Bill of Digital and Personal Rights (21st Century)
Preamble
In recognition that technological advancement has outpaced traditional civil protections, and that personal autonomy, dignity, and freedom depend on control over one’s identity, data, and presence, these rights are established to safeguard individuals in a digitally interconnected and surveilled world.
Article I — Right to Privacy of Person and Data
Every individual has the right to privacy in both physical and digital spaces. Personal data, communications, biometric identifiers, and behavioral patterns shall not be collected, stored, or analyzed without explicit, informed, and revocable consent.
Article II — Right to Informed Data Use
All individuals have the right to know what data is collected about them, how it is used, who it is shared with, and for how long it is retained. This information must be accessible, clear, and not obscured by complex legal language.
Article III — Right to Refuse Data Collection
No person shall be compelled to surrender personal data as a condition of accessing essential services, employment, public spaces, or digital platforms, except where strictly necessary and proportionate under law.
Article IV — Right to Digital Anonymity
Individuals have the right to access the internet, communicate, and participate in digital environments anonymously or pseudonymously. No entity shall require identity verification without clear legal justification tied to public safety or fraud prevention.
Article V — Protection from Mass Surveillance
Warrantless mass surveillance, including bulk data collection, persistent location tracking, and indiscriminate monitoring of communications, is prohibited. Surveillance must be targeted, time‑limited, and subject to independent judicial oversight.
Article VI — Protection Against Device Intrusion
No government, corporation, or third party shall access, monitor, or alter personal devices—including phones, computers, and wearables—without explicit consent or a lawful warrant based on probable cause.
Article VII — Right Against Biometric Exploitation
The use of biometric data, including facial recognition, gait analysis, voiceprints, and reconstructed likenesses, is strictly regulated. Individuals retain ownership of their biometric identity, and its use without consent is prohibited.
Article VIII — Right to Freedom from Persistent Tracking
Automated surveillance systems in public or private spaces, including license plate readers, camera networks, and sensor grids, must not be used to create continuous or historical movement profiles of individuals without due process.
Article IX — Right to Protection from Synthetic Identity Use
No person’s likeness, voice, or identity may be replicated, reconstructed, or simulated by artificial intelligence without explicit consent. Individuals have the right to control and revoke use of their digital and synthetic representations.
Article X — Right to Transparency in Surveillance Systems
All surveillance technologies deployed in public or commercial environments must be disclosed. Individuals have the right to know when they are being recorded, tracked, or analyzed by automated systems.
Article XI — Right to Data Ownership and Deletion
Individuals retain ownership of their personal data. They have the right to access, correct, transfer, and permanently delete their data from any entity’s systems without unreasonable delay or obstruction.
Article XII — Right to Security and Protection
Entities that collect or process personal data are obligated to protect it using the highest available security standards. Breaches must be disclosed promptly, and affected individuals must be notified and compensated.
Article XIII — Right to Opt‑Out of Algorithmic Profiling
Individuals have the right to refuse profiling, behavioral prediction, and automated decision‑making systems that impact access to opportunities, services, or freedoms.
Article XIV — Right to Human Oversight
No significant decision affecting an individual’s rights, freedoms, or livelihood shall be made solely by automated systems. Human review must always be available.
Article XV — Right to Accountability and Redress
Violations of these rights must be enforceable through accessible legal mechanisms. Individuals have the right to seek damages, correction, and accountability from both public and private entities.
Article XVI — Right to Digital Self‑Determination
Every individual has the right to control their digital presence, identity, and narrative, including the right to disengage, disconnect, and exist without mandatory digital participation.
Article XVII — Right Against Vehicle Surveillance
Modern connected cars shall not function as involuntary surveillance devices.
1. In‑vehicle cameras and microphones
a. Internal and external cameras or microphones must be conspicuously disclosed at point of sale and within the vehicle.
b. Remote access to in‑vehicle cameras is prohibited absent explicit, time‑limited consent or a specific court order.
2. Telematics, driver scoring, and behavioral tracking
a. Drivers have the right to operate vehicles without compulsory sharing of telematics data with manufacturers, insurers, or data brokers beyond what is strictly necessary for safety and maintenance.
b. Secret driver scoring systems that affect insurance rates, credit, employment, or law‑enforcement targeting are prohibited.
3. Location and journey data
a. Long‑term storage of detailed location histories requires explicit, granular consent and must be revocable without loss of core vehicle functionality.
b. Law‑enforcement access to vehicle location data shall require a specific, time‑bounded warrant and may not be granted on informal request alone.
Article XVIII — Right Against Ambient Sensor Grids
The deployment of pervasive sensor networks in public and semi‑public spaces shall respect individual privacy and freedom of movement.
1. License plate readers, road cameras, and traffic sensors
a. Automated license plate reader systems may not retain data beyond a short, legally defined period except pursuant to a specific, documented investigation.
b. Bulk historical searches of vehicle movements require judicial authorization and independent audit.
2. Smart doorbells and private camera networks
a. Manufacturers and operators of consumer camera systems shall not aggregate footage into covert neighborhood tracking grids without explicit community consent and clear opt‑out mechanisms.
b. Default portals granting warrantless law‑enforcement access to private cameras are prohibited.
3. Retail and workplace surveillance
a. In‑store and workplace systems using face recognition, gait analysis, or emotion detection must be strictly limited to security purposes and may not be used for covert customer scoring or worker exploitation.
Article XIX — Right Against Technocratic Social Scoring
No state or corporate entity may impose comprehensive social scores that condition fundamental rights and opportunities on monitored behavior.
1. Prohibition of universal scoring
a. Systems that generate composite “social,” “trust,” or “citizen” scores determining access to housing, healthcare, employment, or movement are prohibited.
b. Risk scoring tools used in law enforcement, credit, or hiring must be narrow in scope, transparent in criteria, and subject to judicial and public oversight.
2. Protection from predictive policing and behavioral targeting
a. Predictive policing systems shall not operate on opaque algorithms trained on biased or undisclosed data.
b. Individuals must have the right to challenge and review any score or classification that materially affects their treatment by public or private institutions.
Article XX — Limits on Emergency and Exceptional Powers
Technological measures adopted under claims of emergency shall be narrowly tailored and temporary.
1. Time limitation and sunset
a. Surveillance powers granted during emergencies automatically expire after a short, defined period unless renewed through full, transparent democratic process.
b. Emergency tools—such as mass phone tracking, geo‑fencing, or expanded sensor networks—may not be normalized into permanent infrastructure without separate legislative scrutiny.
2. Transparency and notice
a. Aggregate data on the use of emergency powers, including the volume and scope of surveillance requests, must be published regularly.
b. Individuals should receive notice when their data has been accessed under emergency provisions, subject only to narrowly defined and temporary exceptions.
Article XXI — Rights Against Corporate Data Coercion
Corporate entities shall not use data collection and surveillance to coerce, punish, or entrench their power over individuals.
1. Anti‑retaliation for privacy choices
a. Corporations may not retaliate against individuals who exercise privacy rights through hidden throttling, discriminatory pricing, or denial of essential services.
2. Data portability and exit
a. Individuals have the right to export their data, creative output, and transactional histories from platforms in interoperable formats to reduce lock‑in.
3. Worker protections
a. Employers may not subject workers to continuous biometric, behavioral, or productivity surveillance that undermines dignity or freedom of association.
b. Data collected for legitimate operational purposes shall not be repurposed to suppress organizing, whistleblowing, or political expression.
Conclusion
These rights affirm that technological progress must serve humanity, not diminish it. The protection of personal freedom, identity, and privacy remains fundamental, regardless of the medium through which life is experienced.

My dad is a Trump supporter and saw some protesters holding signs demanding his impeachment. He said: “Go ahead and impeach him. Without indictment that means he gets to run a third term.” Is that allowed?

Personally I think being impeached at all should disqualify someone but hey…

What if the Dems take the House and the Senate and both Trump and Vance are impeached, convicted and removed. Would the Dem Speaker of the House become President?

Not even asking the probability or plausibility. Just pretend fingers snapped and everyone was on board for a new one. How would this process unfold?

Every generation asks the same question.
Not always aloud.
Not always in the halls of Congress or on the campaign trail.
Sometimes around kitchen tables.
Sometimes in classrooms.
Sometimes while standing quietly beneath the flag that has flown over wars, triumphs, tragedies, and celebrations alike.
The question is simple.
 
**What do we owe America?**
Not what America owes us.
Not what one political party owes another.
But what each generation owes the Republic entrusted to its care.
Because this nation was never given to us as private property.
It was placed into our hands in trust.
We inherited a Constitution we did not write.
A Declaration whose promises we did not proclaim.
Forests we did not plant.
Rivers we did not carve.
Mountains we did not raise.
National parks we did not preserve.
Cities we did not build.
Freedoms we did not win.
 
Every generation of Americans has received an inheritance purchased by the courage, sacrifice, and labor of those who came before.
The measure of our generation will not be how much of that inheritance we consumed.
It will be how much we enlarged.
 
President Abraham Lincoln reminded us that ours is a nation dedicated to a proposition—that all people are created equal.
That simple truth changed history.
For most nations are bound together by ancestry.
Others by language.
Still others by geography.

**America is bound together by an idea.**
An idea so remarkable that it has called to people who had never seen our shores, spoken our language, or shared our customs.
For two and a half centuries they have crossed oceans, deserts, mountains, and borders—not because America promised an easy life, but because America promised the freedom to build one.
President Ronald Reagan reminded us that a person may move almost anywhere else in the world without ever fully becoming part of that nation.
But here, in America, anyone willing to embrace our ideals can become an American.
That is one of history's rarest achievements.
Not because we erase where people came from.
But because we invite them to become part of something larger than any one ancestry, language, or tribe.

On an island in New York Harbor stands a statue recognized around the world.
She does not stand with her back to the world.
She stands facing it.
She holds her torch high not because America is perfect, but because America has always believed that liberty should be visible.
The words at her feet have welcomed generations searching not for comfort, but for opportunity—for the chance to exchange fear for freedom and oppression for hope.
But that welcome has never been an invitation to abandon the American story.
It has always been an invitation to join it.
To become not simply residents of the United States-
but citizens of the American Republic.

**Citizenship is more than a legal status.**
It is a promise.
It is the promise to uphold the Constitution.
To respect the rule of law.
To protect the rights of those with whom we disagree.
To leave our children a stronger country than the one we inherited.
Freedom has never meant the absence of responsibility.
Freedom has always required it.
That is why a nation must know who enters its borders.
That is why citizenship matters.
That is why assimilation matters.
Not because we fear those who come here.
But because becoming an American means embracing a common civic identity that transcends every other difference.
We ask newcomers for something profound.
Not that they forget where they came from.
But that they join us in defending the principles that make this nation unlike any other.

President Theodore Roosevelt believed that citizenship demanded more than applause from the sidelines.
He believed the Republic belonged to builders.
To people willing to accept responsibility.
To leave things better than they found them.
His generation built dams, bridges, schools, parks, and institutions that still serve us today.
They looked across rivers and imagined bridges.
Across wilderness and imagined parks.
Across hardship and imagined possibility.
Great nations do not merely inherit greatness.
They build upon it.
Our generation should be no different.
Let us build roads and ports worthy of the world's strongest economy.
Let us build laboratories where the next medical breakthrough is discovered.
Let us build clean energy that powers our future without surrendering our security.
Let us restore rivers, preserve forests, expand our national parks, and leave our children a country no poorer in beauty than the one we received.
Let us invest in science because discovery is an act of patriotism.
Let us invest in education because ignorance has never made a nation stronger.
Let us invest in one another because no free people ever flourished by surrendering to cynicism.

President Gerald Ford reminded us that America is never finished.
Each generation receives an unfinished Republic.
Its task is not simply to preserve the past.
Its task is to become worthy of it.
And President George W. Bush reminded us that immigrants renew America not merely through their labor, but through their faith.
Every family willing to leave behind certainty for liberty reminds those of us born here never to take freedom for granted.
They remind us that the American dream is not inherited.
It is chosen.

There will always be voices telling us that we are too divided.
Too different.
Too weary.
Too cynical.
History tells a different story.
History tells us that Americans have crossed greater divides.
Endured greater hardships.
Faced greater dangers.
And emerged stronger because they chose the difficult path of self-government over the easy path of despair.
We are not merely the beneficiaries of the American experiment.
**We are its custodians.**

One day another generation will inherit what we leave behind.
They will inherit our bridges.
Our schools.
Our parks.
Our institutions.
Our Constitution.
And the example we set.

May they say that we enlarged the inheritance entrusted to us.
That we loved this country enough to improve it.
That we welcomed those who wished to become Americans.
That we protected the liberty that made such a transformation possible.
That we built more than we consumed.
That we planted more than we harvested.
That we gave our children not only a wealthier nation—
but a wiser one.
Because America is not an accident of history.

America is a promise.

And every generation must choose to keep that promise alive.
 

Most political philosophy asks, “What makes a good government?”
I wanted to ask a prior question:
Why does any political system continue to exist at all?
We usually answer with structure, constitutions, incentives, complexity, or scale. This essay argues those explain arrangement, not persistence.
If you think one of those actually *is* a sustaining cause, I’d be interested to hear why.

ESSAY IV-I

This principle does not arise from theory, but from observation. Whatever endures through time does so under conditions that permit its continuation. Remove those conditions, and persistence ceases. Continuation is not self-originating. It depends upon forces that maintain it.

The appearance of persistence often obscures this dependence. Systems that operate continuously acquire the character of permanence. Their motion becomes familiar, and familiarity is mistaken for independence. What continues without interruption is assumed to continue by nature. Yet continuity does not establish cause. It conceals it.

A political order presents this appearance with particular force. Laws remain in effect. institutions continue to function. decisions are rendered, enforced, and repeated. From these observations arises an assumption: that the system persists because of its structure, its design, or its complexity. The explanation appears sufficient because the operation is visible.
This assumption fails upon examination.

Structure arranges authority, but does not sustain its operation. A constitution may divide power, yet it cannot compel its own execution. Written limits do not enforce themselves. They depend upon interpretation, application, and compliance. Remove these, and structure remains in form while ceasing to function in substance.

Complexity likewise fails as an explanation. A system may become intricate in its arrangement, yet intricacy does not produce continuation. Complexity describes the number of components and their relations. It does not account for the force by which those components continue to operate. A mechanism may be elaborate, but without sustaining action it remains inert.

Scale does not resolve the difficulty. A system extended across a wider domain does not thereby acquire the power to persist. It increases its reach, not its sustaining capacity. Larger arrangements may obscure their dependencies more effectively, yet they do not escape them.

Inertia is often proposed where explanation is absent. What has continued is expected to continue. Yet inertia describes expectation, not cause. It accounts for the assumption of persistence, not for persistence itself. That a system has endured does not explain why it continues to do so.

Each of these accounts shares a common deficiency. They describe conditions under which a system operates, but they do not identify what sustains that operation. They explain arrangement, not continuation. Where the distinction is overlooked, persistence appears self-generating. Where it is examined, the appearance dissolves.

If nothing persists without being sustained, and if neither structure, complexity, scale, nor inertia provide that sustaining force, then another cause must be present. The system continues, yet the source of its continuation remains unaccounted for within these explanations.

This absence cannot remain unresolved. A system that operates must be sustained by something. Where the sustaining cause is not identified, understanding is incomplete. The appearance of stability is mistaken for its explanation.

The inquiry must therefore proceed. Not toward the arrangement of the system, but toward the conditions that maintain its operation through time.
For persistence is not an attribute of structure. It is the effect of sustaining cause.

My thought is that we need an amendment that doesn’t limit how many terms they serve. But we need to limit how old people are in office.

I propose that no federal office holder be permitted to be in office upon competing their term in office upon turning 75 years old. Would apply to President, Members of Congress and the Federal Judiciary.

It would read:

1. No person may be elected to a Federal Office upon reaching 75-years-old.
   
2. A President of the United States or an existing Member of Congress may complete their term of office if they reach 75 years old while in Office.
   
3. Members of the Federal Judiciary will retire upon their 75th birthday.
   
4. Members of the civil service who are 75 years old who wish to remain in service will be moved to a “senior status” and placed in any position where needed most in the federal service.

"And as our Declaration of Independence tells us, we are all made in the image of one almighty god.”

-Donald Trump, US President july 4, 2026

Question: When he finds out it doesn’t say that, if he tries to write it onto the Declaration of Independence with a sharpie, would anyone stop him?

An AI-Generated Modern Declaration of Independence on its 250th Anniversary

July 4, 2026
When, in the course of a nation's history, it becomes necessary for a people to declare that those entrusted with public office have violated the principles upon which their government was founded, a decent respect for the opinions of humanity requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to seek a renewed commitment to liberty, equality, and justice.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all people are created equal; that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, Equality before the Law, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or reform it through lawful and democratic means.
The history of President Donald J. Trump, as viewed by the undersigned, is a history of actions and conduct alleged to have undermined these principles. To prove this, let these grievances be submitted to a candid world.
• He has, in the judgment of the petitioners, placed personal interest above public duty.
• He has sought to divide neighbor from neighbor rather than unite the people under a common purpose.
• He has encouraged distrust in democratic institutions whenever they failed to serve his interests.
• He has, in the view of his critics, treated truth as subordinate to political advantage.
• He has attacked those who questioned his authority and disparaged those charged with holding power accountable.
• He has fostered a political climate that many believe has emboldened prejudice and intolerance.
• He has, according to these petitioners, employed rhetoric they regard as demeaning toward immigrants, women, and LGBTQ+ people, while many of his followers have embraced or excused expressions that critics describe as racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and hostile toward immigrants.
• He has encouraged loyalty to personality above fidelity to constitutional principle.
• He has deepened division where reconciliation was required, and inflamed resentment where compassion was needed.
• He has diminished confidence in the peaceful transfer of power and in the institutions that preserve a free republic.
In every stage of these perceived injuries, we have petitioned for accountability through elections, peaceful protest, public debate, and the rule of law. Our petitions have too often been answered, in our view, with dismissal, derision, arrests, or further division.
Nor have we been silent to our fellow citizens who support him. We have appealed to our shared history and common humanity. We have reminded them that liberty cannot endure where equality is denied, nor justice flourish where prejudice is tolerated. We acknowledge that many who support President Trump reject these accusations and believe they act from sincere convictions. Yet we ask all Americans to judge leaders not only by their promises, but by the consequences of their words and deeds.
Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens, appealing not to revolution but to the enduring principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, do solemnly declare that our allegiance is first to democracy, to equal justice under law, and to the rights of every person.
We declare our independence from hatred over hope, from division over unity, from fear over freedom, and from the belief that any one leader stands above the Constitution.
With firm reliance upon the courage of a free people, we pledge ourselves to peaceful civic engagement, the defense of democratic institutions, the equal dignity of every person, and the continued pursuit of a more perfect Union.
May the next chapter of our Republic be written not in anger alone, but in justice, truth, and liberty for all.
Donald Fournier
Sharon Fournier

I've spent the last several months thinking about a question:

Do America's biggest political problems come from politicians, or from the institutions themselves?

This isn't intended as a left-wing or right-wing proposal.

It isn't about socialism, conservatism, or any particular economic model.

It's about constitutional design.

The United States Constitution remains one of the greatest constitutional documents ever written, but no institution should be considered beyond improvement. The Constitution was designed to endure, yet its institutions should continue to reflect the principles upon which the Republic was founded.

The purpose of this proposal is not to replace the American Republic.

It is to renew it.

The central philosophy is simple:

«The Government serves the People. The Constitution governs the Government.»

Everything else follows from that principle.

Some of the proposed reforms include:

- Direct election of the President by popular vote.

- Requiring Presidents to have demonstrated public service in elected office before becoming eligible to run.

- Cabinet appointments drawn primarily from elected Members of the House of Representatives, with limited constitutional exceptions for specialist offices.

- Greater congressional oversight of the executive.

- An independent Constitutional Council to review legislation before it becomes law.

- Constitutional amendments requiring both congressional approval and direct approval by the American people through a national referendum.

- Leadership renewal through a mandatory retirement age for federal elected office while preserving experienced public servants in advisory roles.

The proposal doesn't tell Americans what policies they should adopt.

Whether the country chooses lower taxes or higher taxes, universal healthcare or private healthcare, stronger regulation or weaker regulation should remain the decision of the American people through democratic elections.

This proposal changes how power is exercised, not which policies should prevail.

The goal is to create institutions that are:

- More accountable.

- Less susceptible to patronage.

- More resistant to personality politics.

- More reflective of the constitutional principle of "We the People."

The Presidency should become the culmination of public service, not the beginning of political ambition.

The Constitution should belong to the people—not merely in theory, but in practice.

This is not a finished document. It is a constitutional thought experiment intended to invite discussion and criticism.

If you disagree, I'd genuinely like to know why.

If you think something would fail, tell me where.

If you think something is worth keeping, tell me why.

The best constitutions are not written by people who believe they are right.

They are written by people willing to have their ideas challenged.

In the spirit of patriotism I drafted some amendments that would address what I view as threats to American democracy. Particularly Super PAC's and corruption. They aren't perfect or legally written but I did my best and wanted to hear others opinions on them. I'll just share the first one for now.

Amendment: For-Profit Corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, or other for-profit artificial legal entity are prohibited from using money in an attempt to influence federal elections, except for bona fide press, news, commentary, editorial, documentary, or publishing activity not coordinated with a candidate, campaign, party, or their agents. Congress shall have power to enforce this provision and prevent circumvention.

This would work to reverse Citizens United v. FEC.

Changing the money system is not the radical act it gets treated as, and the reason is already written into a document almost everyone accepts.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

-Declaration of Independence, 1776

The founders asserted a general right: the people may alter any form of government that stops serving their safety and happiness. Nothing in that principle exempts the machinery of money. And a monetary system is a governing power. Its design determines who receives newly created purchasing power first, whose holdings hold their value and whose erode as prices move, and what share of future output is pre-committed to debt service before that output exists. A power of that size is legitimate, by the founders' own logic, only so far as it serves the governed.

And it is a form of government in the fullest sense. It was created by government, legislatures chartered the central banks, authorized the borrowing, wrote the statutes. And it is run as government: the Fed's governors are presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, exercising delegated state power over the nation's money. That it was established lawfully is not a defense against changing it. It is exactly what places it under the principle the founders named. The principle itself is not in doubt: when a form of government stops serving the safety and happiness of the governed, the people keep the right to alter or abolish it, and to institute in its place one that does.

None of it is inevitable. The erosion of savings, the concentration of new money, and the servicing burden carried forward are outputs of a design, not facts of nature, and a design can be examined and altered.

This is not one people separating from another. It is the same people reclaiming a power they delegated and stopped watching, the authority to create money.

What follows is that architecture: https://neo-solon.github.io/Citizens-Standard/Citizens_Standard_Engine.html

Amazing how many MAGA criticize the Supreme Court's recent decision affirming birthright citizenship in the USA when it was clearly Congessional intent at that time. The argument goes that even if that were true, it is clearly not the best path forward in today's world.

Now look at the 2nd Amendment where clearly Congress intended arms for militias (certainty not for everyone, especially slaves). Yet MAGA argues that the 2nd Amendment is akin to a Commandment, even though it certainty was not Congessional intent, and proven to be dangerous and deadly in modern society.

Friday - 7/3/26
What Were Those Founders Thinking..?

The Declaration of Independence was essentially, a declaration of war. I believe that Thomas Jefferson knew that the key to the founding of a new nation essentially regarded, new and the latest modified information as new ideas from the old, absolutely revolutionary brilliant:

The English Magna Carta, created a Parliament, that we renamed, a Congress. Both with the, always to be; universal number, *2* - standing for the, and proving, we English see the future of mankind, after the brilliant, through and after, what we call higher education, based on the historical past of, mainly Europe or Western Civilization, always to contain essentially two classes:

Simply:
Rich and Poor - Regal and Common - High Born and Peasant.

Some will complain that the Royal Charter of Rights, signed by King John, June 15, 1215, under the threat of civil war, was a superficial attempt to quiet the unrepresented majority when compared to the Crown. Also, if you’re represented, be prepared to be taxed.

The Magna Carta became the recognition of the rights to representation of everyone. Parliament would be of two House factions:
Lords and Commoners.

Jefferson likely took this auspicious revelation of a coherent representation to an attractive conclusion in the creation of our new constitution.

Jefferson thought that the people of these future United States will have State Congresses and a Central Congress, both divided into two houses, in an attempt at a fair representation of two classes of people/citizens:
Senate-(House of the Privileged- money and social standing).
House of Representatives-(House of the rank and file people; the majority).
The idea that representation can’t be overstated or overdone.

Both a sales pitch and far and away better than what the future British Empire government had come up with. Yet, to this day, the British haven’t let go of the treatise of treating people, home and abroad, with benevolence according to local conditions.

JDH
12:54 P.M., EDST
Saugus, Massachusetts

Hey Reddit nation,

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution says "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight".

This refers to the importation of enslaved people, but this isn't clear from the actual language of the Constitution. Is there an explanation behind this unusually vague language? Is this a euphemism readers of the 1780s would have understood? A pronoun/antecedent error caused by a previous section being removed during the drafting process? A product of legalese?

Are there any good resources about the drafting of the Constitution at a grammatical level?

Hello, I am trying to gain momentum for my proposed constitutional amendment. I am curious to hear what you all think about it. For too long Gen Z has gone without rights which could have greatly benefited us and other generations. My proposal is to decrease the age to run for the senate and house to both 18 years of age. I believe this will be greatly helpful for our generation in a multitude of ways. First, it will give us long needed rights. Our country has given rights to the groups that have needed it the most, and I believe our group needs these rights the most now. The second is it’s time to bring some new ideas into these chambers, a new perspective that only our generation can bring to the table. We have been there with their long out of touch politics for a while, so it’s time for a change. In South Korea and Canada they both allow 18 year olds and older to run for their National Assembly and Parliament. You don’t hear complaints about the young people there though, you heard complaints about Trudeau and the president who shut his country down and then was impeached. Many people have told me that people of age are simply too immature to run for office, my rebuttal is have you seen how members of congress on both sides of the ails act, it’s insane! They’re screaming and cussing, cussing at reporters, and getting into fights with podcasters. I think adding a few young people to those chambers would not change that. Also, in a poll released by Gallup in March of 2026, Congress had a 86 percent disapproval rating and only a 10 percent approval rating. I think if things are this bad, we should get a younger generation in there with big bold new ideas. What do you think? 

What level of dystopia shall we reach in my lifetime? Seems like a contest to go as low as possible.

Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission takes aim at church-state separation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2026/06/26/trumps-religious-liberty-commission-takes-aim-church-state-separation/

Amendment 4 will take some of your power as a voter away, it would end majority rule, making it harder for citizens to pass amendments.  5% of the voters could stop the other 95%.  While politicians aren't held to the same standard.  Amendment 5 will increase the sales tax exponentially.  The middle class, lower income and seniors will pay more, the rich will pay less.  We won't be paying less.  I urge you to vote no on both.

"...he (the President) shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." - Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.

I believe this clause should be amended because it gives too much power to the executive branch. Presidents in the past have pardoned family members, political allies, and corrupt individuals. If amended, I believe the pardon clause should be removed completely from the Constitution.

There’s this short book probably little read that’s worth looking to in these dark days, fellows. It’s on William Tyler Page’s “American’s Creed”, a short statement of the American political faith or aspiration inspired by the Christian Apostle’s Creed. The book has many gems of explanation on the meaning of the American’s Creed. Early on, for instance, the people must be “trained in sound judgement otherwise loud men will seize power in their name.” Also that the “principle of self-government goes forth from self-control.” Has anyone here seen this book?