There’s a lot to unpack about the ongoing disclosures about Supreme Court Justices, beginning with the old adage that power corrupts.
Digging a bit deeper, it’s interesting to note just who has been shown to be morally–and probably legally–corrupt. (Hint: it hasn’t been the liberal female justices. There are stories about Elena Kagan’s refusal to accept a gift of bagels on ethical grounds!) The culprits are the far-right Justices who sit on the Court courtesy of Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society.
It began with disclosures about Clarence Thomas and his appalling wife. If a lower-level judge accepted–and hid– lavish gifts and travel from a billionaire ideologue and failed to recuse himself from cases involving that billionaire–not to mention cases in which his wife was an interested party–that judge would soon be removed from the bench.
Now we discover that Justice Alito shares more than ideology with Thomas. Pro Publica broke the story:
In early July 2008, Samuel Alito stood on a riverbank in a remote corner of Alaska. The Supreme Court justice was on vacation at a luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day, and after catching a king salmon nearly the size of his leg, Alito posed for a picture. To his left, a man stood beaming: Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes.
Singer was more than a fellow angler. He flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet. If the justice chartered the plane himself, the cost could have exceeded $100,000 one way.
In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund came before the court at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media. In 2014, the court agreed to resolve a key issue in a decade-long battle between Singer’s hedge fund and the nation of Argentina. Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion.
Alito–like Thomas–failed to report the trip on his required annual financial disclosure form. Ethics experts tell Pro Publica that the omission violates federal law. Those experts also report being unable to identify another instance of “a justice ruling on a case after receiving an expensive gift paid for by one of the parties.”
ProPublica’s investigation sheds new light on how luxury travel has given prominent political donors — including one who has had cases before the Supreme Court — intimate access to the most powerful judges in the country. Another wealthy businessman provided expensive vacations to two members of the high court, ProPublica found. On his Alaska trip, Alito stayed at a commercial fishing lodge owned by this businessman, who was also a major conservative donor. Three years before, that same businessman flew Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, on a private jet to Alaska and paid the bill for his stay.
Such trips would be unheard of for the vast majority of federal workers, who are generally barred from taking even modest gifts.
Alito claims he and Singer never discussed business, and that when Singer’s cases came before the court, he’d been unaware of his connection to them.
Right. And I have a bridge to sell you…..
Talking Points Memo points to the larger issue: justices groomed and chosen by the Federalist Society “remain ‘kept’ in perpetuity” by the Right-wing donor network that got them there … “Sugar Justices, if you will.”
What is especially infuriating about these disclosures is that they involve Justices who posture as moral arbiters and issue judicial opinions based upon religious dogma rather than constitutional precedent.
I have previously characterized Alito’s decision in Dobbs as profoundly dishonest, because he cherry-picked and misrepresented both history and legal precedent in order to achieve his desired (paternalistic) result. Given Pro Publica’s report, it seems Alito’s dishonesty isn’t limited to his jurisprudence.
Thomas insisted that Harlan Crowe (whom he met after he joined the Court) was a “dear friend.” Alito says he had “no idea” that Singer was connected to ten cases before the Court. Neither allegation passes the smell test. According to Pro Publica, Alito and Singer have appeared together at public events, and Singer introduced Alito’s speeches on at least two occasions– the annual dinner of the Federalist Society (where Singer told an anecdote about their fishing trip) and a dinner for donors to the equally far-Right Manhattan Institute.
The disclosures are profoundly depressing. They should also be a wake-up call.
It is past time to apply binding ethical standards to the Court. Imposing term limits, and adding Justices to the Court would dilute the influence exercised by corrupt culture warriors doing Federalist Society bidding..
SCOTUS: “Ethics?? We don’t need not stinkin’ ethics.”
seems that padded bench is a real laid back boys club. im sure with standing ethics,they,the Justices would have no issue saying no. (to gifts) but as they have endured the hardships of getting to the bench,they get the T shirt.. commfy , with staff attending to every word and page needed to draft/seek/spell/etc their opinion. the job should never be life long. the power and one sided
thinking in most cases today have made them left and right,religious. if legal jargon is the style the law beholds to decide questions to laws made, they missed the point. as America today has been kicked by its own legal myths,and made up questions to deny the other side recognition,listen to them argue,the mere sense of most of it is bullshit. no justice has the street sense to tell it like it is,and where it is. too many legal curves and used car sales people (lawyers)today sell the court what it needs to do,over the majority of this country. if America needs to remain a democray. today the whole court,everyone,has shoved democracy into a corner and just work around it for the few. tell me im wrong. we dont need life time appointments in any goverment job. we need appointments that guarentee our rights and freedoms of the majority. tell the justices, there is no free ride when you serve,none,or leave..if they dont understand,ask them what used car they buy?
How far the mighty have fallen. I had profound respect for the “Supremes” and after reading these reports, I have lost that loving feeling. Our local Amy Comey Barrett is also being investigated for some religious group up at Notre Dame. We’re screwed.
I received a news item on my cell phone this morning headlining; “McConnell warns Democrats to stay out of Supreme Court business” I didn’t bother reading the article as it is typical Republican hyperbole and warning about his possible upcoming part in the current House anti-Democratic actions such as impeaching President Biden. Censuring Democratic Representative Adam Schiff was enacted on the 2nd presentation only after dropping the ridiculous $6 MILLION fine written into the initial bill. Rep. Schiff’s reaction was to thank the Republicans for the honor of believing he was that important in the first Trump impeachment action. Taylor-Greene called Boboert a bitch on the House floor during another of their cat-fights; Nancy took stage-front to call them all Trump puppets…and so it goes at the top level of government in the United States of America today. This Circus Master of Ceremonies, Speaker McCarthy’s head is swiveling like the victim in “The Exorcist” as Gaetz and Jordan jump into the action to add their own threats to warn the Democrats of their current powers to rule the House.
My oldest son worked with a small family circus for about five years as a roustabout and one of his primary jobs was shoveling the unending piles of manure from all of the animals who performed in that particular circus. Currently “Now Alito” is under the spotlight in the center ring; who is McConnell afraid will be next that he felt the need to speak out after remaining silent for long during the current House Circus performance?
The complete arrogance of Thomas and Alito is despicable. They clearly believe they are above the law and the public can just get over it!
OK… that’s it! Everybody out of the pool!
I don’t know why we tip toe around the obvious. The Founding Fathers made a mistake giving federal judges lifetime tenure. It inevitably leads to some judges abusing their power and acting above the law. Long terms for federal judges, with no right of reappointment, would have been a much better idea than lifetime tenure. If we had SCT judges with 18 years terms, with a new appointment coming up every 2 years, then we wouldn’t have Presidents trying to appoint justices in their 40s and we could get better, more experienced justices who are in their 60s.
Sorry…I see Sheila did mention “term limits” for federal judges. Absolutely. Though we have to agree to disagree on Dobbs which was a heck of a lot more intellectually honest opinion than Roe.
Gosh! Imagine that. A Republican-appointed Justice being on the grift. I’m guessing that the Federalist Society actually conducts seminars on who to suck up to and how to avoid reporting their bribes. After all, the funders of the Federalist Society are grifters too. It’s the sort of capitalistic black hole that Marx warned the world about 170 years ago. And here we are.
Sam Alito was appointed to the court by George W. Bush who was told who to pick. Who told him? Same with Roberts. Scalia was the master of gobbledygook opinion writing – another Republican-appointed Federalist goon. Then, it was Donald Regan telling the actor who to pick. Nixon nominated yet another of these legal monstrosities, Lewis Powell, who wrote the secret memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce defining how corporate/banking America could by and operate the nation as a fascist nation before getting the obligatory nod from yet another Republican monstrosity.
When the crooks are also the cops, breaking the law becomes normal. Republicans are crooks. Do the math.
Frankly, I’m going to have to read through the Constitution again. I need to see if there’s any way that balance of power calls for any one branch to be preeminent.
It is becoming obvious that the idealistic Founders do not fit our 21st Century. Leaders of all three branches of government, to one degree or another, are operating “above the law”. Money equals speech. American democracy is crumbling from the top.
“The disclosures are profoundly depressing. ” “Depressing?” No, no, it goes way beyond depressing. It goes to infuriating, and then some!!
Clearly, we have in front of us a criminal gang whose members ought to be prosecuted, if this can be done, along with those who have so blatantly corrupted them.
Vernon’s comment about Marx is totally spot-on.
I was in awe about the Supreme Court, as a kid, disliked any of the “Impeach Earl Warren” signs I would see alongside the roads, but these, literally criminal, justices seriously warrant impeachment!!
Please excuse my incorrect spelling of Boebert’s name; but a Boebert by any other name stinks as bad. She and Taylor-Greene shame all women in government but will be retained in the House along with Santos because their numbers are needed to maintain their slim majority.
JoAnn,
I live in Colorado and Boebert is an utter disgrace – even to her constituents. She has a beer hall mouth backed up by a very tiny brain. She’s never been ANYTHING but a loud belch and this is her moment to shoot off her stupid mouth. She has no intention of governing and exposes herself and her personality as all attack dog all the time.
Let’s Be Totally Honest! None of These Justices – were HONORED – on Juneteenth – at any Major League Baseball Games! They haven’t passed the ultimate test Yet! We don’t need the Russians or North Koreans or Iranians – to INVADE – “our” (white) Country! We do a Great Job Ourselves!
In the ethically void world of pure power politics, rules are for suckers, and collecting a nice off-the-books rakeoff or “vig” on your position, in some fashion, is just one of the expected perks.
Talk of Jesus, that penniless carpenter-preacher from Galilee, is flimflam for the rubes. Likewise the flagwaving and the fireworks and most of the Thank You For Your Service. The People Who Matter know it’s all kayfabe. Ha ha, how much did that “Jesus” loser have in his portfolio when the People Who Matter snuffed him? If he really mattered he would have had bought a better outcome and had them snuffed instead.
If we the people want this to change, we have to make it change. The Thomases and Alitos (and Jareds and Ivankas, etc.) don’t care, will simply brazen out any public disclosure not backed up by real consequences, and aren’t going to change unless forced to do so, or forced out of power.
Unfortunately I don’t know of any magically effective way to accomplish this, other than simply overwhelming them with the sheer force of numbers at the voting booth – and then, somehow, insisting that those numbers translate into action against those who think themselves immune to democracy and law.
Felix et al – for the years I have commented on this blog, the answer has always been: “vote, vote, vote” – it ain’t working. How about taking over the DEM party from the corporate interests?
Lester: I agree completely with you.
Let’s rewrite the constitution for the 21st century!
Lester: except for the comment above. I was referring to your 9:05 am comment. Lol
If this doesn’t scream out for term limits then what does? The no consequences format just fosters corruption. And we have no clue what all has gone on before Thomas and now Alito.
Aging LGirl – the DEM party needs to get its leadership/image out of DC. DC is poison to most voters. When voters think of DEM party, they need to think of people like Governor Basheer of KY, not Chuck Schumer.
Vern: (1) Marx had the correct diagnosis but prescribed the wrong medicine. (2) I was in Fruita (in the heart of Bobert’s congressional district visiting a relative last summer and drove the (Democratic) relative around putting out pamphlets for Boebert’s opponent. He lost, barely, but I think he will win this next trip. She has about as much business in the House as I would have as Chief Brain surgeon at Mayo’s.
It is clear to me that we have corruption in our highest court and in our national legislature as well. I noted with interest that the minority leader of the Senate has advised Democrats to “stay out of the Supreme Court’s business.” My response to that is that we are staying out of the Supreme Court’s business because last time I checked taking bribes is not a part of the Supreme Court’s “business.” I also think that such “business” of the Supreme Court as Dobbs and Shelby can be codified out of the legal world in which we are required to live by their edicts and that the “there was an empty seat on the plane” and “I didn’t know that the ten cases I voted on in which Singer had an interest that Singer was involved” are the weakest defenses I can imagine to charges of corruption.
Finally, why must we have a “code of ethics” as a standard by which to assess criminality? We already have one, the law, and the very suspicious antics of some of the members of this high court deserve a Jack Smith investigation at a minimum if we are to honor the fundamental principle that “No one is above the law.”
Gerald: Yes. Adam Frisch will unseat the lunatic Boebert next time. Let’s hope that she self-immolates before doing any more harm to our national image.
IMO what seems to have failed in our country is the combination of capitalism and our form of government. The founding fathers must have thought that those running the economic and the political systems would be honest and decent men. They, of course, never looked at themselves honestly and saw, as we do today, the hypocrisy, greed and human toll their own lives created. To their credit our lawmakers and leaders have from the start tried to legislate the country’s way out of the competing and contradicting mess with amendments to the Constitution and tweaks to the laws and rules. But with greed being the overriding force in our economic system the majority of government officials have become corrupt along with the leaders of all major institutions and professions. America, the very idea of America, is destroying itself, and there does not appear to be any savior on the horizon.
I’m glad I am old.
Theresa – wish I could say you are wrong, but you are spot on! IGIO seconded.
I’m glad investigative journalism is still alive in the U.S.
Republicans have a balancing act going between being corrupt and normalizing it by politicizing holding the corrupt accountable.
They hold uncorrupt Democrats like Schiff accountable to imply that Republicans being held accountable must also be uncorrupt.
What’s scary are the number of people who so wish that were true that they fall for the act.
Mr. Singer didn’t need to discuss his cases with Justice Alito during fishing and other trips. Providing the Justice private jet travel and luxury accommodations free of charge spoke for Mr. Singer very well. Likewise, Alito’s failure to recuse himself on Singer’s cases and failure to disclose these gifts says all we need to know about him.
Your following statement echoed my thoughts on this perfectly:
“What is especially infuriating about these disclosures is that they involve Justices who posture as moral arbiters and issue judicial opinions based upon religious dogma rather than constitutional precedent.”
This is exactly what the Constitution says about “The Judges”:
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”
It doesn’t say “life appointment no matter what.” Our “originalist” judges want to keep the term “good Behaviour” murky. Rules are so inconvenient.
It is time to remove all current congressmen/congresswomen and, perhaps, even the Supreme Court Justices, and return this country to what it was originally…run for the betterment of the American people, not greed, not power, not money.
The Constitution of the Distributed Communities of North America
•
What if the Southern Plantation Owners’ Constitution of 1787 were given a complete rethink, with 250 years of exposed flaws as the targets for reform? Instead of simply dismissing this idea out of hand, please try to make a thought experiment out of it. I propose crowd-sourcing people from all walks of life and all political orientations to contribute to “The Constitution of the Distributed Communities of North America”.
•
Instead of the notoriously difficult process of AMENDING the current Constitution, what if a simultaneous 50-state referendum offered voters an opportunity to REPLACE the Constitution wholesale? Many people fear that if a Constitutional Convention were convened, the right-wingers (“all taxation is theft”) would overwhelm the left-wingers (“tax the rich”). The proposed “Constitution of the Distributed Communities of America” would have to be made fair, balanced, nuanced, transparent, and HOPEFULLY simple, focused on core values from the bottom up. Otherwise, the result of a 50-state referendum to replace the current Southern Plantation Owners’ Constitution would end up with a hung jury.
•
For starters,
•
What if the states were eliminated in the new federalism, cutting out the middle-man level of government? (Today’s state governors have too much power over too diverse populations, virtually ensuring dissatisfaction among a significant portion of them). In what ways would eliminating the entire concept of statehood affect American society? If the states’ current powers and responsibilities were either devolved to the “communities” or assigned to the federal level, what aspects of American society might become better, and what aspects might become worse?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if each “community” were limited in population — small enough to manage effectively and concentrated enough in like-minded voters that gerrymandering would become irrelevant? (I can’t help but think of Nashville, a big blue population dot stuck in an otherwise red state and gerrymandered out of political existence in Congress.)
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if ranked-choice voting were established as the norm for every elected office and for every legislative proposal? Direct democracy, rather than a republic.
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
What if the Supreme Court Justices were term limited?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if the Presidential appointments of Supreme Court Justices for lifetime terms were replaced with a revolving mechanism to appoint term-limited Justices?
For example, what if each the Bar Association for each Appellate Court circuit (CURRENTLY 13) elected one of its own most highly esteemed judges for elevation to the Supreme Court?
And what if the terms were limited in such a way that — on a rotating basis — one circuit per year had the opportunity to replace a retiring Justice? Thirteen Appellate circuits, 13 Bar Associations, 13 Justices, 13-year term limits, so that each year one circuit in turn would replace its outgoing Justice with a new incoming Justice.
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
What if the Supreme Court had veto power over proposed legislation?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if the bicameral legislature were abandoned?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
If the bicameral system is retained, what if the House of Doofuses and the House of Dumbbells did not actually make legislation? What if their sole purpose were to do deep research and debate all the possible pros and cons of suggested legislation, to present well thought out legislative proposals to the Communities for direct ratification by rank-ordered voting?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if all legislative proposals were limited to one single topic, with no irrelevant “riders” allowed? (No “omnibus” bills, no “horse trading” for votes.)
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if all legislative proposals for community ratification were accompanied by a clear explanation of the potential benefits, potential blow-backs, and potential unintended consequences?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if the government could create anonymous but secure digital VOTING tokens? (Photo IDs can now be easily deep-faked and would be useless in future elections.)
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if neither the federal nor the community level governments were permitted to create programmable digital currencies?
•
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if the Federal Reserve Bank were abolished? Could it possibly be replaced with some sort of decentralized finance?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if the fiat dollar were abolished in favor of reverting to a tangibly backed currency?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if the currency’s backing were not a physical material such as gold, but units of energy? (Watts, Calories, and / or Horsepower)
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if there were no tax brackets, but rather every increment of taxable income would have a corresponding higher increment of tax? This would be described on a graph as a rising incline between poverty level and a billion units of (whatever becomes the new standard currency). Anyway, nobody needs more than a billion of them.
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if the government could create anonymous but secure digital TAX-PAYING tokens?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
• And lastly,
•
What if the Bill of Rights were regarded as a list of afterthoughts, rather than well considered insights?
As things stand now, the Bill of Rights is a conflicting hodge-podge of states’ rights, positive individual rights (freedom TO xxx), negative rights (freedom FROM xxx), and restrictions on federal power. These are expressed in absolutist terms — “Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW concerning xxx . . . ”
What if these complex and muddled amendments were dissected and clarified into modern language, so that the worthy parts could be woven into the main body of the new constitution?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if each “inalienable right” carried with it some responsibilities?
For example,
What if the federal government mandated Universal Military Training for all citizens, and “the right to bear arms” were contingent on it, with obligatory registration in the Community Militia?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if each community’s right to prohibit abortion in its own jurisdiction carried along with it the community’s 21-year responsibility to provide for the unwanted infant’s well-being?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if the limits to “free speech” were clearly specified?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if the “freedom TO practice any religion” also clearly specified freedom FROM religion?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
What if the “freedom TO practice any religion” also clearly prohibited such inhumane practices as human sacrifice, honor killings, or bodily maiming?
What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
How profoundly would American society be affected by such a sweeping constitutional revision?
Sorry for the long comment above. In my original, it was clearly formatted for ease of reading. I don’t see any way to edit my post to restore the formatting.
The Constitution of the Distributed Communities of North America
•
•
What if the Southern Plantation Owners’ Constitution of 1787 were given a complete rethink, with 250 years of exposed flaws as the targets for reform? Instead of simply dismissing this idea out of hand, please try to make a thought experiment out of it. I propose crowd-sourcing people from all walks of life and all political orientations to contribute to “The Constitution of the Distributed Communities of North America”.
•
•
Instead of the notoriously difficult process of AMENDING the current Constitution, what if a simultaneous 50-state referendum offered voters an opportunity to REPLACE the Constitution wholesale? Many people fear that if a Constitutional Convention were convened, the right-wingers (“all taxation is theft”) would overwhelm the left-wingers (“tax the rich”). The proposed “Constitution of the Distributed Communities of America” would have to be made fair, balanced, nuanced, transparent, and HOPEFULLY simple, focused on core values from the bottom up. Otherwise, the result of a 50-state referendum to replace the current Southern Plantation Owners’ Constitution would end up with a hung jury.
•
•
••••• For starters,
•
•
••••• What if the states were eliminated in the new federalism, cutting out the middle-man level of government? (Today’s state governors have too much power over too diverse populations, virtually ensuring dissatisfaction among a significant portion of them). In what ways would eliminating the entire concept of statehood affect American society? If the states’ current powers and responsibilities were either devolved to the “communities” or assigned to the federal level, what aspects of American society might become better, and what aspects might become worse?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if each “community” were limited in population — small enough to manage effectively and concentrated enough in like-minded voters that gerrymandering would become irrelevant? (I can’t help but think of Nashville, a big blue population dot stuck in an otherwise red state and gerrymandered out of political existence in Congress.)
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if ranked-choice voting were established as the norm for every elected office and for every legislative proposal? Direct democracy, rather than a republic.
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if the Supreme Court Justices were term limited?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if the Presidential appointments of Supreme Court Justices for lifetime terms were replaced with a revolving mechanism to appoint term-limited Justices? For example, what if each Appellate Court circuit’s Bar Association elected one of its own most highly esteemed judges for elevation to the Supreme Court? And what if the terms were limited in such a way that — on a rotating basis — one circuit per year had the opportunity to replace a retiring Justice?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if the Supreme Court had veto power over proposed legislation?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if the bicameral legislature were abandoned?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• If the bicameral system is retained, what if the House of Doofuses and the House of Dumbbells did not actually make legislation? What if their sole purpose were to do deep research and debate all the possible pros and cons of suggested legislation, to present well thought out legislative proposals to the Communities for direct ratification by rank-ordered voting?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if all legislative proposals were limited to one single topic, with no irrelevant “riders” allowed? (No “omnibus” bills, no “horse trading” for votes.)
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if all legislative proposals for community ratification were accompanied by a clear explanation of the potential benefits, potential blow-backs, and potential unintended consequences?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if the government could create anonymous but secure digital VOTING tokens? (Photo IDs can now be easily deep-faked and would be useless in future elections.)
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if neither the federal nor the community level governments were permitted to create programmable digital currencies?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if the Federal Reserve Bank were abolished? Could it possibly be replaced with some sort of decentralized finance?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if the fiat dollar were abolished in favor of reverting to a tangibly backed currency?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if the currency’s backing were not a physical material such as gold, but units of energy? (Watts, Calories, and / or Horsepower)
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if there were no tax brackets, but rather every increment of taxable income would have a corresponding higher increment of tax? This would be described on a graph as a rising incline between poverty level and a billion units of (whatever becomes the new standard currency). Anyway, nobody needs more than a billion of them.
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if the government could create anonymous but secure digital TAX-PAYING tokens?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
And lastly,
•
•
••••• What if the Bill of Rights were regarded as a list of afterthoughts, rather than well considered insights? As things stand now, the Bill of Rights is a conflicting hodge-podge of states’ rights, positive individual rights (freedom TO xxx), negative rights (freedom FROM xxx), and restrictions on federal power. These are expressed in absolutist terms — “Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW concerning xxx . . . ” What if these complex and muddled amendments were dissected and clarified into modern language, so that the worthy parts could be woven into the main body of the new constitution?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if each “inalienable right” carried with it some responsibilities?
•
For example,
•
• What if the federal government mandated Universal Military Training for all citizens, and “the right to bear arms” were contingent on it, with obligatory registration in the Community Militia?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
• What if each community’s right to prohibit abortion in its own jurisdiction carried along with it the community’s 21-year responsibility to provide for the unwanted infant’s well-being?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
• What if the limits to “free speech” were clearly specified?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
• What if the “freedom TO practice any religion” also clearly specified freedom FROM religion?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
••••• What if the “freedom TO practice any religion” also clearly prohibited such inhumane practices as human sacrifice, honor killings, or bodily maiming?
•
• What could possibly go wrong and how could we ensure that it doesn’t?
•
•
•
•
How profoundly would American society be affected by such a sweeping constitutional revision?