(edited 7-27-14 to fix formatting)
Third Constitution of the United States
Section 1: The Preamble
Section 2: 26 Changes That the Third Constitution Will Make
Section 3: When and How the Third Constitution Will Be Implemented
Section 4: How to Amend and How to Abolish the Third Constitution
Section 1: The Preamble
This Third Constitution of the United States created after the Articles of Confederation and the (second) Constitution of the United States—will maximize democracy, promote world peace, and restore ecological wisdom.
Section 2: 26 Changes that the Third Constitution Will Make
1.
The United States will take leadership to dismantle all nuclear weapons and nuclear energy power plants, simultaneously and voluntarily, the world over as soon as possible.
2.
The U.S. will bring home all military personnel and close down the government’s 700 military bases around the world. Even with such a drawdown, our nation will retain more than enough capacity to defend its own borders. The money previously spent on the military will be used to create jobs and rebuild our nation’s infrastructure: “[A]nd they shall turn their swords into ploughshares.” (Isaiah 2:4) Many of our existing military ships, submarines, and planes will be used for low-budget travel and tourism to promote goodwill among nations.
3.
Private financial contributors and corporate lobbyists will no longer have the influence on members of Congress that they have had in the past. Instead, the Library of Congress will create a website that will become an online forum and clearinghouse for all public policy proposals. All positions and arguments will be publicized. Everyone will know who is lobbying for what and why. Also, the same amount of finances will be publicly provided to the political campaigns of the 7 largest national political parties, and all 7 parties will get equal public exposure.
4.
The U.S. House of Representatives will be elected through a system of proportional representation, and the U.S. Senate will be abolished. Currently it is unfair that California and Wyoming have the same number of Senators when California’s population is about 70 times greater. Representatives will serve 2-year terms. Since all money will have been taken out of politics, Representatives, like the President, may serve an unlimited number of terms. This measure will provide some continuity of government.
The 7 largest national political parties will be empowered in a single-chambered, national legislature. Here is how Proportional Representation can be explained: the National Green Party, for example, may get 15 percent of the vote, or 65 members, in the 435-membered House of Representatives, and Indiana’s population currently allows it to have 10 members in the House of Representatives. But it may be that of the 7 largest national political parties, the Indiana Republican Party will get to select and send 5 of Indiana’s 10 Representatives to the House of Representatives (which alone will be the new Congress) because Indiana is largely a Republican state.
5.
The Electoral College system for electing a President will no longer be legal. A President must now win with a majority of individual votes (not just a plurality of votes). Using the method of Instant Runoff Voting, each American voter will rank 7 slated candidates (one from each of the 7 largest national political parties) from most favorite to least favorite. And it may take two or more rounds of voting to eliminate the candidate who gets the least amount of votes, until eventually one of the remaining candidates captures at least 51 percent of the vote. Presidents will serve office for 4-year terms, but they will be allowed to serve an unlimited number of terms.
The President will not be allowed to veto the decisions of the unicameral national legislature, and he or she will not be allowed to sign any Executive Orders, as previous presidents have done. All previous presidential executive orders will be evaluated by the new unicameral Congress, and the existing executive orders can then be kept the same, modified, or eliminated by the new Congress.
6.
The Supreme Court, under the Third Constitution, will no longer have judicial review and judicial interpretation of federal legislation. However, the Supreme Court will have judicial review and judicial interpretation regarding state legislation that conflicts with the national Constitution.
Under the Third Constitution, the Supreme Court will consist of 7 Justices—no longer 9. The 7 largest national political parties will each just appoint a Justice for the first Supreme Court, but one by one, one Justice per year, each Justice will be either reelected or removed during the third week of every March, using Instant Runoff Voting. This policy is established so that voters will not feel overwhelmed by trying to vote for 7 Justices all at once.
The first 7 Supreme Court Justices, appointed in March, will take office on October 1, along with the new president and 435 new national legislators. Then about 6 months later, during the third week of March, the Supreme Court Justice representing the smallest of the 7 largest national political parties will be considered for reelection or removal. At that time, each of the other 6 national political parties will also provide a Justice candidate, and Instant Runoff Voting will be used to determine the new Justice from the slate of 7 candidates. The elected Justice will begin a 7-year term of office.
Then during the third week of March, one year after the first actual election, the Supreme Court Justice representing the sixth smallest of the 7 largest national political parties will be considered for reelection or removal, using the same methods described above. The elected Justice will begin a 7-year term of office.
Then during the third week of March, two years after the first election, the Supreme Court Justice representing the fifth smallest of the 7 largest national political parties will be considered for reelection or removal. The elected Justice will begin a 7-year term. All of the remaining 4 Supreme Court Justices from the original list of 7 will be either reelected or removed during the third week of March using this same procedure.
Thereafter, every Justice will serve a 7-year term of office and may, if re-elected by the American people, serve an unlimited number of 7-year terms. If a Supreme Court Justice dies or resigns, each of the current 7 largest national political parties will provide a candidate, and the American people will choose a new Justice from that list, using Instant Runoff Voting. Every year, just one Justice will be considered for reelection or removal.
7.
Implement a decentralized, non-hierarchical, or grassroots, approach to public schools: The neighbors who live within the boundaries of each public elementary, middle, and high school will be forced, or allowed, to democratically establish their own school philosophy and curriculum, using public funds. There will no longer be federal, state, county, or township school superintendent control of neighborhood schools. This should improve neighborhood togetherness and reduce crime, as neighbors ideally become tribal, in a new and modern way.
Local neighborhood groups will probably search the Internet and study the most effective schools and various school curricula. Residents will be forced to think independently and philosophically. In the process, neighbors will get to know one another better, and they will build a close-knit community. Parents, other residents, and senior citizens will become better educated citizens, as they strive to become better teachers and tutors in the neighborhoods where they live. The current reliance on public school “experts” who dictate who can teach, what to teach, and how to teach has not worked well for our society. Using front yards and backyards—organic and composted, local food production can be incorporated into a school district’s curriculum.
8.
Abolish the Federal Reserve and allow the Treasury Department to oversee a publicly owned banking system like the existing Bank of North Dakota. Currently the Federal Reserve has pumped $16 trillion into the central banking system to bail out the banks and big corporations, as many people wonder, “Where is my bailout?”
9.
Begin promoting a democratic world federal government that provides equal pay for equal work, with no one earning more than three times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Americans have gotten cheaper prices at Walmart because someone in Bangladesh, or in some other impoverished place, is working for about 17 cents an hour. That may be clever, but honestly, is that fair? This policy will eliminate the extremes of poverty and wealth and provide self-sufficient, local food production, housing, and jobs for all citizens of the world. The world map can be divided into 500 rectangular-shaped, legislative districts of equal population to create a World Legislative Council. This democratic World Legislative Council will then make executive and judicial branch appointments.
Until the World Legislative Council is established, the United Nations should be changed so that all nations can participate in making all decisions, giving each nation one vote. The five nations that are permanent members of the Security Council within the United Nations have too much power. All nations should participate in Security Council decisions.
10.
Implement a national progressive income tax up to 94 percent for any income amounts over $100,000 with a simplified tax code, which, ironically, is similar to what we had under Republican President Eisenhower.
11.
Phase out fossil fuels through government incentives, and use solar, wind, hemp, and other alternative fuels instead.
12.
Provide free post high school, public education for students whose parent(s) have an annual income of less than $100,000.
13.
Legalize commercial hemp, medical marijuana, and the private use of marijuana for adults, on a national level. If marijuana is safer, why are we driving people to drink?
14.
Call for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 with subpoena powers. Many individuals still wonder how Building 7, which was not even hit by a plane, could fall almost at the speed of gravity into its own footprints at 5 pm on that tragic day. And Building 7 was not even mentioned in the initial Official 9/11 Commission Report, an investigation that was not done until two years later and then by government insiders, with an extremely limited budget. Several 9/11 Commissioners have admitted they were not given all the facts about 9/11.
15.
Provide economic incentives for organic and composted, local food production in backyards and front yards, and promote food cooperatives that provide locally grown food. Require that all genetically modified foods be labeled.
16.
Provide the best research and incentives to the 50 states on the best ways they can rewrite their state constitutions and possibly restructure their state governments from the bottom-up, not the top-down: from the neighborhood block club, to the precinct, township, county or city council. Each level of legislative government could make executive and judicial branch appointments. Elected legislators at each level would vote among themselves to send a legislator to the next level above it. Giving more power to the legislative branch at each level may work better than the current policy in which many individuals (if they even vote) vote a straight ticket for several races, for candidates whom they know nothing about. State legislatures, like the national legislature, can be elected using a system of proportional representation.
17.
Require workplace democracy in companies that have 7 or more employees. Workers will participate in determining the company’s direction, employee wages, and the selection of bosses, instead of relying solely on a Board of Directors, who are bent on making a profit for shareholders and the company’s upper management.
18.
Allow Americans to visit Cuba if they choose.
19.
Stop the drone strikes, the Guantanamo torture prison, the abuse of the Patriot Acts and NDAA, needless NSA spying, and excessive security checks at airports.
20.
Make buses and trains more affordable and available to reduce the number of cars and trucks on roads and highways.
21.
Implement Single Payer health insurance with the federal government as the single payer. This will eliminate most private, health insurance companies, which are eager to make greater profits, while offering their members increasingly less coverage and benefits.
22.
Promote the Charter for Compassion, a document that transcends religious, ideological, and national differences. The Charter activates the Golden Rule around the world. Compassion asks us to go where it hurts, to enter into places of pain, to share brokenness, fear, confusion, and anguish. www.CharterForCompassion.org
23.
Promote a new era of honesty, openness, transparency, trust, and voluntary vulnerability among national governments, within the United States government, and within interpersonal and business relationships. Government secrecy regarding UFOs, various assassinations, 9/11, CIA operatives, and military black budget expenditures must come to an end.
24.
Encourage the personal investigation of meditation (which does not have to be associated with any particular religion), and the scientific study of Consciousness.
25.
Grant statehood to the District of Columbia, so that it can rightfully have one Representative in the House of Representatives and full control over its local affairs. Currently, as the national capital, Washington, D.C, it is a federal district under direct jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress.
26.
For all other matters, the statutes, protocols, traditions, precedents, and practices of the previous Constitution will still stand—except when they interfere with or contradict these new changes of the Third Constitution.
Section 3: When and How the Third Constitution Will Be Implemented
If and when the proposed Twenty-eighth Amendment to revise Article V of the current Constitution becomes ratified, then the House and Senate will be elected the same way as before, which means that proportional representation will not be used to elect members of Congress. But Congress will be allowed to pass any constitutional amendment if there is a 67 percent majority in both houses, and the American people two months later ratify it with a 51 percent majority in a national referendum. The previous additional ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures will no longer be required.
However, if the proposed revision of Article V becomes ratified, then the American people will be allowed to consider having a Constitutional Convention two years after every presidential election. Thus, if 51 percent of the American people want a Constitutional Convention, then the 7 largest national political parties will be empowered, and proportional representation will be used to send 100 delegates to a Constitutional Convention. Then if the delegates approve a new constitution with a 51 percent majority, the document must then be ratified in a national referendum in which 51 percent of the American people approve it.
The Third Constitution recommends 26 changes, and it provides a specific 24-month timeline for having a Constitutional Convention. If the American people choose to have a Constitutional Convention, as the proposed revision of Article V would allow, the Convention delegates will not have to abide by the 24-month timeline that the Third Constitution proposes. And a new legislature under a new constitution will not have to adopt any of the 26 changes that the Third Constitution recommends. What follows here is how the Third Constitution, if accepted, will be implemented:
Two years after every presidential election in November, Americans will vote yes or no as to whether or not they want to have a Constitutional Convention. If 51 percent or more of the voters say yes, then 10 months later 100 delegates, chosen through proportional representation, from the 7 largest national political parties will be sent to the Constitutional Convention at the U.S. Capitol Building to create a new constitution. Then, if 51 percent or more of the Constitutional Convention delegates approve a new document, it must then be ratified, two months later, by the American people in a national referendum with a 51 percent majority. Then 9 months later, the new government will be implemented.
This orderly process of voters choosing a political party in order to establish which are the 7 largest national political parties, and voters then choosing from the designated list of 7 national political parties to determine the party percentages of convention delegates, the Convention itself, the national referendum, the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, the election of a President, and the election of new national legislators, or Representatives, will take 24 months. This 24-month process will be described after the next two paragraphs.
Here is how Proportional Representation can work in the selection of Constitutional Convention delegates: American voters will study and evaluate the platforms and constitutions of the 7 largest national political parties. Each voter will choose one of 7 political parties that he or she most identifies with. Let us pretend for pedagogical purposes that based on a national election, the 100 Constitutional Convention delegates will be comprised of these percentages and parties: 20% Republican, 20% Democratic, 15% Libertarian, 15% Constitution Party, 15% Green Party, 10% Socialist, and 5% Communist.
A National Elections Committee, whose 7 executive directors will represent the 7 largest national political parties, will be established beforehand to guarantee impartial election officials. Local election administrators will be professionalized. The National Elections Committee may use a voter-verified, paper audit trail produced by standardized voting equipment, or it may decide to use paper ballots to prevent corruption. The National Elections Committee will also be responsible for counting and verifying the membership of the national political parties.
The 24-Month Timeline for Creating the Third Constitution and Implementing the New Government
If 2 years after a presidential election, the American people decide they want to have a Constitutional Convention, they will then have about 11 weeks, from November through January, to officially register with a national political party for this purpose. Various websites such as www.politics1.com describe all the known national political parties. Then during the month of February, no switches can be made as the official count of each party is made and reported by the National Elections Committee.
As a result of the count in February, any national political party that represents at least one percent or more of the nation’s eligible voters, but not including the 7 largest national political parties, will participate in national public speeches and debates, held during the months of March and April. These smaller political parties will also share their party platforms and their own proposed constitutions in writing. This policy gives minor parties a chance to be heard. And anarchists, who don’t believe in having any form of government, may also have a voice and be heard.
Then from May to the second week of July, for 10 weeks, the 7 largest national political parties only, as determined 3 months earlier in February, will share their party platforms and proposed constitutions in writing, and they will engage in public speeches and debates.
Then during the third week of July, registered voters will vote to choose just one party from the now designated list of the 7 largest national political parties (these parties were designated during the previous February) to determine the percentages of party delegates at the actual Constitutional Convention.
Then from September through November, the eleventh through the thirteenth month, the Constitutional Convention will be held.
Let us pretend that the 100 delegates from the top 7 national political parties will be comprised of the following parties and numbers at the Constitutional Convention: Republican Party, 20; Democratic Party, 20; Libertarian Party, 15; Green Party, 15; Constitution Party, 15; Socialist Party, 10; and Communist Party, 5.
On September 1, as already stated, the Constitutional Convention delegates will meet at the Capitol building in Washington D.C. The delegates will work from September through November to create a new constitution that 51 percent or more of the delegates approve. Each of the 7 national political parties will vote within their own party to choose one delegate to be the potential chairperson of the Convention. Then the 100 delegates will choose a Convention chairperson from the slate of 7 candidates (one from each party), using instant runoff voting.
If the delegates agree on a new constitution with a 51 percent majority before the 3 months elapse, they are encouraged to use the remaining days to hear dissenting voices in the constant effort to revise their document through consensus decision-making in order to get an even higher percentage of approval. If only 50 percent or less of the delegates approve the new constitution after working on it for 3 months, then the proposed document becomes void, and the current constitution remains official.
However, if the new constitution is approved with a 51 percent majority or higher by the end of November, then the American people must ratify it in a national referendum during the third week of January with a 51 percent majority. If the American people approve of the new Constitution, then the Constitutional Convention delegates will meet monthly, or as needed, to determine the specifics as to when and how the new government, based on the new constitution, will be implemented in a safe, orderly, and smooth way 9 months later on October 1.
After the national referendum is held during the third week of January, then two months later during the third week of March, the first 7 Supreme Court Justices will be identified, as each of the 7 largest national political parties appoints a Supreme Court Judge.
Then, two months later, during the third week of May, the new President will be elected: the 7 largest national political parties will each offer their candidate. Then the American people, using a system of Instant Runoff Voting, will choose the next President from the 7 candidates.
Then, two months later, during the third week of July, the new members of Congress will be elected from the 7 largest national political parties, using a system of Proportional Representation.
Finally, on October 1, the new government begins as the new President, the 7 new Supreme Court Justices, and the 435 new national legislators or Representatives of the new Congress begin their terms of office.
Quick Summary of the Timeline for Creating the Third Constitution and Implementing the New Government
First 3 months, November thru January—American voters will examine all national political parties.
4th Month, Month of February—Voters will have already affiliated themselves with a national political party by the end of January. Now there will be an official count of individuals in each political party. The National Election Committee will announce the results by the end of the month.
5th and 6th months, March and April—Public speeches, forums, and written responses from all parties that captured at least 1 percent of the vote, but not including the 7 largest national political parties
7th to the middle of the 9th month, from May to 2nd week of July, for 10 weeks—Speeches, debates, and written responses from the top 7 political parties only
9th month, during the 3rd week of July—Each American voter will vote to choose one party from the 7 largest national political parties to identify the percentages of Convention delegates; the top 7 parties were determined during the previous month of February.
11th thru 13th month, September thru November—The 3-month duration of the Constitutional Convention
15th month, 3rd week of January—National Referendum to ratify the new Constitution
17th month, 3rd week of March—2 months after the national referendum, 7 Supreme Court Justices will be selected by the 7 largest national political parties.
19th month, 3rd week of May—Election of the new President: the 7 largest national political parties will each provide a candidate. Using Instant Runoff Voting, the new President will be selected.
21st month, 3rd week of July—The new national legislature will be determined: New members of Congress will be elected from the 7 largest national political parties, using a system of proportional representation, as each American voter chooses just one of 7 largest national political parties.
24th month, October 1st—The new government under the new constitution will begin, as the new public servants from the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government begin their terms of office.
(End of Quick Summary Timeline for Implementing the Third Constitution and the New Government)
Once it is decided by the American people to have a Constitutional Convention, the spoken and written words of the Convention delegates must be publicized, and citizens will be allowed to voice their own opinions in the process.
The current US Congress, the President, and the US Supreme Court will not have the right to prevent or control a Constitutional Convention. They can, however, express their opinions and recommendations in the process.
Section 4: How to Amend and How to Abolish the Third Constitution
The U.S. government can be modified when Congress passes new federal laws or statutes. The United States government can also be modified anytime new amendments are added to the constitution. But to change the federal government completely by abolishing the constitution, there has to be a Constitutional Convention to rewrite a new constitution.
How to Add Amendments to the Third Constitution
To modify the federal government by adding amendments to the Constitution, the United States Congress, also called the unicameral national legislature, elected through a system of proportional representation, must pass any proposed amendment to the Constitution with at least a 67 percent majority.
How to Abolish the Third Constitution
The Constitution is the supreme civil document of the land. A radically new constitution and government can be formed through a Constitutional Convention. It can be achieved in a fair and orderly way. Any new constitution does not need to throw out the best of the old. The American people have a right to choose whether they want a new constitution. Through their chosen representatives, an entirely new constitution can be made.
After the Third Constitution has been ratified and implemented, the decision to create a new constitution will be considered by the American people every 4 years—that is two years after every presidential election.
Two years after every presidential election, during the third week of May, Americans will vote yes or no as to whether or not they want to have a Constitutional Convention to create a new constitution. If at least 51 percent of the American voters want a new Constitution, then the 7 largest political parties, using a system of Proportional Representation, will send 100 delegates to the Constitutional Convention at the U.S. Capitol Building to create a new national constitution.
Then, if 51 percent or more of the Constitutional Convention delegates approve any new document, it must then be ratified by the American people in a national referendum with a 51 percent majority.
The spoken and written words of the Convention delegates must be publicized, and citizens will be allowed to voice their own opinions in the process.
The current US Congress, the President, and the US Supreme Court will not have the right to prevent or control a Constitutional Convention. They can, however, express their opinions and recommendations in the process.
Adrian Tawfik says
Great work Roger,
it all looks great!
simplulo says
Reasonably good satire with a straight face, nice job.
michael ossipoff says
Roger—
Do you think you might consider letting a few other people have some part in writing this country’s Constitution? I mean, customarily, it’s a group effort.
There are various proposals for changing the country …proposals, outlines, for how the country should be. They’re called “party platforms”. I invite you to look at some of them. They can be linked-to from Democracy Chronicles’ Third Party Central.
And those party platforms were each written by more than one person. I invite you to join a political party, and apply for a position on its platform-committee.
Or, of course, you could start your own party. If you do, then be sure to say what’s wrong with the other parties whose platforms are similar to yours, what your party uniquely offers. And I strongly recommend including the input of other members from the start. A party should be democratically run, and its platform should be democratically written.
But some of your proposals are great. They can be found in the existing platforms of various parties.
There are at least 5 or 6 party platforms that offer Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). IRV would be good, because it meets the Mutual Majority Criterion (MMC) and the Chicken-Dilemma Criterion (CD). But it would probably be better to use the Benham method or the Woodall method. Both of those meet the Condorcet Criterion (CC) additionally. Both are closely related to IRV, and Benham, in particular, amounts to only a small modification of IRV. I’ve defined those voting-systems in my articles.
Your proposal of a unicameral Congress is a good one, and is already in several party platforms. Parliamentary government would be better still, but would be a bigger change to ask for.
Most or all democratic socialist parties and nonsocialist progressive parties offer proportional representation. I don’t strongly oppose it, but I don’t want it. I have no wish to include unliked, losing, parties in Parliament. …parties that can’t win even one seat in a single-member district.
Your Constitution isn’t very well written as a Constitution. For instance, it’s highly inappropriate fo a Constitution to state which parties are more popular.
We’re told that the Democrats and Republicans are the most popular parties But a recent Harris poll shows that very large majorities are disgusted with both the Democrats and Republicans. Could something be a little fishy there, when two uniformly despised parties are claimed by the media to be the only parties that can win?
I’d strongly recommend leaving out of your Constitution any claims about the support for various political parties :^)
I don’t think the Constitution should include any advocacy regarding UFOs. If the government has covered up UFO reports, it has done so in order to make you think that that’s all it’s covering up, and to draw attention away from more genuine frauds.
By the way, there’s no convincing evidence that we’ve ever received any extraterrestrial visits. One can reasonably expect that interstellar visitors would have better things to do than go around unverifibly scaring a few people at night in lonely areas.
Parenthetically, this galaxy has had life-supportable stars for so long that if there’d ever been an interstellar spacefaring civilization, it would have had time to thoroughly explore and catalogue all of the galaxy’s stars and planets, many times over, using only the slow rockets available with today’s terrestrial technology. That suggests that the reason why we haven’t ever been visited or contacted is because there isn’t anyone out there to visit or contact us. We’re alone in the universe. Get used to it.
Ok, I’ve read that evidence is piling up to suggest that the universe is open rather than closed …that the universe is infinite. If that’s so, then, instead of saying that there’s no other life in the universe, it would be safer to say that there are no civilizations anywhere near close enough to us for visiting or communication to be even remotely possible, even with the super-advanced technologies of the most advanced ancient technological civilizations.
Either that or no one wants to visit or contact us, which, for practical purposes, amounts to nearly the same thing.
It has been suggested that we’ve been given a high-tech quarantine, in which an advanced civilization, after observing our tendencies, our treatment of eachother, has placed us in a universe containing no life other than us.
But I digress :^)
Your proposal that the highest income not be any more than 3 times the lowest income is a good one. Some party platforms have similar income-ratio limits, but yours is stronger, more egalitarian, than any of them. I like it.
Universal medical care is in lots of party platforms and it’s what the public wants.
I like your proposal to give the 9/11 murders the same legitimate and serious investigation that every ordinary 1-victim municipal murder gets. Of course several party platforms advocate that.
In conclusion, you have some good ideas. Look at some party platforms—many of which are linked-to from Democracy Chronicles’ Third Party Central—join one of the parties, and apply for membership on its platform committee if you want to.
…that is, if you’re willing to let others help write the Constitution.
Michael Ossipoff
michael ossipoff says
I’d like to add something to my comment:
i wrote without having a copy of Roger’s article in front of me, and so I left a few topics out.
Your Constitution decreess that science must study, investigate, and scientifially-explain conscioulsness (sorry, I couldn’t find and quote the passage). Worshipers of science expect that.
But science studies the interaction and relation among the parts of the physical world. Period. Science says nothing about metaphysics or ontology.
Well, I must admit that some physicist authors, includng some quite prominent physicists, have said that quantum mechanics undermines and discredits “strong objectivity”, the belief that there is a fully and absolutely-existent objective physical reality which is independent of observers and experiencers.
If quantum mechanics discredits strong objectivity,then a more general statement can be made: Physics discredists the metaphysical position known as Physicalism. Physicalism claims that the physical world is the ultimate reality, the origin and cause of everything, metaphysiclly prior to everything.. Physicalist claims always include strong objectivity.
Physicalism is the modern term for the metaphysics that used to be called Materialism.
It sounds reasonable to give the largest 7 parties equal media time, and automatic ballot-status.
But I’d add that smaller parties should always be able to have a percent-share of the media time equal to their percent-share of the populaion’s support. I don’t agree with your complete exclusion of the 8th largest party.
Additionally, small parties should be able to gain ballot-status by meetin a membership or signatures requirement.
Michael Ossipoff
Roger Copple says
Response to Michael Ossipoff:
I agree that a Constitutional Convention would be a group effort to work on adopting a new Constitution. The Third Constitution is just my ideal. The 7 largest national political parties, whichever they would happen to be, most likely would not accept the 26 changes that the Third Constitution recommends.
In my 24 month timeline, I allow two entire months for minor parties who get at least 1 percent of the national vote to share their political views. I also included anarchists. I am not excluding anybody. The 7 parties would each get the same amount of public money and public exposure. Of course someone could vote for an 8th party, just like people today may vote for a 3rd party.
As far as me joining a political party to just help them develop their platform, I did that with the Florida Greens many years ago. Though the Greens say they value grassroots democracy, I haven’t found anyone who wants to decentralize the public schools to the extent that I would recommend.
I picked 7 political parties that people are familiar with as a way of explaining how proportional representation works. They were only hypothetical examples. I did show the Republican and Democratic Parties as having higher percentages that the Communist Party, for example. I was not trying to favor any particular party.
It is also true that I did not provide any documentation for why there should be a scientific investigation of Consciousness. My essay already was too long for most political websites. However, on my own, just today I started listing some websites that support the ideas in my two articles and the Third Constitution. I was somewhat surprised how many credible organizations, universities, and institutes are now investigating the study of Consciousness and meditation.
As far as UFO research, there are many books and many individuals who have had personal extraterrestrial experiences–or at least they thought they did. Try convincing those individuals that it is all a figment of their imaginations, and see how far you get.
I think the important thing to do is to try to convince people that we need to pass a constitutional amendment that revises Article V, so that it will be easier to amend and properly abolish the constitution.
My reason for writing the Third Constitution is to show people that if we could revise Article V, we could have a Constitutional Convention to create a much better national Constitution in way that is fair, safe, and orderly.
I may not have responded to all the concerns that you have shared.
Roger Copple
Michael Ossipoff says
Hi Roger–
Maybe I was being bit argumentative in style, and a bit unfair, in my comments about constitution-writing.
I’m not trying to draw you into a long point-by-point debate, which I know you don’t have time for (neither of us do, to tell the truth). But point-by-point answers are nevertheless an inclination of mine, because I like to answer things that are said. Don’t think that I’m trying to obligate your to reply–It’s just how I’m inclined to reply.
You wrote:
Response to Michael Ossipoff:
[quote]
In my 24 month timeline, I allow two entire months for minor parties who get at least 1 percent of the national vote to share their political views. I also included anarchists. I am not excluding anybody. The 7 parties would each get the same amount of public money and public exposure. Of course someone could vote for an 8th party, just like people today may vote for a 3rd party.
[/quote]
But I was suggesting that _any_ group or party receive airtime & print-space in proportion to to their percent-share of the population.
But I like the idea of the 7 largest parties receiving _equal_ airtime and print-space, while still giving smaller groups and parties media access percent equal to their populaton-percent.
(I’m going to try two different quoting formats, to find out if one of them will result in automatic quote-display format such as shading &/or indenting)
As far as me joining a political party to just help them develop their platform, I did that with the Florida Greens many years ago.
I took part in the sending of platform suggestions to the newly-formed Justice Party, at a website that invited platform suggestions.
Though the Greens say they value grassroots democracy, I haven’t found anyone who wants to decentralize the public schools to the extent that I would recommend.
The GPUS has disappointed me as well. I visited their forums, and found GPUS members supporting the legality of Zimmerman’s Trayvon Martin murder. They were basically unopposed, and no one spoke up to criticize their position, or the flamewarrior-abusive manner in which they asserted it.
I want to distinguish GPUS from G/GPUSA. Both are U.S. Green Parties. G/GPUSA is the original U.S. Green Party. They’re democratic socialist, like SPUSA. GPUS is nonsocialist progressive. G/GPUSA lost nearly all its membership to GPUS, which was probably perceived as more media-palatable. G/GPUSA didn’t run a presidential candidate in 2012, but their organization still exists, with website, platform and publications.
There’s nothing wrong with GPUS’s progressive platform, and they’re one of the parties that call for genuine investigation of 9/11. But many people perceive GPUS as an elitist environmentalist party, or even a 1-issue environmentalist party. Their platform covers human justice issues (even if some members might not be so good on those issues), but the Justice Party _emphasizes_ Justice, in its name, and in its title slogan, justice for us all.
Though GPUS has a head start, compared to the Justice Party (JP), the Justice Party has come along rapidly, considering how recently it was formed (It seems to me that 2012 was its first presidential election).
GPUS has been around for along time, but still hasn’t really made it big. JP, with its full emphasis on justice for humans, has more potential for genuine success, which GPUS has never achieved in all this time.
(But later in this reply I mention about “electoral success” having little or no meaning when the elections are illegitimate, due to their unverifiable vote-count, and the media are strongly promotng two parties, with a complete exclusion of all other points of view.)
I did show the Republican and Democratic Parties as having higher percentages that the Communist Party, for example. I was not trying to favor any particular party.
Did you know that, in pretty much all Internet polls, the Republicans come in right at the bottom, right down there with the Nazis?
As I mentioned in my initial reply to your article, a recent Harris poll has confirmed what we all know from conversations and published comments: A very large majority express disgust for both the Democrats and the Republicans, even though our corporate, oligarchy-owned mass-media tell us the Dems & Repubs (collectively, the Republocratic Party) are the only parties with any popularity. Popularity? Is that what they call what the Harris poll found?
That strongly suggests two things:
1. We need verifiable vote-counting. Without that, our elections are illegitimate. With illegitimate elections, we have no legitimate democracy, If we had verifiable vote-counting, there’d likely be some big suprises regarding what the public want and like.
Note that it isn’t necessary to prove count-fraud. How can it be proved when there’s no verifiability. The mere absense of verifiability means that the elections are illegitmate.
Still, if you want overwhelming evidence of count-fraud, look at the issues of _Harpers_ magazine immediately after the two elections of G.W. Bush.
2. We need open, participatory, agena-free media. Without that there can be no democracy. The media should be a means for communication for the public.That should go without saying. The media shouldn’t be just a propaganda device for the tiny population-sector who own the country.
With open media, too, there’d be some big surprises regarding what the public want and like.
Open media and legitimate verifiable vote-counting are two essentials, without which we have no legimate democracy. Does anyone care?
It is also true that I did not provide any documentation for why there should be a scientific investigation of Consciousness. My essay already was too long for most political websites. However, on my own, just today I started listing some websites that support the ideas in my two articles and the Third Constitution. I was somewhat surprised how many credible organizations, universities, and institutes are now investigating the study of Consciousness and meditation.
I make no criticism of advocacy for meditation, and more study and publicizing of its benefits.
But science isn’t going to explain consciousness. As I said, science only studies and describes the physical ulniverse and the interactions and relations among its parts. That’s separate from metaphysics and ontology.
…though, as I said, physics evidently discredits the metaphysics of Physicalism.
There’s a popular tendency to want to apply science beyond its rightful area of applicability. I suggest that science-worslhip is one of the most widespread religions nowadays.
“Skeptics” tend to be skeptical of everything except for their own beliefs, their own religion, such as science-worslhip.
As far as UFO research, there are many books and many individuals who have had personal extraterrestrial experiences–or at least they thought they did.
Thank you–That’s the operative phrase: “…or say they did.”
George Adamsky wrote books about his UFO encunters, which included flights on flying saucers. His books included photos of the flying saucers, which someone pointed out, looked remarkably like certain chicken-incubation lamps.
Someone who claims a UFO experience could be outright lying, or engaging in fiction-writing. Adamsky’s own publisher, in a forword to one of his books said that, however we regard his credibility, we can regard his writing as interestnng fiction.
One can say, “How do you explain this?”, referring to a UFO account. It can usually be explained by the theory that the author is lying. Often some reliable source is quoted, but remember that the author could be lying in his quote. A book, “Maps of the Ancient Sea-Kings”, about a putative ancient terrestrial prehistoric highly-advanced civilization, quoted a government agency (SAC) that, conveniently, no longer existed at the time of writing. It quoted a cartographer at that agency saying errors that one wouldn’t expect from a cartographer.
Von Daniken’s book contains things that are hard to explain, until you realize that he could simply be lyling.
Try convincing those individuals that it is all a figment of their imaginations, and see how far you get.
</quote.
I'm not saying it's a figment of their imagination. I'm saying that it could be simply an outright lie.
I think the important thing to do is to try to convince people that we need to pass a constitutional amendment that revises Article V, so that it will be easier to amend and properly abolish the constitution.
I claim that nothing of the sort can be done until my two numbered requirements are achieved:
1. veriiable vote-counting, without which there are no legitimate elections and no legitimate democracy
2. Honest, open, participatory and agenda-free media
Michael Ossipoff
Roger Copple
michaelossipoff says
I should clarify something that I said in the comments above.
I said that science will never explain consciousness. That statement could be misunderstood, and so it should be clarified.
In metaphysics, often, asking ourselves what we mean by a question, might answer the question, or make it unnecessary or meaningless.
So let’s consider what it would mean, to “explain consciousness”:
Some possibilities for what that verb-phrase could mean:
1. If it merely means to tell, in general, how conscious beings arose in the physical account, then that explanation has already been done: In the physical account, animals, living beings that things that plants don’t do, have an evolutionary niche, and adaptive advantages in natural selection. That requires dealing with their surroundings, and acting, which requires that animals have some sort of guidance-system. That’s what makes animals conscious beings, and that answers the question.
2. If it means to actually explain the _full, detailed_ physical mechanism, then that’s a tall order. Note that physics is nowhere near to being explained or fully-known. Not all physicists believe that physics can ever be fully known, even in principle.
3. If it means to solve the Physicalists’ “hard problem of consciousness”, then there’s little or nothing for me to say about that, because that problem exists only for Physicalists, and I’m not a Physicalist. As near as I can infer, that problem is the Physicalists’ problem in coming to terms with their own conciousness, somehow fitting it into their Physicalist metaphysics.
Some Physicalists say that they’ve accomplished that, but Physicalists don’t defend Physicalism very well in debates.
————
So, there you are: Depending on which of those meanings the verb-phrase has, either it’s already been accomplished (#1), or it’s likely impossible, and almost surely not what is meant (#2), or it has meaning only to Physicalists (#3)
Michael Ossipoff
Roger Copple says
Michael, I am glad you are working hard to achieve an open, participatory, agenda-free media and verifiable vote counting.
But what I want to focus on is revising Article V so that amendments can be passed more easily, and so that we can have a fair, safe, and orderly constitutional convention.
One of the 26 changes I advocated was a new era of honesty, openness, and transparency. I only mentioned UFOs because many people believe the government has information that it is not sharing with the public. I would say that only a small percentage of Ufologists are lying. I believe most of these people are convinced that they have had an extraterrestrial experience or they believe there is amble evidence to substantiate it. One way or the other, I and others would like to get to the bottom of it.
Regarding the study of consciousness and meditation, I think it is an issue of semantics, as to whether or not the word “scientific” should be used in this context. I will paste below some of the organizations who do this research, and you will notice that some use the word “scientific” in their organization’s name. I can certainly remove the word “scientific” in this context if it is going to be a stumbling block for people.
23. Promote a new era of honesty, openness, transparency, trust, and voluntary vulnerability among national governments, within the United States government, and within interpersonal and business relationships. Government secrecy regarding UFOs, various assassinations, 9/11, CIA operatives, and military black budget expenditures must come to an end.
Also, when I get more time, I will go to Third Party Central at Democracy Chronicles to check out the various parties and platforms that you mentioned. Thanks. Roger Copple
michaelossipoff says
Roger:
You wrote:
[quote]
Regarding the study of consciousness and meditation, I think it is an issue of semantics, as to whether or not the word “scientific” should be used in this context.
[/quote]
Yes, it’s a matter of knowing what we mean by a word. As I’ve said, a lot of disagreements could be avoided by the use of definite definitions.
It isn’t just a matter of whether “scientific” should be said. It’s mostly a matter those using that word specifying exactly what they mean by it. But, certainly without a good definition of a word, it would be better not to use it, to avoid ambiguity.
You continued
[quote]
I will paste below some of the organizations which do this type of research, and you will notice that some of them use the word “scientific” or “science” in their organization’s name.
[/quote]
I don’t doubt that there are organizations using that word in that context, but, when they do, they aren’t being very clear with us, in regards to what they mean.
In my previous comment, I specified 3 possible meanings for “scientifically explaining consciousness.” I should add that my definitions #1 and #2 are unlikely to be the intended meanings, when expressions like that are used. My definition #3 is what people almost surely mean, when speakiing of scientifically explaining consciousness. ,,,Physicalists wrestling with their “Hard Problem of Consciousnes”–a problem that exists only for Physicalists. .Physicalists trying to come to terms with their own consciousness, trying to reconcile their consciousness with their Physicalist beliefs.
One of your links seemed to be an interesting title, because (in the New Scientist URL), it referred to “scientists pick apart ide…”
That appears to be saying that the article is about scientists “picking-apart” (refuting) Idealism. Idealism is defined, basically, as the opposite of Physicalism.
Things that I’ve read suggest that the terms “Materialism” and “Idealism” have been in use with their current metaphysical meanings, since around the 1600s. As I’ve mentioned, “Physicalism” is the modern word for what was formerlly called “Materialism”.
But, regrettably, that link didn’t link to an article in which scientists (believed that they) refuted Idealism.
Who’s to say whether it’s more productive to propose amending the Constitution, replacing the Constitution with a new one, or getting verifiable vote-counting and open, honest, participatory and agenda-free media.
I admit that my two proposed goals (the latter two in the above list) are less ambitious. But sometimes more basic, less ambitious, goals are more do-able. Especially when (as in the case of verifiable vote-count) they’re about the absence of even any democracy at all. That’s something that more people would likely perceive as something entirely necessary to fix immediately.
A new Consitution is a big thing to ask for. Basic democracy is a small thing to ask for, and a big outrage when it’s absent, and that makes it a good initial proposal.
Pro-democracy demonstrations and marches (legal, peaceful ones, with permits) calling for verifiable vote-counting. Local progressive organizations demanding that local NPR stations dump NPR, with its propaganda programming, and replace it with local open-access public affairs discussion. …with a promise to stop subscribing to those stations if they continue to use NPR as their public-affairs programming.
…and maybe (legal, peaceful, with permits) demonstrations outside the stations, with tv-suitable banners saying, “No, we won’t subscribe to your dogma.”
One more thing about UFOs: It has been pointed out that there’s no reason to expect interstellar visitors to be biological individuals, traveling in the full-size aircraft needed to carry people. It would be more efficient for interstellar visiting to be accomplished with tiny automated devices. I’d say “…maybe too small to be noticed by us”, except that of course coming here and not being noticed would seem to defeat the purpose of coming, for the most part at least.
But certainly if the alien civilization wanted its tiny automated visitors to not be noticed, then they wouldn’t be noticed. But, according to the claims, UFOs have been cruising around, sometimes seen in our skies (usuallly at night in remote locations). ….implying that there’s no intent for their presence to be secret. But in that case, it becomes very difficult to explain why they haven’t chosen to announce themselves to everyone, and make some _genuine_ many-witness appearances.
Anyway, you’ve already answered on that matter, but I repeat my claim that there’s no evidence that we’ve been visited from space. No proof that any UFO report is other than a lie by the person(s) making the report. Maybe the govt has made the appearance of cover-up, in order to provide a distraction, and an implication that there aren’t any other big frauds or deceptions of a more practical nature.
You continued:
[quote]
I can certainly remove the word “scientific” in this context if it is going to be an issue or stumbling block for many people.
[/quote]
Not a “stumbling block”. Rather, a failure of expression, an ambiguity of expression.
Michael Ossipoff
Scolos Narbarson says
It is good to see your sincere work here in “Democracy Chronicles” Roger. Even if We The People do not adopt it entirely, it will be an important influence on Our next constitution.
I have been writing another constitution too. Maybe I can submit it here along with yours. We’ll see.