A Land Far Away

This is the outline for the second American Revolution.

Step 1.

Create a list of knowledge needed to run the United States.

Step 2.

Gather a council of patriots that have the needed knowledge/experience to act as a think tank.

Step 3.

Organize a plan to build support for the revolution within all 50 states.

Step 4.

Find a suitable candidate for each States Congressional Reps/ Senators.

Step 5.

Create and Distribute the revolutions agenda through mass media outlets.
The agenda is simple. Pass an amendment to to the Constitution.

>>The amendment would have to be drafted by patriot lawyers...but would include the following provisions.

1. Contributing funds to any rep/senator or candidate would be considered bribery of a government official in a national security position and thus treason.

2. All campaigns will be run in the same government funded format. All eligible candidates will submit a resume' for the position that will be distributed to their prospective constituents. A verbal test will be given to the candidate that will be aired live for the constituents. At least one debate will be held live.

3. The salaries/benefits of these government positions will be reduced considerably.

Step 6.
Make the proposed amendment known to the people. Make voting in favor of the amendment the central issue of every election.


If the revolution can actually find enough qualified people that are willing to run for office under that pretext, there is a chance that enough will get elected to pass the amendment...

Problems?

Supreme court could rule it is unconstitutional, and the leadership of said revolution would be fighting an uphill battle against a force that would undoubtedly do everything to make them appear as hostile anti-Americans...I would even be paranoid enough to suspect permanent elimination may be an option for especially charismatic supporters of said revolution.


Short of something dramatic like that or being threatened with a disaster of world proportions I suspect nothing will change in my life time ...

Nalo Jade wrote:This is the outline for the second American Revolution.

Step 1.

Create a list of knowledge needed to run the United States.

Step 2.

Gather a council of patriots that have the needed knowledge/experience to act as a think tank.

Step 3.

Organize a plan to build support for the revolution within all 50 states.

Step 4.

Find a suitable candidate for each States Congressional Reps/ Senators.

Step 5.

Create and Distribute the revolutions agenda through mass media outlets.
The agenda is simple. Pass an amendment to to the Constitution.

>>The amendment would have to be drafted by patriot lawyers...but would include the following provisions.

1. Contributing funds to any rep/senator or candidate would be considered bribery of a government official in a national security position and thus treason.

2. All campaigns will be run in the same government funded format. All eligible candidates will submit a resume' for the position that will be distributed to their prospective constituents. A verbal test will be given to the candidate that will be aired live for the constituents. At least one debate will be held live.

3. The salaries/benefits of these government positions will be reduced considerably.

Step 6.
Make the proposed amendment known to the people. Make voting in favor of the amendment the central issue of every election.

If the revolution can actually find enough qualified people that are willing to run for office under that pretext, there is a chance that enough will get elected to pass the amendment...

Problems?

Supreme court could rule it is unconstitutional, and the leadership of said revolution would be fighting an uphill battle against a force that would undoubtedly do everything to make them appear as hostile anti-Americans...I would even be paranoid enough to suspect permanent elimination may be an option for especially charismatic supporters of said revolution.

If it was passed and made an amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme court could not rule it unconstitutional. The hard part would be getting the needed number of Congressmen and States to be willing to pass such a thing.

The list of requirements would be problematic because it could be used to render most people unable to run for office. Right now the requirements are simple. Especially for the Presidency. Be born in US territory and be over 35. For Congressmen, I think it varies slightly, but you have to live in the state you are representing.

As an additional "guiding point of light" ....

The revolution will have the following goal/motto.

"To plan and prepare for the preservation and advancement of the human race"

All legislation will be evaluated with the perspective tightening questions of...

1. Will this be viable in 500 years?
2. Will this preserve human life?
3. Will this advance the human race in some positive fashion?
4. What are the possible negative side effects? Is there an included contingency plan for the worst case scenario?

Zakharra wrote: The list of requirements would be problematic because it could be used to render most people unable to run for office. Right now the requirements are simple. Especially for the Presidency. Be born in US territory and be over 35. For Congressmen, I think it varies slightly, but you have to live in the state you are representing.

I didn't think I included any requirements ...

Eligibility would not change, if anything more people would become eligible because they wouldn't need millions of dollars to run the campaign, we tax payers would pick up the tab to print their resume and send it to everyone.

the media networks would air the debates and such for free. (taking income from advertisers)

The list would reduce the amount they get paid, and take away bribery ... err lobbying with money, and require they submit a resume'... like you would for any job.

Nalo Jade wrote:As an additional "guiding point of light" ....

The revolution will have the following goal/motto.

"To plan and prepare for the preservation and advancement of the human race"

All legislation will be evaluated with the perspective tightening questions of...

1. Will this be viable in 500 years?
2. Will this preserve human life?
3. Will this advance the human race in some positive fashion?
4. What are the possible negative side effects? Is there an included contingency plan for the worst case scenario?

1. Very problematic. We do not know what the conditions, economic, technological, environmental or political will be in 500 years. So that is very questionable.

2. Again problematic in making a determination. Will human life be preserved better by dissolving the US? Joining into a world government? By enforcing a strict government on others? Ir even our own form of government? Who makes that determination?

3. This is an unknown. Every person has their own view of what would be a positive advancement.

4. Hhmm... a problem. There is the unforeseen consequences of actions/legislation that could and will happen to some of the things they might do.

Step 1.

Create a list of knowledge needed to run the United States.

That is a list of requirements. It's an unknown list, but could and would be used by people to limit who could run for office.

the media networks would air the debates and such for free. (taking income from advertisers)

What about fair coverage? The media networks are fairly biased in who they want to win the elections. Could they be trusted to give fair coverage? to not help spread rumors, slander and libel? Print, TV/satellite/Cable/Internet?

=)

I get the feeling Zak that you are not wanting to support the revolution...

=(

The first group of people would only be brought together in the beginning stages of the revolution to do exactly what you are doing...

Troubleshoot the plan to make it better...

It would have to consist of social psychologists, world economic majors, government historians, military experts, world cultural experts ... ect

I am not claiming to be any of those, so the "if" factor for this type of revolution begins with "if" such a group that is truly "Good" aligned could be assembled.

Then they would take the above outline and "tear it apart" keeping the spirit of it and create a plan that "could" work.

Instead of just offering why it "can't" why not join me on this little fantasy and offer up your own versions of how it "might" work...

The end goal is to get big money out of the business of controlling the U.S. government and make being a politician about doing the best you can for your fellow American and the world community.

We want the most "qualified", and "patriotic" people. Lets assume that most of the folks in office today are doing it for the cushy benefits and money, how do we get those people out and install educated professional "good" leaders, that have no subservient affiliation with PACs, Parties, and Religions.

No you can't see the future, however you can make some assumptions ...

1. We will have a major disaster.
2. We will probably go to war.
3. Our infrastructure will need maintenance.
4. We will need energy.
5. Our population will grow.
6. Our life spans will get longer.

All I am saying is that lawmakers need to stop thinking of short term solutions and give a moments pause to speculate how there actions "may" ripple into the future, of course unforeseen events will occur.

The media networks will not be involved in this as much anymore, there will be no money in it for them, at least that would be the goal.

Death of the two party system = Birth of candidates being judged on their individual merit.

Death of money for campaigns and special interests = No money in the accounts for the parties.

No money in their accounts, no candidates in their ranks = no more polarizing media.

what

*tacks up the loudspeakers in the trees outside his home, puts on some Pantera*


RESIST!

REFUSE!

I'm pointing out some problems with it. Problems that will pop up. The beginning group sounds like it will be the most optimistic, but after that, the candidates themselves will vary. Some good, some very bad, hidden under a good exterior. Others will be in between the two.

We want the most "qualified", and "patriotic" people. Lets assume that most of the folks in office today are doing it for the cushy benefits and money, how do we get those people out and install educated professional "good" leaders, that have no subservient affiliation with PACs, Parties, and Religions.

So you need people that have no ties to any of the major groups involved in politics now? That is very hard to do. Religion is a huge constituency in the US, as are ones involved with Parties. You'd almost have to forbid anyone currently involved in politics from running again.

The end goal is to get big money out of the business of controlling the U.S. government and make being a politician about doing the best you can for your fellow American and the world community.

A very worthy goal. Very hard to accomplish though.

All I am saying is that lawmakers need to stop thinking of short term solutions and give a moments pause to speculate how there actions "may" ripple into the future, of course unforeseen events will occur.

The media networks will not be involved in this as much anymore, there will be no money in it for them, at least that would be the goal.

Death of the two party system = Birth of candidates being judged on their individual merit.

Death of money for campaigns and special interests = No money in the accounts for the parties.

No money in their accounts, no candidates in their ranks = no more polarizing media.

They'd need to have no ties to businesses or what is considered an extreme ideology. Which ones would be considered extreme is.. vague. The Greens? Democrats? Republicans? Libertarians? A party's ideology shows a great many things as well as a party's history. They might have good intentions, but the path they've followed can be riddled with failures.

Intentions should never be the sole judge of effectiveness. Results are what counts in the end. The road to Hel is paved by good intentions.

The media would be involved because some of the people they want in office would be running, and they'd give that person free air time. They'd also spend time ripping any opponents to shreds. Unless they have to report what only can be backed by reliable fact (and you know they'd scream 'Free speech!' if that ability of theirs was curtailed.)
The media would still push for what they wanted, whether as individual reporters or as an organization (NBC is an example I think)

Candidates would still form parties to help spread their messages. Or the parties would form anyway and offer support to their candidate of choice. Buying air time on news and media.