Why No Change Will Ever Come From a New U.S. President

For centuries people have ran for the office of U.S. President on promises of change, political revolution*, and largely, attacking the character and policies of their opponents.  (*2016, Bernie Sanders.)


Few have been able to keep their promises.  Not because they didn’t want to keep them, nor because they were lying when they made them, as most are/were very sincere in their desires for change.


The thing standing in the way of all proposed changes and promises is the one U.S. political document that needs the most change: the United States Constitution.  

The political checks and balances provided in the current U.S. Constitution actually disempower the people, who believe that they are electing a representative that can create change.


The Humanity Party™ (THumP™) is the first U.S. political movement that has proposed changing the Constitution and offering a blueprint for these changes.


MYTH:  The U.S. Constitution has defined and implied checks and balances that make the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) equal in power.


FACT:  The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) of the Judicial Branch has the most power.

Congress (the House of Representatives and the House of the Senate) is granted more power than the President.  How?  A Presidential veto can be overturned by two-thirds of the voting members of each House of Congress.  But the Supreme Court can rule that any law passed by Congress, even if Congress overrides a Presidential Veto, is unconstitutional.


For example (using a real political issue), if a woman gets pregnant and wants the right to decide whether or not she wants to continue the process of birth that will eventually lead to the introduction of another human into the world, and for which she will become personally responsible for the rest of her life: Is she protected in her right to choose the course of her own future and pursuit of happiness?


If the majority of the people agree with the right of a woman to choose, and then they elect a President who agrees with this position, but a two-thirds majority of each House of Congress disagrees, abortion will be outlawed.  Then, upon review by the Supreme Court, IF the majority of the Justices determined that the woman’s right to an abortion falls under the protective umbrella of the U.S. Constitution, then the SCOTUS can overrule Congress and abortion becomes legal.  This process literally takes years.  And during the years that this political process takes place, how many newly created human beings have been born to un-wanting mothers?  How much poverty is created?  How much heartache and pain?


FACT:  Nine people upon Earth decide what is best for hundreds of millions of others.  This is not democracy–the voice and conscience of the majority.  This is the voice of just nine people.


These nine people interpret the Constitution according to the dictates and perceptions (which include their personal prejudices and opinions) of their own conscience.  And because the current Constitution is open to interpretation, because of the poor way in which it was in written in the first place by humans who didn’t have a clue about how life upon Earth would change in the future, the U.S. Constitution is basically the platform of power for nine individuals.  This is wrong!  This is why things are slow to change for the benefit of the majority.


The Constitution that these nine Justices interpret is useless and powerless against their individual interpretation of it.  The ONLY way that this can be avoided is for the Constitution to contain a mandated “consensus of unanimity” that requires all three branches of government to completely agree (in their respective branches) on any law that is passed.  However, to avoid the lengthy time that would be required for debate and deliberation in reaching a consensus of unanimity, there MUST be laws that the Constitution already outlines that protect the people’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of each individual’s own perception of happiness.  


Using the example above:


It would be an easier interpretation of whether or not abortion should be legalized, if the Constitution had as one of its Articles:


     ARTICLE IV - Inalienable Human Rights


     Section 7 - Right of Belief, Expression, and the Media


 a.  Right of Belief.  Congress shall establish laws that protect each person’s right to act, to be acted upon, to believe, and to express opinion, where that action, belief or expression of opinion does not affect, extend upon, to, or impede another person’s right to act, to be acted upon, to believe, or to express opinion.


If a woman does not want to become a mother, then she has the “right to act, [or in this case] to be acted upon” and abort the fetus growing inside of her.  Why? Because this right DOES NOT “extend upon, to, or impede another person’s right to act, to be acted upon [by not getting an abortion], to believe, or to express opinion [that abortion is wrong].”


But if a law is passed outlawing abortion, then it does affect the individual’s “right to act, be acted upon.”


The current emotional debate in the above example is whether or not a human fetus inside the womb has the same Constitutional rights as a fully developed human.  This becomes more of a personal ideological question rather than the purpose for which a Constitution exists: 


“… as a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.”  


Does the Constitution define what a human being is?  Maybe it should.  But what should that definition be?  And, is the life and rights of a human fetus that does not have the capacity to act for itself, equal to the rights of the mother?  And let’s go into the future: Would the definition of life, agreed upon according to today’s human experience, i.e., that a human is born of a male and a female, apply in the future when cloning or birth in an artificial womb without using the natural process of sex?  The debate will continue, but should not affect the immediate rights of an individual pursuing happiness according to the dictates of that person’s own conscience.


One must ask: How does the choice of a stranger to get an abortion affect my personal life, rights, and pursuit of happiness?  The only way it can is if a person gets angry and disgusted over the concept of abortion.  But, then, is not the experience of anger and disgust a personal choice?  Compassion, kindness, respect, and forgiveness are also personal choices.


THumP® proposes a new Constitution that specifically guarantees the inalienable rights of the individual.  Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court will then have power to negate or change these rights.  And the President will have all the power that she/he needs to enforce these individual rights.  The rights must be clearly defined in the Constitution; and more importantly, an outline of how these rights are to be guaranteed and protected: 


ARTICLE II - The Executive Branch


Section 2 – Powers of the President


a.  Supreme Commander of the Military and Law Enforcement.  TO hold the Office of Commander in Chief of the Militia of the Republic and the same Office of the Federal Law Enforcement Agency, as adopted under Article IV, Section 4(b.) of this Constitution; TO appoint and remove any Officers of the Militia or Federal Law Enforcement Agency; TO respond to any form of aggression or repression, both foreign and domestic, against the Republic, its laws, or any of its people, whenever and wherever they may be located throughout the earth.


b.  Executive Power to Enforce Constitutional Law.  TO appoint and remove any Officers of the government of the Republic, except those otherwise designated by this Constitution; and TO assign their particular duties, and establish their protocols and proceedings, in support of the laws of this Constitution.


ARTICLE IV – Inalienable Human Rights


Section 1 – Powers to Enforce this Article


a.  Enforcement. The provisions of this Article shall be applied and enforced by Executive Orders and under the direction of the President of the Republic.


b.  Congressional Limitations. Congress shall have no power, in any way, to amend or restrain this Article. The President shall enact and appoint the Commissions, their Commissioners, and their proceedings to fulfill and comply with the provisions of this Article.


c.  Presidential Duties. The President shall: 1) demand from Congress the means to fulfill the provisions of this Article; 2) provide a yearly budget to Congress specifically addressing the monetary means needed to fulfill this Article; 3) provide the protection of law enforcement and the Military to enforce this Article.


d.  Funding. The validity of the public debt of the Republic incurred in providing the provisions of this Article shall not be questioned. No person shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in the execution of the provisions of this Article. All such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void to the people. Congress shall retain the power to produce and incorporate any Legal means of tender required to fulfill the provisions this article.


If any change is to be effective and possible, and the promises of change and reform of any U.S. presidential candidate taken seriously, the Constitution of the United States MUST be changed to remove the power of just nine people to dictate the meaning of life and happiness for the majority.


THumP® has the solutions.  Read about the solutions: www.humanityparty.com.  Be a part of the solution: www.voteanonymous2016.com

TRY

youtube.png

© THE HUMANITY PARTY® (THumP®), 2020