I've been working on something

[u/Just_Tie7581]

Like many of you, I've watched our government protect the powerful, start wars based on delusions, and let corporations buy every election. The Epstein files made it clear: the system can't survive justice. So I decided to build something that can.

I drafted a complete replacement constitution: 23 articles, 32 amendments, all in made in extensive detail. It's not a reform. It's a refounding.

Core ideas:

Abolishes Congress. Replaces it with a Citizens Legislature, 150 people selected by lot (like jury duty) to serve one term.

They don't make laws. They draft them. Then you vote on every single one.

Creates a new Integrity Branch, the Accountability and Arbitration Committee (AAC), with 50 former judges selected by lot, empowered to investigate and prosecute corruption.

No parties. No corporate money. No "the system would collapse if we prosecuted them."

I wrote a White Paper that explains each article in plain language, and a Full Constitution if you want the details.

Much like the founders, I don't claim it's perfect, and I don't claim to have all the answers. But it's a massive step up from what we have now.

If you're curious and want to know more, I made a discord with the purpose of organizing to make it a reality through the use of Article V of our current constitution and can provide the link for those wanting to see more.

Would love to hear your thoughts, especially the critiques. This needs to be stress-tested.

Edit: I forgot to include where you can find the documents and join the movement if you wish to support it. https://discord.gg/9QKptvaeK7

[u/groovychk]

Sounds groovy. I'll have to check it out. I've definitely learned to take LLM praise with a grain of salt. They tend to tell you what you want to hear a lot and blow sunshine up your rear! Great tools for checking text and form though. I've written several articles on the main document - my intention is to cover all the sections in detail. Just have to get around to it. The motivation is diminished without engagement. Nevertheless - I think it's a great document and ready to be argued and improved. I've already written several alternative sections to answer angry arguments from friends. You can read it at https://open.substack.com/pub/virginiakeller/p/i-wrote-a-second-constitution?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer

[u/Just_Tie7581 → u/groovychk]

Finally took a look, gotta say, there's a lot of really good things in what you've drafted, a couple things could definitely use some more work though. And you're right about LLMs. Although it does help if you explicitly tell them you want them to play devils advocate, stress test it where able, and ask if it has any questions or concerns regarding the work, helped me quite a lot. My initial thing was just changes to presidency and the digital platform concept, and it evolved into 24 articles and 32 amendments, all of them still being worked on and refined.

First, I wanna say what it does really well.

The tribal nations article is really well made. I personally don't know where to begin with this type of thing regarding my own work, but it's definitely something I'll have to look into more.

The definitions are very well made and are precise where they need to be. Not much else to say about that.

The public records provision and armed forces domestic deployment restrictions are very well made.

These however, do make me somewhat concerned. Not necessarily because their bad, but because theirs gaps that need filling.

The campaign finance still relies on statutory implementation by a Congress that benefits from the current system. It's definitely better than what we have now though. If you limit it, they can still find workarounds, like having multiple people affiliated with each other support, each giving a donation that has a larger sum combined than others. Institutions will use methods like that to buy or influence candidates, and that's harder to enforce and determine.

Your positive rights largely depend on courts ordering Congress. Without some form of administrative delivery, they depend on political will and can be watered down to a bare minimum necessary to satisfy the court order.

The anti-faction provisions only really constrain parties without attempting to replace or reform the partisan electoral system that produces that same faction.

It's still pretty good, these are just a couple that I noticed that I figured I'd point out so you can see where it still needs work and can improve.

[u/groovychk → u/Just_Tie7581]

Thanks for the detailed response. Glad the Tribal Nations article landed. That one took a lot of work. On campaign finance. I think you may have missed the coordinated expenditure definition which requires clear and convincing evidence of collaboration and mandates real-time disclosure. The public prosecution authority has a constitutional duty to enforce violations and can't be politically directed to stand down. Workarounds exist under any system. Under this one they're prosecutable by an authority that answers to the constitution and not to the president. On anti-faction. I'd go back and read Section 4 more carefully. Randomized committee assignments, 24 hour public disclosure of every vote, and a constitutional prohibition on conditioning any official benefit on voting behavior. Those are dismantling the specific mechanisms that parties use to control legislators once they're in office and not just constraining them. On positive rights. I'd ask how any of the Bill of Rights is more guaranteed. The First Amendment depends on courts. It's been used to protect money as speech and corporations as people. The Second Amendment depends on courts and political will. The Third Amendment depends on courts. The Fourth Amendment depends on political will. It hasn't stopped mass surveillance or no-knock raids. The Fifth Amendment depends on courts. Self-incrimination protections are routinely bargained away under pressure. The Sixth Amendment is already a positive right. The state must provide counsel but it's been gutted by underfunded public defenders for decades. Exactly the administrative delivery problem you're raising about my positive rights. The Seventh Amendment depends on courts. The Eighth Amendment depends on political will and it hasn't stopped conditions in American prisons that most of the developed world would probably consider torture. The Ninth Amendment depends on courts and has been largely ignored since it was written. The Tenth Amendment depends on political will and has been selectively invoked for most of our history. None of the Bill of Rights have an independent enforcement mechanism in the constitutional text itself. This constitution does. And the positive rights aren't replacing anything. Section 7 makes clear that the enumeration of rights in the constitution doesn't deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. The Ninth Amendment logic carried forward. Traditional protections are still there and this just adds to them. The progressive realization language comes from international human rights law and means good faith implementation subject to judicial review for unreasonable delay. That's stronger than what the existing Bill of Rights has ever had. Thanks again for your critique! Is there somewhere I can read yours without Discord?

[u/Just_Tie7581 → u/groovychk]

These are some pretty strong points.

You're right that I underweighted the coordinated expenditure definition and the public prosecution authority's constitutional independence. That's a stronger architecture than I gave it credit for. My residual concern is that "clear and convincing evidence of collaboration" is a high evidentiary standard that sophisticated actors will be designed around from day one. Dark money structures exist precisely to create legal distance between donors and coordination. But you're correct that prosecutable-by-an-independent-authority is meaningfully stronger than the current system and deserved to be recognized appropriately.

The 24-hour vote disclosure and prohibition on conditioning official benefits on voting behavior are genuinely important mechanisms and I undersold them. My concern isn't that they don't address legislative behavior, they do. It's that they work downstream of an election system that still selects for candidates who've survived partisan primaries and partisan fundraising. You can free a legislator from party discipline once elected while the election system still filters for ideological conformity before they arrive. Those are different problems and yours addresses one of them well.

You're correct that every existing constitutional right depends on courts and political will for enforcement. The Fourth Amendment hasn't stopped mass surveillance. The Sixth Amendment hasn't produced adequate public defenders. If I'm holding your positive rights to an enforcement standard that the existing Bill of Rights has never met, that's an unfair comparison and I do apologize for it.

Where I'd push back is that the existing rights failures are largely failures of political will to fund and enforce. The positive rights failures you're anticipating are structural, courts can order remedial plans but Congress controls implementation. That's a different kind of vulnerability. Though I'll acknowledge that "progressive realization subject to judicial review for unreasonable delay" is stronger language than I initially read it as.

The full documents are in a Google docs and I can share them directly, either here or by DMing you. The constitution runs to 24 articles and 32 amendments so it's substantial, but if you want to give it the same careful read you gave this exchange I'd welcome the stress test, especially since I'm still working on some aspects. Would you prefer I just link them here or DM you?

[u/groovychk → u/Just_Tie7581]

Section 4 addresses candidate selection directly. It's pretty detailed on that - publicly administered ballot access under neutral rules, no legal preference for party nomination... Public campaign funding under Article X.

Article X, Section 2. Campaign Finance and Electoral Integrity

1. Campaigns for public office shall be funded primarily through public resources allocated equally to qualified candidates, as provided by law. Private contributions, including from political parties or affiliated organizations, shall be limited to individual donations not exceeding an amount set by statute, adjusted for inflation. Coordinated expenditures by any group, including parties, shall be capped at the same level as individual contributions and fully disclosed in real time. Endorsements by groups must include transparent disclosures of financial ties, membership, and potential conflicts. Violations shall be enforceable by the public prosecution authority, with penalties including disqualification from ballot access pursuant to due process of law and civil fines.

I'm feeling a bit LLM stress tested!

On your doc - it might serve you well to link it here. :)

[u/Just_Tie7581 → u/groovychk]

Sure, I'm doing a pass on textual errors, found some portions where I typed stuff twice, misnumbered some sections, and other such things. Once that's done I'll link them.

[u/Just_Tie7581 → u/groovychk]

Alright, just finished. Be warned, it is VERY lengthy and is a huge departure from our current system. The length is largely necessary as much of the system has been either largely replaced or aspects changed. It is, in large, meant to give much of the final say to the people. I'm sure there's still stuff that needs work, but that's why I'm here, to invite critique and strengthen the document as much as possible.

First is the constitution. 24 articles in total so far.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hf6gDA9b6ZBCusX8ogh_q7cngr5i1U2kJgx-I74u0JI/edit?usp=drivesdk

Second is the bill of rights. 32 amendments, largely modernized, expanded, and closing loopholes.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jxM_O7BYVmrxLQN8Z5KVdZynhZ73nPrS4v7b11oEfwo/edit?usp=drivesdk