for new enabling legislation for establishment of the Commission I would suggest similar language as the 9-11 Commission legislation, a 10-member bipartisan commission of prominent US citizens, with national recognition and significant depth of experience in such pertinent professions.
[Title VI i.e. https://tinyurl.com/y6nooym4]

Because it is doubtful that a sitting Congress would propose such an amendment, it may be necessary to pursue a strategy authorized by the Constitution involving a convention where two-thirds (2/3) or 34 of the 50 states make an application for Congress to establish a constitutional convention in order to propose amendments. Amendments would then need to be ratified by either individual state conventions or by individual state legislatures with a three-quarters (3/4) vote. This method has never been utilized and it is noted that the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions [https://tinyurl.com/yxl7wbs5].

Whether it would be proposed by the Congress or by at least 34 states, such an amendment would require a nationwide movement similar to the Amendment 28 movement being conducted by the organization American Promise to restore a democracy in which we the people — not big money, not corporations, not unions, not special interests — govern ourselves [https://tinyurl.com/y27ygahj]. In a previous post I have provided a list of organizations and groups that would be capable of organizing and conducting such a movement [https://tinyurl.com/y5qb35ge].

If such a National Commission On Congressional Rules could be established with Constitutional authority it would be able to establish any number of new and revised rules to achieve more rational Congressional operations designed to reflect the best interest of the country as a whole. In many previous posting I have advocated and provided details on a system of Shared Legislative Power (SLP), however, in this posting I am not strictly advocating SLP but merely suggesting a few specific rule revisions that I believe would force Congress to act in a truly bipartisan manner that would lead to much improved decision making.

Also as an inspiration and validation that Congress can function in a more civil, professional and responsible manner I offer the testimonials from Democratic and Republican representatives in Michigan that actually experienced participation in a Shared Power Arrangement. Their comments give us hope and a vision for a better future for our country. [See: https://tinyurl.com/ycq4xz22]

Starter List of basic ground rules for a more balanced and functional Congress: (Yes, there would be deadlock at times, but there would also be incentives to reach a real compromise. Compare it to the system we have now that simply cannot make a rational decision.)

1. "Regular Order" - Strict compliance with Regular Order all legislative measures must be assigned to a committee and go through the committee process before a Floor vote can be considered. Debate and amendments may be considered with all amendments and final passage requiring Two-Thirds (66.7%) approval.

2. Nonpartisan Staff - All Committees shall include combined, unbiased politically neutral staff similar to existing requirements of the House and Senate Ethics Committees, e.g. "a professional, nonpartisan staff... perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner... shall [not] engage in any partisan political activity..."

3. Proportional Membership - Committee membership makeup proportioned to overall chamber majority v. minority
Example: assume Senate split 53-47 so 53/100 = 0.53 so a 20 member committee divided 20 x .53 = 10.6 round to 11. Committee makeup would 11-9. If Senate majority was 60-40; Makeup would be: 12-8. If Senate majority was 51-49; Makeup would be: 10-10

4. Approval Votes -All subcommittee and committee votes require 75% approval. e.g. 20 member committee requires 15 votes to approve.

5. Co-Chairmanships - All Oversight committees, Special Committees, Approval Committees (Advise & Consent, Treaties, etc.) require Co-Chairmanship with equal powers and combined, unbiased, politically neutral staff. Committee membership remains proportioned, but Co-Chairmanship and neutral staff will prevent political grandstanding and political theater with regard to critically important oversight responsibilities

6. Conflicting Rules - Eliminate extraneous rules that would interfere with this process.. e.g. filibuster, holds, Hastert, etc.

7. Petition For Action - To avoid leadership simply refusing to act as a means to delay or avoid critical issues (e.g. refusing to act on SCOTUS approval, stimulus, etc.) a Petition for Action may be submitted by 10% of the total chamber membership and which must be brought to the Floor for a vote and requiring a simple majority for approval. This would require members to be on record with a vote and combined with other changes (e.g. #5 & #1 above) will provide a transparent process to force action on critical issues and put members on the record.

8. Elevate Importance of Bill Cosponsorship - Devise a system that recognizes the total numbers of members and the degree of bipartisanship for each legislative proposal that will be used to determine the priorities for legislative action. This will put more responsibility on individual members to seek support for their ideas and reward individual and cosponsoring members that can develop priority legislation for action.

9. Eliminate or Revise The Electoral College Process - As an added consideration to the effort to amend Congressional rules, the National Commission should also seriously debate the Electoral College process and consider elimination or revisions similar to the National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative which makes the national popular vote relevant.

Democracy On The Brink

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Fri, 07 Feb 2020 17:21:00 +0000

Democracy On The Brink

Epilogue #1: COMPROMISE v. NO COMPROMISE (2/7/20 below)

Epilogue #2: A Constitutional Intervention Movement (9/29/20 below)

As I have written before [https://tinyurl.com/wsmq55o], it is my belief that Congress is at the core of the tribalism and discord within American politics. Congress sets the tone for our political discourse. Congress is the mechanism that is supposed to provide a “check and balance” on our political direction. Therefore, in an attempt to bring reason, common sense and civility back to the country we need to focus on Congress.

We are now at a critical point in the election year of 2020 where literally the future of democracy is at stake. The major issues of the day are important battles, but without a workable democracy we have lost the war.

The solution to Congressional dysfunction is actually pretty simple. The conundrum is how to implement it. The solution to achieving effective legislation and meaningful executive oversight is tedious research, reliance on sound facts, public/expert input, serious discussion, debate and finally compromise. Compromise is the solution.

[Note: I know the term "compromise" is a dirty word in many circles. At a time when the entire Republican delegation in Congress (less one) has refused to publicly recognize the outlandish, abhorrent and criminal behavior of the sitting President, it is difficult for me to discuss the concept of compromise. Yet I must. I don't believe the population at large is reflected in the current crop of contaminated Republican House and Senate members now in Congress. I believe this country was built on the concept of compromise and if it is to survive it must find its way back to tolerance and compromise. There is no other choice if we are to remain a United country.]

George Washington experienced this same frustration in 1785 when he said, "We are either a United people or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation... If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it."

The Constitution which we now hold in high acclaim is a compromised document. In its original form it included major compromises on the issues of slavery, executive power and state v. federal control. It was almost not approved. It was thought to flawed by some of its most ardent promoters, and it was ultimately ratified by a very narrow margin. In the end great leaders came together and proposed and accepted various compromises to form a document that would be acceptable to the majority.

The Founders were actually very liberal in their direction and guidance on how Congress should conduct its mandated responsibilities. They simply said, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” (Article 1, Section 5). So the dysfunctional, tribalistic gridlock that we find ourselves in today is really self-imposed and is the product of years of political maneuvering, manipulation and tweaking of the rules of operation. It's not rocket science. Congress makes the rules and Congress can change the rules.

Therein lies the rub -- changing the rules. If the solution to good, effective government is compromise the rules can be changed to require real bipartisanship and force compromise. However, this would require the two major political parties to relinquish some power and control -- an action which they currently relentlessly resist in favor of party over country. The fact, which was overlooked by the Founders, is that it appears that Congress is not capable of determining its "rules of its proceedings" to the benefit of the country as a whole -- only to benefit the party in control at any particular point in time. The result has been the development of a twisted, gnarly mess of rules and procedures laced with loopholes and tricks that generally benefit the party in power. Revenge politics has also resulted in the evolution of defacto rules whereby if your party has manipulated the rules or procedures to its benefit; it is now common practice for my party to do the same.

While the Founders were apparently confounded as to a solution they were aware of the destructive nature of political parties and warned us 240 years ago. John Adams, the man who would become our second President, warned in 1780:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil. . ."

Yet along with the warning, they did give us the tools to address the "evil" by granting Congress the power create its own rules of operation. The problem is how do you force the majority Party at any given time to change its rules when they have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are so they can maintain their power and control. Congress must integrate the concept of fair and good faith compromise into the "rules of its proceedings".

Bipartisan compromise is not one or two members of the minority party supporting a measure developed and totally controlled by the majority party. Bipartisan compromise is a process that begins with a level playing field and equal representation of the parties.

It's important to recognize that whenever Congress attempts to seriously investigate itself which it has many times over the years, it appoints a committee comprised of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats and stipulates that any recommendations must be approved by a majority and in some cases a supermajority. It also usually assigns neutral, unbiased staff or outside experts or consultants to do investigations and research as necessary. In many cases the committee will also hold hearings and comment periods to receive information, ideas and recommendations. Such is the case with the latest effort of the House of Representatives in its formation and the activities of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. Several recommendations from that on-going committee, approved by a unanimous vote, have now been introduced in the form of legislation to be considered by the full House.

[See: https://tinyurl.com/sffqwzg]

Congressional members specifically choose this process to lend credibility, substance and impartiality to their conclusions and recommendations. One has to ask, if this is the way we get credible, substantive and impartial results, why don't we utilize this process to develop legislation and conduct executive oversight? This process could be required by Congressional rules.

Instead, Congressional members have chosen a process that provides absolute control to the party that has the most elected members, no matter how narrow the margin. The results are predictable and unacceptable -- sham executive oversight, gridlock and unsustainable, one-party solutions to complex problems that will be overturned with the next change of the legislative majority -- It's insane! A legislative process designed to be unworkable and produce flawed results that will be unacceptable to roughly half of the country.

Yes, one party may have more members than the other and have overall control of legislative priorities, the flow of legislation through the Chamber and various administrative matters; however, we cannot continue to sacrifice good governance and leave the country vulnerable to a lack of needed legislation and oversight for an egregiously flawed system that we know is going to produce unacceptable results. Results that will be unacceptable to a huge portion of the population and guarantee uncertainty for all business operations and the populace because of the political roller coaster of elections and the ever changing balance of power.

Amended Congressional rules, requiring committees to have equal representation from each party, unbiased staff support, and strict compliance with so-called “regular order” could be game-changing. It would require equal, fair, comprehensive expert testimony, media scrutiny and extensive public input and transparency and would force bipartisan legislation and oversight based on research, investigation, agreed to facts & data, and diverse public input and scrutiny. By the time legislation advanced to a floor vote there would be a broad bipartisan coalition of legislators, experts, interest groups and the public to force a positive outcome. Likewise, executive oversight would be fair, balanced and meaningful and not utilized for political theater and harassment of political foes.

Yes, it would be difficult and it is a substantial departure from existing party power politics. But, compare it to what we have now! There would be temporary deadlocks, but eventually compromises would be reached and acceptable solutions would be found. As a country we must ask, "What is our goal?" Do we want to govern for half of the country or are we really the "United States" (and people) of America. If it is the former, we should be considering concepts of secession, dissolution and reorganization. If it is the latter we need amend our Congressional rules.

The fact that Congress cannot effectively deal with the most pressing issues of our time -- infrastructure, health care, immigration, climate change, entitlements, income inequality, international trade, civil & human rights, etc. -- is at the core of the public's unrest with the political chaos and tribalism that exists. Additionally, objective, unbiased and critical executive oversight is not possible under existing rules. It’s time to force Congress to change the rules and truly put “Country Over Party.”

Our country is struggling now just as it was some 240 years ago when a small group of concerned patriots saw the need for a major change in the government structure. They took on the nearly impossible challenge of moving the country from the Articles of Confederation to a new Constitution of the United States.

It takes leadership to effectuate change and we are on the brink of electing the next leader. To force the changes that are necessary, a knowledgeable, inspired, patriotic statesman-like leader in the Oval Office could use the power of the bully pulpit to unite the country and the powers that are needed to force such a change.

Pray or seriously hope for leadership to emerge.

Epilogue #1: COMPROMISE v. NO COMPROMISE

For those that argue that you cannot work with or compromise with Republicans and Trumpers who are on the wrong side of history; I understand and struggle with the concept myself. But I ask; what is the choice? As I mention in this posting, what is the alternative? Revolution, civil war, secession, dissolution, reorganization, governmental collapse via impasse or simply transformation to autocracy? I guess those are alternatives, but not if the goal is to save democracy in the "United" States and preserving the Constitution and the rule of law. Yes, I believe we have severely veered off course and I don't claim to understand how virtually half of Congressional members can support the disgusting, odious, egregious and criminal behavior of the current President. We are talking about stark, contrasting views of the two political parties of the country and a nearly equal divide among the populace.

It's important to remember that we have reached this point of nearly irreconcilable differences because we did not compromise. And I mean real compromise; real bipartisanship as discussed above. We allowed the cancer of tribalism to go untreated and allowed it to metastasize throughout the fabric of our governmental structures.

Ironically, the level of vitriol and rancor between Republicans and Democrats is not new and currently, takes on a similar intensity as that which existed between Federalist (supporting the Constitution) and Antifederalist (opposing) during the period following the Constitutional Convention and prior to its ratification (Sep. 1787- Jun. 1788). Then as now the future of a bitterly divided country was at stake. Compromise ultimately saved the day. Can it do it again?

For the last 30 years the country has dealt with an erratic, oscillating shift in political power characterized by changing Republican and Democratic control of the presidency, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Since the turn of the century the majority power of the House and Senate shifted frequently but the majority numbers were never more than 18% and were almost always less than 10%. In the House a Party advantage of 43 votes or less generally determined majority power control and in the Senate a 10 members or less resulted in a Party control advantage. The point is, in this nearly equally divided country a very small percentage advantage in the House or Senate establishes total control of that branch of Congress. Under existing House and Senate rules the Party with the most number of members (no matter how small the difference) has total control of all committees and can completely set the agenda and overrule any opposition of the minority Party.

As I have written so many times before, with the country so deeply divided and the margins of political power control so small, there will never be real legislative bipartisanship as long as one party controls all legislative committees. Equal membership on committees and strict compliance with regular order would force compromise and unbiased oversight [https://tinyurl.com/vnwpfoo].

The survival of the Trump Party will be tested in November, but we must remember the gridlock and dysfunction that was present before Trump, and we must realize the country will still be divided after Trump and it will take many years for our political system to evolve with the ever changing demographics of the country.

As a reminder of our divisions, the continuous nature of our differences and the fact that some things never change, remember the quote above from John Adams 240 years ago when when he referred to the Political parties as the "greatest political evil under our Constitution.” As I discussed in a previous post many of the Founders warned us about the issues of political party power and their potentially dangerous and destructive nature, but admitted that the spirit of our beliefs are inseparable from our nature as a people [See: https://tinyurl.com/tynk4t4].

If it is our desire to continue our democratic republic and keep our Constitution viable we must learn to live with these intense differences within the populace and within our political parties. We have been neglectful in addressing this issue and have now let it evolve on its own to a critical juncture. If we cannot see or understand that the current system is not working after being repeatedly reminded -- we are blind and there is no hope; we will simply self-destruct in a matter of time. Otherwise, we can open our eyes and make the changes that are needed -- not minor tweaks -- major Congressional rule changes that force legitimate compromise.

I have offered a solution which has had some limited tests with positive results. I seriously invite readers to read the testimonials from Democratic and Republican representatives that have actually experienced participation in a shared power arrangement. I think you will find it remarkable [See: https://tinyurl.com/ycq4xz22].

There is never a good time to implement the politically sensitive changes that are necessary, but we are at the crisis stage -- the bubble is about to burst. Changes must be made if we are to save our democracy. There are other alternative solutions and refinements, I'm sure. However, it is my belief that new Congressional rules must have at the core the principle of compromise and equal representation of the parties no matter who holds the narrow numbers lead.

Epilogue #2: A Constitutional Intervention Movement

Our democracy was in serious trouble when I originally wrote this posting on February 7, 2020. I warned then, "the bubble is about to burst. Changes must be made if we are to save our democracy."

In the last eight months over 200,000 members of the American public have died and that number may double in the not too distant future. We are spending trillions to deal with the coronavirus and we'll spend trillions more. Small businesses are failing at an unprecedented rate; wildfires, hurricanes and erratic weather are ravaging our country; a divided population in rage is protesting, rioting and even killing on the streets of our cities; trust in government, elections, science and medical information has been shattered.

We are now faced with a President and millions of followers that claim a peaceful assumption of power in the aftermath of the upcoming election is only possible if the President wins. There is actually a legal and constitutionally plausible path to keeping a non-elected President in power (https://tinyurl.com/yycgqxcd). And finally, even in the face of catastrophic events and issues demanding extreme and urgent action, we have a Congress that is totally incapable of making a rational decision for the good of the country -- only politically expedient decisions are possible like blatantly hypocritical appointments to the Supreme Court.

Rational thinking is the ability to consider the relevant variables of a situation and to access, organize, and analyze relevant information (e.g., facts, opinions, judgments, and data) to arrive at a sound conclusion.

As a nation we have already transitioned beyond democracy. Our government is now operating in a quasi-autocratic mode where decisions are made by Executive Order while a deadlocked and dysfunctional Congress only observes. We must also be reminded that the upcoming election is not the solution. The country was divided and locked in a dysfunctional quagmire before the current President and will continue to be confronted with the same insane patterns of dysfunction even if one party dominates the Executive and Congressional branches.

We have witnessed over and over again that ideological overreach in one-party decision making is soon rejected by the voters in the next election and reversed or blocked by a new party in power. The constant repeating of this insane pattern has degenerated our government to its current state of dysfunction. How many times will we continue on this path before we change?

Without a serious, nationwide Intervention led by experienced, rational, objective, bipartisan individuals, organizations and universities our democracy will be lost. We are exceedingly close to the ultimate failure of the great American experiment. Congress has proven time and again it is not capable of addressing the issues or correcting itself. The Intervention Movement must be on the order of developing An Agenda For Constitutional or Institutional Reform.

There are hundreds of organizations; thousands of staffers; and billions in financial resources already committed to related matters that could be united and focused on such an effort. It takes leadership, concern and commitment; but it is possible. I would suggest starting here: https://tinyurl.com/y5qb35ge.

It's time we must stop talking about Constitutional Crises and start talking about Constitutional Solutions.

Insanity Defined

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Thu, 20 Jun 2019 11:33:00 +0000

Insanity Defined

No matter who's President, nothing gets done as long as Congressional gridlock and dysfunction persist.

We cannot keep ignoring major issues, conducting sham executive oversight, or trying to develop unsustainable, one-party solutions to complex problems that will be overturned with the next change of power -- It's insane! Solutions exist. Legislators must be forced into real bipartisanship.

There will never be real legislative bipartisanship as long as one party controls all legislative committees. Equal membership on committees and strict compliance with so-called “regular order” would force compromise and unbiased oversight.

Amended Congressional rules, requiring an equal number of members from each party, could result in forcing bipartisan legislation based on research, investigation, agreed to facts & data, unbiased staff analysis, equal, fair, comprehensive expert testimony, media scrutiny and extensive public input and transparency. By the time legislation advanced to a floor vote there would be a broad bipartisan coalition of legislators, experts, interest groups and the public to force a positive outcome.

Yes, it would be difficult. There would be temporary deadlocks, but eventual compromises would be reached. Compare it to what we have now!

The fact that Congress cannot effectively deal with the most pressing issues of our time -- infrastructure, health care, immigration, climate change, entitlements, etc. -- is at the core of the public's unrest with the political chaos and tribalism that exists. Additionally, objective, unbiased executive oversight is not possible under existing rules.

It’s time to force Congress to change the rules and truly put “Country Over Party.”

For additional information see my blog post.

https://t.co/s4AMQ1nAO5

See testimonials from Republicans & Democrats that have actually experienced Shared Legislative Power:
https://tinyurl.com/y4eeg5z2

There is now a proven model process for bipartisanship; it only requires a willingness to end gridlock.

See the December 11, 2019, Update on the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress https://tinyurl.com/sffqwzg

Draft Impeachment Resolution DJT

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Fri, 17 May 2019 18:04:00 +0000

Draft Impeachment Resolution DJT

[Please note this is not an official document, but is simply a hypothetical example]

As most persons are aware, the procedure for removal of a President is included in the U.S. Constitution and was envisioned by the Framers as a check against an out of control President that could represent a threat to the security and institution of the country and its people. The process contains two parts: the approval of the articles of impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives; followed by a trial and conviction or acquittal in the U.S. Senate. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution grants to the House of Representatives "the sole power of impeachment", and Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 grants to the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments". Actual removal requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

Article II, Section. 4 set out the standard for impeachment, saying: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation (CRF), a high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice.

The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. . .The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

Constitutional scholars have generally agreed that not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office. Impeaching a president overturns an election and therefore a president should be impeached only for “serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government,” or for “such crimes as would so stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public order.” [from CRF and Charles L. Black's book, "Impeachment: A Handbook", https://tinyurl.com/ldeg7qh]

The Constitutional Center indicates that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, indicated the “constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” Thus, the Center says, "In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. . . the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate." [see https://tinyurl.com/y3g7zyme]

What I find disturbing is that the Democrats who currently control the U.S. House of Representatives seem so hesitant and reluctant to initiate the impeachment process despite the enormity of evidence in existence regrading the gross malfeasance of Donald J. Trump. Further, the Democratic leadership seems to be insistent that more and more evidence and facts are needed to move forward with the impeachment process. Additionally, House Democrats and the news media in general seem to be creating a popular impression that the impeachment process is incredibly complex and would be extremely time consuming, requiring months and months of further investigations and hearings.

In fact, Bill Clinton's impeachment resolution was introduced and narrowly passed within three (3) days. Yes, the actual proceedings took a few weeks but the House Judiciary Committee did not conduct further investigations of its own and basically accepted findings included in Special Prosecutor Ken Starr's report of his already completed extensive investigation. A situation that very nearly mirrors the recent completion of the Robert Mueller investigation.

With all of the above in mind, and the evidence and information currently in existence, I have taken the liberty to provide a first draft of an impeachment resolution for Donald J. Trump (based on the impeachment resolution for Bill Clinton). I would maintain that the resolution could be finalized and the notations of "attached details" could be quickly assembled with extensive documentation under each identified charge. Even allowing for the entire month of June to complete the resolution and supplemental materials, I am suggesting that the package be introduced and passed by the U.S. House of Representatives with an effective date of July 4, 2019. The resolution and articles of impeachment would then move to the U.S. Senate under the control of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for a trial if initiated by Senator McConnell. If a trial were to proceed, all Senators would be on record with a vote on the resolution. There is not a specific Constitutional requirement that the Senate conduct a trial or do so within any specific time limit following a House impeachment vote. [see: https://tinyurl.com/y84eb5ym]

Articles of Impeachment Against Donald J. Trump

(House Resolution xxx, One Hundred Sixteenth (116) Congress)

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

July 4, 2019.

RESOLUTION

Resolved, That Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States
Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE I

In his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the
best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice and jeopardizing the security, safety and well being of the United State:

As summarized below and detailed in extensive attached information, Donald J. Trump, throughout the time of his Presidency, has repeatedly failed to uphold his oath of office and has on thousands of incidents failed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the people of the United States of America and our friends and allies abroad. Contrary to that oath, Donald J. Trump has willfully provided, and encouraged others to provide false and misleading testimony and information to the American public, Members and Committees of Congress, and various foreign governments.

In conducting these actions Donald J. Trump has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the Constitution and the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United
States.

ARTICLE II

In his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the
best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence, testimony and information related to his alleged illegal activities and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The means used to implement this course of conduct and/or scheme(s) included one or more of the following 23 listed and documented acts presented here in no particular order:

1. 10 counts of alleged obstruction of justice included in the Mueller report [see attached details] (Note: Various obstruction charges would be subject to indictment were it not for the DOJ policy regarding indictment of a sitting President and the current AG's stance in support of that policy. (https://tinyurl.com/yy9pulz9)

2. 1,000+ [6/4/19] former federal prosecutors serving under both Republican and Democratic administrations confirming obstruction [details https://tinyurl.com/yy9pulz9]

3. Repeated and persistent lies to the American Public; most notably the Trump Tower Moscow deal, who would pay for proposed Mexican wall, and the results of the Mueller report [see attached details]

4. No separation of business and financial dealings from government business; emolument clause violations [see attached details]

5. Investigations and retribution against political enemies [see attached details]

6. Refusing to honor subpoenas and requests for information (RFIs) from Congress [see attached details]

7. Ordering & requesting administration staffers to commit crimes [see attached details]

8. Violating norms of protocols regarding communications between WH and DOJ/AG [see attached details]

9. Lying on Airforce 1 about Trump Tower meeting with Russians [see attached details]

10. Overseeing as Commander in Chief, false speculation about Iran escalating war efforts [see attached details]

11. Refusing, in direct violation of laws, to turn over tax returns to Congressional committee [see attached details]

12. Violating norms of protocol in terms of Presidential signals on stock market movements, i.e. gains and losses; especially considering personal, family benefit [see attached details]

13. Selective approvals (despite recommendations to the contrary) and disapproval of National Security Clearances for friends, family and political enemies [see attached details]

14. Accepting Putin assurances over National Security experts advice regarding election interference [see attached details]

15. Persistent strategy and actions designed to heighten divisiveness in the U.S. population [see attached details]

16. Advocating and insisting for a Mexican wall contrary to best alternative recommendation [see attached details]

17. Significant violations of law, norms and protocols in dealing with the Mexican and Central America immigration issue [see attached details]

18. Jeopardizing national security by misuse of cell phones, email and meeting arrangements with foreign governments by him and his family [see attached details]

19. Exuding a sexist, racist and bigotry attitude; most notably with Charlottesville; comments about Mexicans and Muslims, comments about interactions with women and lies and coverups in dealings with porn stars [see attached details]

20. Witness tampering & misuse of pardon power [see attached details]

21. The issuance of Muslim bans; a series of discriminatory executive orders and proclamations [see attached details]

22. International embarrassment and misrepresentation of the United States on the International stage [see attached details]

22. Releasing classified, top secret U.S. security information to the Russian government [see attached details]

23. Failing to provide leadership in a nationwide effort to insure the security and integrity of the election infrastructure in the country in light of findings of substantial interference of Russia in the 2016 election process. [see attached details]

In all of this, Donald J. Trump has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the Constitution and the people of the United States. Wherefore, Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Attest: Clerk.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note On Process & Timing: Impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton were initiated following the 1998, midterm election "lame duck" session of the outgoing 105th United States Congress. Unlike the case of the 1974 impeachment process against Richard Nixon, the committee hearings were perfunctory but the floor debate in the whole House was spirited on both sides.

Somewhat similar to the Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller investigation, in the Clinton impeachment, Special Prosecutor Ken Starr had already completed an extensive investigation, the House Judiciary Committee conducted no investigations of its own into Clinton's alleged wrongdoing, and it held no serious impeachment-related hearings before the 1998 midterm elections.

The resolution, H. Res. 611 [see: https://tinyurl.com/mva9hcq], sponsored by Rep. Henry J. Hyde [R-IL-6] was Introduced on December 16, 1998 and narrowly passed by the full House of Representatives, 3 days later on December 19, 1998. Clinton was impeached on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed including abuse of power. Clinton became the third sitting president in history against whom the House of Representatives initiated impeachment proceedings. [see: https://tinyurl.com/hfchwqs]

Additional Note: Note: Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA-30], in fact, did introduce H. RES. 13 on January 3, 2019, on impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. The resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and has one cosponsor. [see: https://tinyurl.com/ybgz9tgu]

Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 13:01:00 +0000

[December 11, 2019. Please note the Process discussed in the update comment below that a committee with an equal number of Democratic and Republican members; that requires a 2/3 majority vote to approve recommendations; has nonpartisan staff with one budget and one office; and has all members cosponsoring the legislation results in a truly bipartisan effort. This is a good example of Shared Legislative Power (SLP), even with the extensive tribalism we are experiencing today. My point is we could make this real bipartisan process a requirement (House & Senate rule) for the development of all new legislation and oversight. As I have discussed; the option is what we have now -- Insanity.]

By a vote of 418-12 (unheard of in today's political environment), the U.S. House of Representatives has established the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress as part of the House Democrats' new rules proposal.

Washington, D.C. – January 4, 2019. Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued this statement announcing that Congressman Derek Kilmer (D) of Washington State will chair the new Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.

“It gives me great pride to appoint Congressman Derek Kilmer as the Chair of our new Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. Congressman Kilmer is an innovator and a pioneer, who has worked relentlessly to make the House more transparent and more responsive to the voices of Members and the American people. His commitment to bipartisanship in the Congress will be vital to this Committee’s work to modernize our institution.

“This November, the American people called for a Congress that would be ethical, transparent, unifying and responsive to their needs and aspirations. The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress will deliver this promise, and advance a House of Representatives that is diverse, dynamic and oriented toward the future. This Committee will strengthen our institution, recognizing the legislative branch is Article I, the first branch of government, and will help our transformative new class achieve results for the American people.

“With Congressman Kilmer at the helm of this important Select Committee, Democrats will reinvigorate the Congress and return the People’s House to the American people.”

J.P. Note: As I have said many times before, when Congress wants to be serious and do something that they hope will have credibility and be bipartisan they always appoint a committee with an equal number of members from both parties. As is the case here there will be twelve members, six Democrats and six Republicans. The Committee will be charged with investigating and a studying options for modernizing Congress and file a final report at the end of the first session of the 116th Congress.

When will they ever learn that developing critically important legislation is also serious business that demands credibility and bipartisanship? Legislative committees with equal party representation will produce real, lasting solutions -- not one-sided solutions to complex problems that will be reversed during the next party power shift.

(FULL TEXT): Title II. Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.

Title II establishes a Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress to investigate, study, make findings, hold public hearings, and develop recommendations on modernizing Congress. Topics for investigation include: (1) rules to promote a more modern and efficient Congress; (2) procedures including the schedule and calendar; (3) policies to develop the next generation of leaders; (4) staff recruitment, diversity, retention, and compensation and benefits; (5) administrative efficiencies; (6) technology and innovation; and (7) the Franking Commission.

The title requires the Select Committee to provide interim status reports to the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on Rules. It authorizes the Select Committee to report the results of investigations and studies to the House on a rolling basis, along with detailed findings and policy recommendations, and requires a final such report at the end of the first session of the 116th Congress. All policy recommendations must be agreed to by at least 2/3 of the Select Committee’s members.

The Speaker is directed to appoint 12 Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner to serve on the Select Committee, including two members serving in their first term, two members of the Committee on Rules, and two members from the Committee on House Administration. Six of the 12 members must be appointed on the recommendation of the Minority Leader, including one member from each of the three described categories. The Speaker is directed to designate a chair, and, on the recommendation of the Minority Leader, a vice chair.

The Select Committee will be governed by Rules X and XI, except as provided in the subsection. The subsection does not extend subpoena and deposition authority to the Select Committee, but authorizes the Select Committee to submit subpoena and deposition recommendations to the relevant standing committees. The Select Committee is required to hold a Member Day Hearing.

Democrats Propose New House Rules

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:15:00 +0000

Democrats Propose New House Rules

[Editor's Note: I have no connection or relationship with the organization No Labels or with the Problem Solvers caucus. This post is simply meant to provide a benchmark on what's happening in D.C. regarding proposed rule changes attempting to make the U.S. House more functional.]

The Washington Post obtained a copy of House Democratic leadership’s plan to reform the rules in Congress. It’s called “New Congress New Rules” and it's touted as a plan that would “restore Congress for the people.” The bipartisan Congressional reform group No Labels say they read the proposals and stated, “It’s a start, but it doesn’t come close to addressing the root causes of the current gridlock and partisanship in Washington.” Instead, No Labels is supporting another set of rule changes released on July 25, 2018 (see release), by the Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group of 48 House members, in their Break the Gridlock reform package which is designed to make the legislative process more transparent, efficient, and bipartisan.

The following is the Executive Summary of the Democrat’s proposal, followed by a link to the complete draft and an overview of the No Labels campaign known as The Speaker Project.

New Congress – New Rules

DRAFT RULES PROPOSALS

Executive Summary

During the 115th Congress, the Republican Majority set the record for the most closed Congress in our nation’s history. By shutting down regular order, the legislative process, and the voices of a majority of Members and the people they represent, the GOP has abdicated its duties. Furthermore, we are in the midst of an Administration that has flaunted its conflicts of interest and a Republican Congress that has turned a blind eye to its constitutional duty to investigate and conduct oversight. Our Democratic rules package will take a strong first step in tackling many of the pressing issues facing our nation.

I. RESTORE THE PEOPLE’S VOICE Our rules package will restore the American people’s voice by emphasizing our Democratic priorities, protecting middle class taxpayers, establishing Member Day hearings so all Members can publicly present their ideas to committees, and strengthening congressional representation.

II. RESTORE THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS This proposal will create a more accommodating process for ideas to be considered. The proposal restores regular order, provides Members more time to read bills, establishes a select committee to improve the operation of Congress, modernizes the discharge petition, and reforms the motion to vacate the chair.

III. RESTORE OVERSIGHT & ETHICS The legislative branch can reassert itself as a coequal branch of government, restore ethics, and hold the federal government accountable. The Democratic rules package will include reforms that amend the rules to protect whistleblowers, strengthen investigative powers, and prevent conflicts of interest.

IV. RESTORE BUDGET RULES Since Republicans took control of the House, we have continuously seen them use fuzzy math to justify their lopsided priorities of enriching corporations and the wealthy at the expense of low- and middle-income Americans. Through this rules package we can return to fiscal sanity by eliminating dynamic scoring, eliminating CUTGO, restoring the Gephardt Rule, and ending the public lands giveaway.

V. RESTORE INCLUSION & DIVERSITY This Democratic rules package emphasizes diversity and provides an opportunity for all Americans to be included in this institution. We will accomplish these goals by creating an independent diversity office, amending the rules to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and ensuring Members and staff are permitted religious expression.

No Labels is encouraging interested persons to send message directly to leadership indicating that they fail to directly address the Problem Solvers most meaningful ideas. "It’s just not enough to make real change." Persons may comment by posting on the Facebook page of incoming House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA).

No Labels is proposing a campaign known as The Speaker Project suggesting that on the first day of the new Congress, January 2019, members elect a new House speaker and adopt a package of rules to guide House procedures for the next two years.

They indicate that this is the moment when No Labels and the Problem Solvers Caucus could have more leverage than at any time in our history. Because the Speaker nominee needs majority support (218 votes) to get the job, a small group of united members has significant power. These members could commit that they will not vote for any speaker nominee who does not support the Break The Gridlock reform package. If this group of reformers hangs together, a speaker nominee will have to meet their demands to get the necessary 218 votes to be elected.

Access the complete Democrat proposal (click here).

Congress Is The Core Of U.S. Political Radicalism

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Sat, 27 Oct 2018 19:03:00 +0000

Congress Is The Core Of U.S. Political Radicalism

There is so much talk of what is causing the divisive nature of American politics and the extreme partisanship of the American public. What is the root cause? What causes families to separate themselves from each other? What allows enemy foreign governments to so easily manipulate our temperament? What allows our politicians and President to divide us rather than unite us? What causes the gridlock that prevents finding constructive solutions to complex problems? What causes the tribalism and polarization of our public? What allows us to question facts and truth? What allows us to distrust the news media? What allows us to undermine the basic fundamentals of our democracy and our history of the greatest nation in the world? What allows our now great advances in social media to be used against the common good? What allows us to demean and demonize various segments of our population? What allows obvious lies to be understood as truths?

Is there any common thread to all of these questions? YES! The answer is our Congress. It may seem overly simplistic to cast this blame, but it is real. Congress sets the tone for our political discourse. Congress is the mechanism that is supposed to provide a “check and balance” on our political direction.

Over the last couple of decades, at the same time as our differences as a public have sharpened about the direction of the country, we have allowed political decision making to evolve to a point where even a one vote margin may determine our direction. We have allowed the one institution that is supposed to provide a “check and balance” to devolve into a useless entity, mired in gridlock, and no longer capable of performing its critical role to develop the legislation we need or to check the actions of the other two branches of government – the Executive and Judicial.

It should be clear that we are a divided country in terms of our beliefs about our future and what needs to be done to address our problems and issues. As the past couple of decades have revealed our differences are real, they are passionate and emotional. Yet we have refused to address the fact that our political infrastructure, which may have worked in the past, is no longer capable of addressing the issues, problems and political realities of the 21^st century.

How difficult is it to understand that a particular party (Democrats or Republicans), that maintains complete control of the Congress, House and/or Senate, by the very narrowest of numerical margins is not going to reflect the will of the country? How difficult is it to understand that whatever solutions derived by such a system, or action or lack of action by such a system, will be controversial or unacceptable to half or nearly half of the country?

For whatever reason we have allowed ourselves as a nation to accept the fact that this is the way we make decision – the way we govern; the way we solve problems. It is wrong. We know it is wrong. We know that it produces one-sided solutions or results. Yet, we continue on this path.

Our Founders, who created the greatest democracy in the world; what has been the gold standard of governing; warned us about the problems, they even said “evils” of political parties. At the same time they realized that parties are part of our DNA as a people. But, somehow they trusted that we would see through the flaws and overcome the obvious. For nearly two hundred years we have managed to somehow make the system work with a respect for facts, truth, decency, moral responsibility, faith, international leadership and patriotism. We are now in a new era and faced head on with the reality that it no longer works.

The solution is obvious – the Congressional system must change if we are ever to restore our founding principles of governing and restore our image and reputation as the greatest governing democracy in the world.

The solution is recognition that governing must reflect and incorporate the views and beliefs of all of the people and not just half of the people. We can’t govern the greatest nation in the world based on the beliefs of just half of its population. We need leadership that recognizes our history and understands that governing by half of the country is not governing the nation as a whole.

I believe the public at large understands that solutions and problem solving are not one-sided and demand cooperation, compromise and decorum in leadership. Solutions and decisions must be made with recognition of facts and truth. Radicals on both sides do not understand this phenomenon. They believe that their ideas are the only ideas and they reject any sort of compromise. They seek division, perpetuate hate, misinformation, lies and even acts of violence to advance their position.

America

, wake up! The Congressional system must change. One party, Democrats or Republicans, with a narrow margin of control, cannot command complete control of the decision making process of the House and/or Senate. The Constitution does not demand this; it simply says that Congress will establish its own rules. The existing rules are unacceptable and do not reflect the will of the public at large. They encourage division rather than unity. They exacerbate efforts to seek compromise and cooperation. They deny a comprehensive disclosure and investigation of the facts. And finally, they can incite rage and radical behavior among the public.

Congress can change its rules. Congress can develop a new system of “shared power” that reflects the will of the public and provides a new direction of leadership for our country.

We need to focus the criticism of our current governmental dysfunction, tribalism and radicalism where it belongs – Congress. We are much better than this and can change our course to a governing structure that can again be the model for governing that democracies of the world can respect and emulate.

I have written extensively about the concept of “Shared Legislative Power” (SLP). The underpinnings include: a strict adherence to a revised “regular order” process with bills and decisions moving through subcommittees and committees with equally balanced party representation, expert testimony, public input and with co-chairs and non-biased staff. This process is currently utilized by the House and Senate Ethics Committees and has been used, with success, by the Federal and individual state governments on rare occasions when the membership was divided equally. Following evolution through this revised regular order process, bills and decision, would proceed to the Floor for votes of the full membership, unencumbered by arcane rules that are designed to arbitrarily control and limit what bills and decisions are considered.

Admittedly, many procedural details would need to be addressed and it would involve a “game changing” revision to the existing legislative procedures in the House and Senate. Critics argue that it would result in complete gridlock; however, the limited experience in the past has proven otherwise with startling positive results involving cooperation, compromise, true bipartisanship, camaraderie and goodwill among members.

· Slow Learners: Save Democracy; Heed The Warnings (https://goo.gl/Qczn7a) September 3, 2018

· Ethics & The Way Congress Operates (https://goo.gl/wpSdXk) June 4, 2018)

· SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party" (https://goo.gl/GSLfgh) May 21, 2018)

· Shared Committee Power And The Ambience of Bipartisanship(https://goo.gl/RgdtDz), March 22, 2017

· Shared Committee Power: How Crazy Is It? (https://goo.gl/wvpIUG), March 14, 2017

· Beating The Dead Horse Of Bipartisanship (goo.gl/qy00fX), February 1, 2017

· Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To (goo.gl/JlB5zu), January 18, 2017

· Bipartisanship: How The GOP Could Heal A Divided Nation(goo.gl/yU3zjB), December 23, 2016

###

#BetterGovmt

#PartyOverCountry

#CountryOverParty

#ReformCongress

#Congress

#GOP

#DEMS

Slow Learners: Save Democracy; Heed The Warnings

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Mon, 03 Sep 2018 14:05:00 +0000

Slow Learners: Save Democracy; Heed The Warnings

A long time ago, while I was purchasing a fifth of Southern Comfort, I had a convenience store attendant tell me I was a "slow learner" after I told him I was celebrating my third marriage. Yeah, I'll have to admit it did take me three times and about 25 years to finally get it right, so I guess the guy was accurate with his quick-witted comment.

But, hey, my cognitive abilities are like genius level compared to those of Republican and Democratic political leaders throughout the 200-plus years of the American democracy. Yes, I know it wasn't always Republicans and Democrats, but let's just keep it simple for now.

Despite all that this country has accomplished over the years, we still can't seem to get this governing thing on an even keel. It all boils down to this Party stuff -- 2 parties mostly -- Republicans and Democrats. We could be so much better, accomplish so much more and build an even greater country.

There's nothing in the Constitution about Parties. In fact, the Founders and early leaders specifically warned us of how evil they are and told us not to let them take hold.

Way back, 238 years ago, John Adams, the man who would become our second President, warned in a letter to Jonathan Jackson on October 2, 1780:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our constitution." [Note: Not the U.S. Constitution, which did not exist then, but the principles, that constituted us as a nation and a people.]

Fifteen years later, President George Washington, in a letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795, warned:

"Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for."

Then again, with an uncanny eye far into the future, Washington detailed his concerns in his farewell address to the then fledgling country on September 19, 1796:

". . .I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. . ."

Twelve years later, following the turn of the century, Thomas Jefferson, indicated to James Monroe, in March 1808:

"You will soon find that so inveterate is the rancor of party spirit among us, that nothing ought to be credited but what we hear with our own ears. If you are less on your guard than we are here, at this moment, the designs of the mischief-makers will not fail to be accomplished, and brethren and friends will be made strangers and enemies to each other."

There were many other similar warnings back in the day from our esteemed forefathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and others throughout the years. Dwight D. Eisenhower, issued a rather ominous warning in a speech on March 6, 1956:

"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."

So, we were warned way back when and we have been warned more recently about the dangers of political parties, their divisive nature and their potential negative effects on good government. With all the warnings, why didn't we learn? Despite the warnings from early governmental leaders, and without any direction from the Constitution itself Party politics took off immediately. Over the years they have become entrenched within our government and intricately woven into the fabric of American politics. As Washington said, "This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.”

It would seem that Party politics is so engrained in our governmental system that we wouldn't know how to operate without it, and perhaps wouldn't want to. But even so, shouldn't we be mindful of the underpinnings of all those warnings? They were made originally by the Founders in good faith and with reason. It seems we may have lost sight of why the warnings were issued in the first place.

· a division of the republic

· confused truth and false representation

· difficulty in knowing where to seek truth

· turbulence of human passions in party disputes

· victory more than truth is the prize

· geographical discriminations

· alternate domination of one faction over another

· the spirit of revenge

· common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party

· the rancor of party spirit among us

· brethren and friends made strangers and enemies to each other

· potential for conspiracy to seize power

Unfortunately all of these insights and warnings are a growing part of American political party politics. We have agonized for decades over Congressional gridlock, the increasing tribal partisanship and the failure to deal with the pressing issues of the day -- health care; immigration; racial & ethnic equality; infrastructure; climate change; education; gun control; trade; cyber security; international affairs and much more.

Why can't our political leaders heed the centuries-old warnings and understand that the system they're working in is designed for failure? The unfettered lust for power and greed must end. Instead of making it better they're making it worse with increased partisan divide. Abuse of the filibuster; gridlock gimmicks like the Hastert "rule" (majority of the majority rule); and the increasing trend of avoiding the committee process ("regular order") in favor of limited input, leadership-developed legislative proposals.

And the warnings continue; this time from one of the last great statesmen and patriots of our time, Senator John McCain, in his own personal farewell to Americans and the country, read by his spokesman, Rick Davis on August 27, 2018:

“We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. We weaken it when we hide behind walls, rather than tear them down, when we doubt the power of our ideals, rather than trust them to be the great force for change they have always been.

“We are three-hundred-and-twenty-five million opinionated, vociferous individuals. We argue and compete and sometimes even vilify each other in our raucous public debates. But we have always had so much more in common with each other than in disagreement. If only we remember that and give each other the benefit of the presumption that we all love our country we will get through these challenging times. We will come through them stronger than before. We always do. . .

“Do not despair of our present difficulties but believe always in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here. Americans never quit. We never surrender. We never hide from history. We make history.”

Most recently, on September 1, 2018, former Senator Joe Liberman, delivering a eulogy at John McCain's funeral said John's deciding vote,

which defeated an ill-conceived health care bill was:

"not really against that bill but against the mindless partisanship that has taken control of both our political parties and our government and produced totally one sided responses to complicated national problems like health care. And of course he was right."

On the same day, former President Barack Obama delivering his eulogy for McCain, highlighted that:

"John believed in honest argument and hearing our views. He understood that if we get in the habit of bending the truth to suit political expediency or party orthodoxy, our democracy will not work."

So again we are warned. It is important to emphasize what Obama said about "bending the truth "; "political expediency"; and "party orthodoxy". If this practice, which has become increasingly and distrubingly the new normal is not changed -- "Democracy Will Not Work."

As a country, as a people, as political parties and as a government we have sunk to a pitiful, shameful and disgraceful level; and we are ever so close to permanently breaking our democracy. We have “thumbed our noses” at the thoughtful patriots of our past and present.

And yet the problems are obvious and the solution is clear. All we need to do is have the will to change; the will to do better; the will to make a correction in our dangerous path; the will to heed the warnings of our forefathers and the will to listen to most Americans who are pleading for Congress to end the dysfunction and do a better job of governing.

We simply need to end, once and for all, the political theory and practice that allows one party, which ever is the "majority" at any given point in time, to completely control the legislative actions of the House and Senate. It is absurd to allow this practice to continue when it is known at the start that the results will be disastrous.

We continue to attempt to solve highly complex societal and economic issues with one-sided legislative solutions put forth by the Party in power, which reflects the ideas and concepts of roughly one-half of the population, and attempt to pass them with the very narrowest of margins. Fortunately, for lack of one vote an ill-conceived healh care bill was not passed. A tax cut bill, affecting millions, with many flaws was passed with a 51-48 vote.

Critical judicial and executive appointments are made by the Party in power at the time, generally based on political orientation, rather than qualifications of skills, integrity and experience.

The critical function of executive office oversight is either overlooked completely or obsessively scrutinized depending on which Party is in "power."

If we are going to continue to operate with a two-party political system, with the expectation that our democracy will survive, we must end the practice that Party in power, however narrow the margins, completely controls the critical functions of Congress -- legislation, appropriations, appointment, executive oversight, treaties, commerce, and international affairs.

I have continuously put forward the concept of shared legislative power (SLP) and have explained how it might work and offered examples of where it has worked with great success.

I'm sure there are other ideas and proposals that might attempt to achieve similar results. The point is that we can't continue going down the same path. We must heed the warnings and change the way we operate and act if we are to save the democracy.

Joe Biden, former Vice President and Senate colleague of John McCain, and a statesman in his own right, captured the spirit we need moving forward in the opening line of his eulogy when he said:

“My name is Joe Biden. I’m a Democrat. And I loved John McCain."

For further details and insights on SLP see my previous postings which include:

Ethics & The Way Congress Operates (https://goo.gl/wpSdXk) June 4, 2018)
SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party" (https://goo.gl/GSLfgh) May 21, 2018)
Shared Committee Power And The Ambience of Bipartisanship(https://goo.gl/RgdtDz), March 22, 2017
Shared Committee Power: How Crazy Is It? (https://goo.gl/wvpIUG), March 14, 2017
Beating The Dead Horse Of Bipartisanship (goo.gl/qy00fX), February 1, 2017
Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To (goo.gl/JlB5zu), January 18, 2017
Bipartisanship: How The GOP Could Heal A Divided Nation(goo.gl/yU3zjB), December 23, 2016

###

#BetterGovmt

#PartyOverCountry

#CountryOverParty

#ReformCongress

#Congress

#GOP

#DEMS

Ethics & The Way Congress Operates

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Mon, 04 Jun 2018 16:24:00 +0000

Ethics & The Way Congress Operates

The U.S. House & Senate Committees on Ethics, are unique. They are the only standing committees whose membership is evenly divided between each political party no matter which party is in control.

Also, unlike other committees, the day-to-day work of the Committees on Ethics is conducted by a staff that is nonpartisan by rule.

For example, the House Ethics Committee rules provide that: “The staff is to be assembled and retained as a professional, nonpartisan staff. . . The staff as a whole and each individual member of the staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner. . . No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan political activity directly affecting any congressional or presidential election. . .” The Senate Ethics Committee rules contain similar provisions.

It would seem reasonable to assume that Congressional members instituted the equal party membership and nonpartisan staff requirements because they wanted the "ethics" decisions to be above reproach, infallible, and uncontested politically -- truly "country over party" decisions.

That's not a bad operation model for decision making overall; particularly in today's highly charged, tribalistic political environment.

What if we applied this operational model to all Congressional committees? There's nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. Congress is free to establish its own rules of operation and that's what has lead to the current system of total Party control, gridlock, dysfunction and bad or no decisions on critically important issues.

In a country where the public is, for all practical purposes, divided between two ideological perspectives, how much sense does it make to continue to formulate policy and make decisions based on only one perspective? One-sided solutions to complex problems don't work and only result in more divisive gridlock and dysfunction and perpetuate revenge politics when party power changes. How can this be good for the economy and business which require consistency and predictability to enable planning and investment in the future.

One-sided decision making in marriage results in divorce. One-sided decision making by Congress results in political chaos which neuters the most significant branch of U.S. government.

Shouldn't Congress be making laws and providing Executive branch oversight based on truth and a common set of facts if it is to have any credibility and respect by the general public? Isn't that what most Americans want?

The operational model presented by the House and Senate Ethics Committees applied to the nearly 200 committees and subcommittees in Congress could lead to vastly improved political decisions that could earn the respect of the American public. Bills, reports or oversight reviews that eventually advanced to the Floor of the Chambers would have been subjected to extensive, unbiased, bipartisan investigation, research and input resulting in many vested agreements and compromises along the way.

Arriving on the Floor such bills and decisions would have a core group of Republican and Democratic members that would argue and support the final decisions for passage because of their vested interests. It seems possible that such bipartisan support could actually overcome some of the artificially imposed impediments that currently block movement on many decision such as the so-called "Hastert Rule" (majority of the majority) in the House and the filibuster and "holds" in the Senate.

Critics of altering the committee process may claim it will result in deadlock and stalemate, yet one must ask, what has the current process resulted in? In actuality, the process has been tested at the Federal and State levels with surprising and even amazing success (See my blog post: https://goo.gl/RgdtDz). It must also be noted that the House and Senate Ethics Committees have an operational history extending over decades.

Consider these statements, for example, from Republican and Democratic legislators who actually participated in a shared power legislative environment in Michigan:

John Gernaat (R-Cadillac) – “Shared power will go down in history as an example of how people on both sides can work together to get things done.”

Ilona Varga (D-Detroit) – “Both sides had to compromise. I feel the people got the best two years of representation in the over eight years I have been there.”

Michael J. Griffin (D-Jackson) – “…people of goodwill and determination can put public policy ahead of partisan consideration. . . Students of government, civics, political science, et cetera, can learn a great deal from this experience.”

Carl F. Gnodtke (R-Sawyer) – “I have often thought it worked well enough that there should be a constitutional amendment requiring equal numbers from both parties be elected to serve in the House.”

(See many more legislator comments in my blog post https://goo.gl/RgdtDz)

Sure there will be stalemates along the way, but compare that to what we have now. One-sided solutions (and even that is rare) to complex problems based on wishful thinking, shallow promises, alternative realities and fake facts. Under a shared legislative power (SLP) arrangement, eventually a few good members who put country before party will step up and break the stalemate with compromised solutions that the majority on both sides can support and that will likely stand the test of time.

For further details and insights on SLP see my previous postings which include:

SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party" (https://goo.gl/GSLfgh) May 21, 2018)

Shared Committee Power And The Ambience of Bipartisanship (https://goo.gl/RgdtDz), March 22, 2017

Shared Committee Power: How Crazy Is It? (https://goo.gl/wvpIUG), March 14, 2017

Beating The Dead Horse Of Bipartisanship (goo.gl/qy00fX), February 1, 2017

Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To (goo.gl/JlB5zu), January 18, 2017

Bipartisanship: How The GOP Could Heal A Divided Nation (goo.gl/yU3zjB), December 23, 2016

###

#BetterGovmt

#PartyOverCountry
#CountryOverParty

#ReformCongress

#Congress

#GOP

#DEMS

SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party"

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Mon, 21 May 2018 19:15:00 +0000

SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party"

I used to write about “Shared Legislative Power” (SLP) as an innovative concept and an alternative idea to address the issues around gridlock within government and Congress specifically. I will summarize the SLP concept and provide further insight below.

There was a time when Congress was civil enough and functional enough to work across the aisle. Today, as a country, we have moved beyond that point. In today's highly charged, tribal politics environment, I now believe that SLP, which would force saner minds to work together to solve problems, is one of the few viable options to save the very democratic underpinnings of our Democracy. It is my belief that we are dangerously close to slipping into a near autocratic state mostly because of the complete failure of Congress to function in its critically important oversight and lawmaking duties.

From my perspective political and Congressional decorum began to seriously deteriorate with the contentious election of George W. Bush over Al Gore. It accelerated rapidly following the election of Barak Obama with the immediate Republican strategy hatched the night of the Obama inauguration when top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington. From that point on, through the “Birther” debacle, the Presidential campaign of 2016 and the first year of the Trump Presidency American politics have reached a new low.

It is also important to note that this breakdown in political decorum corresponds closely with the development of the Internet, cable news, email, social media and the way Americans communicate and interact with each other and receive information.

The Tillerson Challenge

I’m not a fan of Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon CEO and U.S. Secretary of State. But, no matter what you think of him, what your politics are, or whether you think he was sincere in his remarks, Mr. Tillerson released some powerful words and thoughts at this year’s (May 2018) commencement exercises at the Virginia Military Institute. He said in part:

“As I reflect upon the state of our American democracy, I observe a growing crisis in ethics and integrity. . .

"An essential tenant of a free society, a free people, is access to the truth. A government structure and a societal understanding that freedom to seek the truth is the very essence of freedom itself. [Quoting from the Bible at John 8:32]. You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

“It is only by fierce defense of the truth and a common set of facts, that we create the conditions for a democratic, free society comprised of richly diverse people, that those free people can explore and fin[d] solutions to the very challenges confronting a complex society of free people. If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no long[er] grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom.

“This is the life of non-democratic societies, filled with people who are not free to seek the truth. We know them well. Societies in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea. You can complete the list.

“A responsibility of every American citizen to each other is to preserve and protect our freedom by recognizing what truth is and is not, what a fact is and is not, and begin by holding ourselves accountable to truthfulness, and demand our pursuit of America's future be fact-based -- not based on wishful thinking, not hoped-for outcomes made in shallow promises, but with a clear-eyed view of the facts as they are guided by the truth that will set us free to seek solutions to our most daunting challenges.

It is also that foundational commitment to truth and facts that binds us to other democratic, like-minded nations, that we Americans will always deal with them from the same set of truths and facts and it is truth that says to our adversaries, 'we say what we mean and we mean what we say.' When we as people, a free people, go wobbly on the truth, even on what may see[m] the most trivial of matters, we go wobbly on America. . ."

Dangerous Decision-making

Tillerson’s remarks strike at the heart of the issues surrounding sound decision making today – i.e. basing decisions on “truth and a common set of facts. . . truth that will set us free to seek solutions to our most daunting challenges. . . not based on wishful thinking, not hoped-for outcomes.”

Tillerson’s words identify the problems and set the goal that most of us would aspire to, but ask yourself if you can see our existing governmental and political systems being capable of producing such results – real solutions to our most daunting challenges and the major issues of our time.

We have three branches of government, all involved in major decision making and none of them really produce results based on truth and a common set of facts. The judicial branch comes the closest, but the use of competing “expert” witnesses that can be bought and sold can leave judges and juries confused and unsure. Usually the truth and facts win out and of course, decisions can be appealed and argued through multiple levels of our overall court and legal system.

The Executive Branch, led by a President, of course professes to make decisions based on truth and facts, but they are one-sided. The President, elected by the states, with input from the people, is generally thought to represent the will of the country at a particular point in time. But, the decision making by the President is one-sided based on Party agenda, specific ideas, philosophies, beliefs, etc. Decisions or actions by the Executive Office should be thought of as one side of a legal argument with the President representing the ideas put forth by the states, people and Party that elected him/her. Obviously, there is always another side.

Finally, we must look at Congress, the House and the Senate, truly elected directly by the people and with a significant responsibility to make laws and provide oversight of the Executive branch. We must ask the same questions regarding Congressional decisions – are they based on truth and a common set of facts? Being objective and disregarding which Party is in control of either or both Congressional chambers, I have a hard time believing that very many people could actually claim that Congressional decisions are based on truth and a common set of facts?

While most would agree that Congressional decisions are not based on truth and a common set of facts, we have to think about the Tillerson challenge and ask ourselves why is this true? Shouldn’t we be ashamed? If Congress is making laws and providing Executive branch oversight based on something less than truth and a common set of facts how can it expect the general public to have any respect for its decisions or authority.

The fact is there is very little respect. Current Congressional rules and procedures are actually designed to distort truth and facts to fit a particular party agenda or philosophy of whoever is in control at the time. The Parties leaderships, over time, have manipulated the rules and procedures of Congress to give the Party in control, no matter how narrow the margin, complete control over the Executive branch oversight and the development of “solutions to our most daunting challenges” -- all based on a one-sided assessment of truth and facts. Somewhat like a court proceeding with only one side represented by legal counsel.

The existing system provides no viable power to the minority to challenge the facts and data of decisions other than blocking tactics such as leaking media counter information to increase exposure or utilizing misguided legislative rules and procedures to encourage delay and gridlock which only perpetuates revenge politics when party power changes. The minority party is basically prohibited from participating in the proposal development and presenting competing data, facts and information. Even when such information is presented it can be summarily dismissed.

To the contrary, legislators and their partisan staff, spend much of their time implementing strategies to oppose competing arguments – e.g. finding experts with opposing points of view; discrediting counter positions; defaming other legislators; leaking false or discrediting media reports.

We have lost the art of critical thinking, debate and compromise in problem solving. Congress has started making decisions based on lies and fake (sometime called alternative) facts that go unchecked or challenged.

There are those that argue that the other side is so wrong and so off base that there can be no compromise or working together to solve problems. But if we truly adopt that position we should divide up the country and move to our respective corners and operate under our own philosophies and beliefs – not a very realistic alternative. There will always be a significant “other side.” As Americans we must find a way to work together, live together, and make decisions together.

Why should we continue down the path of gridlock in addressing and solving the major problems of our time or continuing to propose one-sided solution to complex problems that will be overturned in the next change of political power? Not to mention the fact that our inability to make consistent, long term decisions based on truth and common facts has seriously weakened our international reputation, standing and credibility.

As the U.S. dawdles in its self-made chaos of leadership and failure in decision making, our international competitors and allies are hastening their advancement in economic development, technology, and infrastructure in the vacuum we leave behind.

Making Congress Work With SLP

How do we ever break the cycle of revenge politics and get back to solving problems with truth and a common set of facts? It’s unlikely that Congress is going to address this problem on its own. Somehow it has to be forced to consider alternatives by the people or some external force. This is the Great Dilemma -- the solution – SLP -- is at hand; the problem is how do we get there?

In previous posts on SLP I have suggested that the House and Senate committee system which gives overriding power to the majority party is the Achilles' heel, the linchpin of Congressional dysfunction and is completely self imposed by operating procedures of the House and Senate.

The concept of SLP is simple, but it’s political and procedural impacts in Congress would be enormous. SLP simply would call for Congressional actions to follow so-called “regular order” initiated through the House and Senate Subcommittee and Committee system and ending up with a Floor vote of the entire membership.

The major difference from existing procedures is that the House and Senate committee system would be altered to include equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats on each committee with Co-chairs in charge. There are some 200 committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate – 21 major committees in each house and approximately 150 Subcommittees between the two chambers.

Two existing committees in Congress already operate under a shared power arrangement; so the concept is not unique or without procedural precedent. The House and Senate Ethics Committees are charged with carrying out their responsibilities in an impartial manner. Additionally, on one rare occasion the U.S. Senate operated under a shared power arrangement for several months and the Michigan state House of Representatives operated under SLP for an entire term. Both resulted in amazingly successful and surprising results.

The rules for the ethics committees require that “the staff is to be assembled and retained as a professional, nonpartisan staff. . . The staff as a whole and each individual member of the staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner. . . No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan political activity directly affecting any congressional or presidential election. . .”

This one change would completely alter the outcomes of legislative development and oversight responsibilities and would begin to meet the Tillerson Challenge of basing decisions on “truth and a common set of facts. . .

When a bill, action or decision was approved through the Subcommittee/Committee process it would be considered as usual on the Floor of the Chamber. In the House, I would recommend that the Hastert rule be eliminated. That Republican “rule” requires that a majority of the Majority Party approve an action before it may be considered by the full House. In both Chambers, I would recommend that no riders or unrelated amendments be permitted for consideration. Members could offer and debate individual related amendments; however they would likely need some overwhelming information or evidence to support their position to obtain approval over the committee support constituency.

Additionally, there would have to be agreement that all legislation and oversight functions would strictly adhere to the subcommittee - committee process. Too often, under recent leaderships, even the existing committee process has been bypassed and replaced with a leadership proposal or some “special” legislative group proposal. Recent examples of the altered process include the GOP’s consideration of a health care bill and its consideration of its final tax cut proposal.

Assuming adherence to the committee process, I think normal House and Senate rules could apply. I would envision that the House and Senate would still be controlled by their Majority parties based on the numbers of elected members. There would likely need to be some alterations over time following experience with the new process.

The major difference would be that proposals reaching the House or Senate Floor would have survived a grueling process of research, investigation, agreed to facts and data, unbiased staff analysis, equal and fair expert testimony from all sides of the issue, media scrutiny and extensive public input and exposure. Additionally there would be a bipartisan core constituency of subcommittee and committee Members that would have previously debated the issues and agreed to acceptable compromises. This constituency would most likely have a vested interest in defending the measure against hostile amendments and seeing the action approved by the full chamber.

Sure there will be stalemates along the way, but compare that to what we have now. One-sided solutions (and even that is rare) to complex problems based on wishful thinking, shallow promises, alternative realities and fake facts. Under SLP, eventually a few good members who put country before party will step up and break the stalemate with compromised solutions that the majority on both sides can support and that will likely stand the test of time.

For further details and insights on SLP see my previous postings which include:

Shared Committee Power And The Ambience of Bipartisanship (https://goo.gl/RgdtDz), March 22, 2017

Shared Committee Power: How Crazy Is It? (https://goo.gl/wvpIUG), March 14, 2017

Beating The Dead Horse Of Bipartisanship (goo.gl/qy00fX), February 1, 2017

Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To (goo.gl/JlB5zu), January 18, 2017

Bipartisanship: How The GOP Could Heal A Divided Nation (goo.gl/yU3zjB), December 23, 2016

###

#BetterGovmt

#PartyOverCountry

#ReformCongress

#Congress

#GOP

#DEMS

Vodka Slammers All Around; Mission Accomplished

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:46:00 +0000

"Hey Boris, Vodka Slammers All Around; Mission Accomplished. These Americans are so, how do you say it. . . vul·ner·a·ble. We need not spend money on that military crap when it's so easy this way. . . Давайте выпьем за успех нашего дела!"

[Note: The above quote is meant to be a joke. The following quote is real. Taken from the February 16, 2018, indictment by Robert Mueller (pp24).]

"KAVERZINA further wrote, 'I created all these pictures and posts, and the Americans believed that it was written by their people.'”

Vladimir Putin and the Russians must be toasting vodka slammers by the dozens as they watch their

U.S.

social media dashboards tracking the results of their devilish mischief. They must be wondering why they spent so much money on nukes and military madness when it's so easy this way.

Despite repeated warnings of Russian interference, Trump and his newly morphed GOP base of traitorous enablers have no incentive to stop the blatant Russian cyber attack on American democracy. Why would they? It all benefits them and furthers Trump's fantasy which appears to be some sort of autocratic takeover the U.S. democracy. Trump's single-minded focus on himself combined with his lack of respect for, and ignorance of, the American governmental foundation makes him the perfect stooge for Vladimir Putin.

The Russian meddling never stopped after the election and it's carefully fabricated and now woven into the tribalistic cloth of American politics. It is succeeding in spreading hate, distrust and disruption in our vulnerable society and fulfilling Putin's ultimate of dream of destroying the American state.

Meanwhile, the Secretary of State seems to have given them the green light; saying there really isn't much we can do and whatever we do they'll just figure a way around it. And, all the while POTUS says it's all fake news and a witch-hunt and like a spoiled child refuses to take his daily dose of Russian intel, because he doesn't like it and it upsets him. He would rather have his sugar coated pablum spoon fed to him by Fox News.

#BetterGovmt, #FakeLeadership #FakeNews.

How Wobbly Is Our Democracy?

noreply@blogger.com (JPMcJ) — Sun, 04 Feb 2018 11:15:00 +0000

From The New York Times

By STEVEN LEVITSKY and DANIEL ZIBLATTJAN. 27, 2018

Excellent piece. Takeaways: Extreme polarization can kill democracy. The authors claim, "America today is not on the brink of a coup or a civil war." However, their piece reveals how close we are. #BetterGovmt #ReformCongress #PartyOverCountry https://t.co/Q1FKhtfJ9J
— J.P. McJefferson (@JPMcJefferson) February 1, 2018

J.P. McJefferson

MAKING A MOVE

Was it all in vain?

Constitutionally-Authorized Dictator

"Unitary Executive Theory" and "Constitutional Dictatorship."

Trump & Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 3

Maine Secretary of State Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions

Chatting With AI On Better Government

AI Understands The Importance Of Independent Congressional Rules

Rules of the “Game”

The Big Unconstitutional Lie​

S​teps To An American Voting Rights Act

Voting Rights Plus Everything Else

What Goes Around Comes Around

V.P. Biden Could Lead Gridlock Reform

An Open Letter To Vice President Biden

Bipartisanship On Hold

Americanship v. Political Powership

New Rules To "Discourage and Restrain"

Democracy On The Brink

Insanity Defined

There is now a proven model process for bipartisanship; it only requires a willingness to end gridlock.

Draft Impeachment Resolution DJT

Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress

Democrats Propose New House Rules

Congress Is The Core Of U.S. Political Radicalism

Slow Learners: Save Democracy; Heed The Warnings

Ethics & The Way Congress Operates

SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party"

Vodka Slammers All Around; Mission Accomplished

How Wobbly Is Our Democracy?

The Big Unconstitutional Lie

Steps To An American Voting Rights Act