THE PLAN TO SAVE AMERICA- GOES PUBLIC TODAY.

If you go back to the beginning of our exchange, I was responding to a statement you made: "Well then- the thing to do is take your ball and go to the house, because you are done. See if doing nothing works better than trying."

I was simply trying to point out that if someone has objections to your idea it means they are engaged. It may be negative engagement, but engagement nonetheless. And that provides you with an opportunity to help them see it a different way. I have not even been critical of the plan - at all - and yet you have decided that I am demanding others fix their perceptions. You are coming off a little defensive and that won't help push your plan further. Honestly, I was trying to help.

 

Right, Mike. we just made it up. We have invested 15 years just thinking up BS, to sell with no advantage to ourselves at all. Strangely, others were making it up long before, (see the link) so we can't take credit.
We are painfully aware that we may well have over-estimated the capacity of the public to understand this plan, simple as it is. Unfortunately, there are no other options.

https://www.scu.edu/government-ethics/resources/public-officials-as-fiduciaries/

 

Or a Trump judge.

 

Understood, and I did over-react.

Take a look at the exchange with Lil Mike above. He asked for an example, of how it would work- and I gave him a very detailed one (post 21) , which you should read. Then the website explains it all too.

But Lil Mike then asks if Fiduciary Duty is real, or something we just made it up.
Fiduciary duty has been part of law all over the world going back to Roman law. It regulates the conduct of bankers, doctors, brokers, all kinds of things, and is legally part of every contractural relationship, regardless if it's even mentioned or not. Hardly a secret. Google "fiduciary duty"- and you can spend days reading its applications and history.

We can't re-educate every person that finds they don't understand what they read. We spent a lot of time trying to keep things as simple and clear as possible, aware of the limits we would encounter- limits not in the problem, but in the task of convincing people to act in their own best interests.

Our mission requires we reach the people who care and can engage. We hope there will be a large enough number of Americans in that category to get the job done, before it's too late.

I appreciate your patience and your response. I hope I have clarified the answer.

 

AS bad as congress is it has become only a small part of the problem. Most legislation today merely directs one agency or the other to write some more rules without ever bothering to realize that the current problem is directly related to the last set of rules they wrote and that the cabal of idiots will be writing this set of rules and, the only thing that will change is the nature of the problem. Consider this there are according to those who supported the Russia hoax 17 different US spy agencies. I can think of six off the top of my head, CIA, NSA, FBI. Army int naval int and airforce int. Some how I think we could do without the other eleven.

 

WHO do you think controls- (or could and should control) those agencies, from funding to functions?

 

Couldn't have expressed my misgivings better. In two sentences you've explained why taking the selection of Congress out of the hands of "We the People" and putting it into the hands of a few egotistical elites is not just a bad idea, but an UN-Constitutional TERRIBLE idea.

Apparently it never occurred to you genius's that OUR Constitution provides for the removal of elected and appointed officials that break the law or otherwise fail in their duty; it's called impeachment. I doubt than I'll hear anything more about this anywhere else but here ... by you.

 

For the longest time, I have believed that almost all of our national problems can be laid at the feet of Congress. And so I agree with the fundamental intent of this Honorable Congress Act. I have read all your posts on this thread, and I have explored the Honorable Congress website.

But an insurmountable problem with it is that Congress will never pass an act that would give a panel the power to fire them, effectively nullifying an election. That will never happen. The people behind this act have identified what I think is the single biggest problem with our government (Congress), but they have proposed a mechanism for fixing it that has zero chance of ever being enacted and implemented. And even if it was, I wonder if it would even be constitutional. It might contradict the 14th Amendment or other provisions of the Constitution with respect to the election of members of Congress.

I have my own ideas about how to fix Congress, but I won't impose them on your thread about the Honorable Congress Act unless you ask me to.

Again, I appreciate what you're after, but I prefer to think about what might be possible, not what is impossible.

 

The arrogance to think the US needs “saving”. My lord. The US, just like the planet, will be fine. The US has been through hard times in the past and has always ended up just fine.

 

90% of the bureaucracy runs on rails and while your 9 man commission sounds fine in theory the fact remains that even the most honest of people can still believe absurd things as proven by this board on a daily basis. For instance there is no doubt that DEI is bad for everyone but a lot of people honestly believe it is the only way to solve the racial divide. They are obviously wrong but they believe it none-the-less.

 

When someone who actually has a fiduciary responsibility due to their position violates it, there are often civil and criminal penalties are involved, but I don't see how to enforce that on elected officials. Many of the are elected in order to NOT be fiscally responsible.

 

I understand. But the first challenge is figuring out what really is impossible- and what just looks that way because you don't know how to do it yet.
Many times in my life, I have done what people said was impossible. Other times I've failed trying, yet later somebody else did it.

One of our most valuable people was a Ph.D. professor of Political Science- with 50 years of experience. Vast and in-depth knowledge of how Congress works.
He outlined what this would take, and told us it was impossible, because of partisanship and the controls of majorities.
He also gave us the answer.

Now bear in mind that Congress itself has created an independent oversight agency before- but lacked the courage to give them power. That agency was to independently investigate, but turn its final conclusions back to Congress to take action. They gutted their own plan. But the idea of needing independent oversight is not new to them.

The professor explained a thing called a "super majority". This is where such a large percentage of the public demands something that it is political suicide to refuse.
For something to reach that level of support, it must benefit everyone, harm no one, have no political goal or divide, and have no viable way to defend against it. Damn big order.
We think we are as close to that as possible.

I agree they won't do it on their own; it can only pass if there is no alternative- and that is a condition only a Super-Majority can create. We need more than a simple majority of the people to support this, more than 2/3rds; preferably 70% plus. Do you think 3 out of 4 Americans would like to have an honest congress?

If you have read everything, you are probably aware that there are no losers at all- except those few who would intentionally harm the system and the nation. Many in Congress who bend the rules aren't doing it because they want to, but because that is the only way anything gets done- the defacto standard way of doing business, and they would much prefer an honest environment. We can give them the chance to be honorable.

Laws are- flexed by interpretation, all the time. Even an argument that makes perfect legal sense can be defeated by latitude in interpretations' I've seen this many times.
IF Congress wants to clean its house (something rapidly being recognized as a critical need by Congress itself) OR if they have no choice- they will find a way.
The fact is that Congress itself is perhaps the big winner if this is passed. A lot of members are sick and tired of the chaos and corruption they work in.

Envision a member of Congress trying to explain why he shouldn't be required to keep his oath or do his job. He has to figure out how to explain that honor and order are problems, not answers.
If he agrees they are critical needs, then he has a means of equal reliability to ensure they are maintained. Can he explain why the people should not have some control over the congress they are paying and funding. Can he explain why leaving it up to the honor of the members themselves has resulted in total failure. It's an easy argument to win.

In the years we have worked on this, with the range of expertise that has contributed- we have explored all these things. Argued them many times. There is no perfect answer, of course. But that is not required to pass- only the support of a sufficient majority of the people.

Is the public wise enough to act in their own best interests and keep their own government honest? Frankly, that is a question we all wonder about. One early member- best mind I've ever known in my life; a true professional, a kind and gentle man by nature- told us they are not, and he quit- saying they will never learn. Not to say that individuals can't, but that as a society- they won't. He may be right.
People tend to think answers to problems should fit neatly into what they already believe, so they don't have to change. Altering that characteristic is nearly impossible, and it's a self-limitation that is perhaps the biggest barrier to any people trying to build anything larger than themselves. Totally impossible to reach them all- but we must reach that super majority.

Is America worth saving? If enough people think it is, we have a shot. If they don't or won't bother to try- it's a waste of time. That is not in our control. There is no sense going door to door trying to convince them otherwise. What is the price of failure? What do we have to lose, what do we have to gain? Only the nation, freedom and everything people have worked for since 1776.
You may have figured out that nobody- anywhere- has a better idea, or any idea at all for doing this job.

All the descendants of people here now- will inherit and live with what we do, or fail to do today.
If my team fails, we will have at least tried our best, and I don't have to apologize to the future for that.
Those who won't try should, but will probably find reasons not to do that either.

 

Got it.
Write you down as voting to surrender to corruption without a fight.

 

I will explain something- once. Simply not enough time to convince millions of people one by one to understand this plan, but I will for this forum, cover the way in which the power is provided to the panel.

The Congress cannot delegate the power to make legislation. The Constitution prohibits that. It can delegate the power to enforce legislation.
for example- The Constitution grants Congress the power to 'lay and collect taxes'. That means to make the rules (legislation) then enforce them.
Members of Congress do not collect taxes- they delegate that duty and the power to the IRS. But they must make the rules that will be enforced.
In fact, this is also an example of the latitude taken, in that the IRS is allowed to make rules themselves that have the power of law, which this panel will not have.
As a precedent for procedure, this is a parallel to the authorities of the Honor Act.

In part one of the Honor Act, the Congress, using its congressional authority to make its own ethical rules- creates a rule of qualification for its power to remove unfit members, which is presently completely arbitrary. That rule will state that any member violating the Oath of Office or the Fiduciary duty of office may be expelled under that rule.

In part two, the bill creates the Citizens panel. It charges that panel with the oversight of Congressional conduct in relation to two rules, and delegates the duty to the panel to determine when a violation has occured and grants the power enforce the will of the Congress as created in part one.

The Panel is in the same role as the IRS- carrying out the duty delegated by Congress.
Nothing reduces or alters the power of Congress in any way. It can still expel a member for not wearing a tie or anything else if they so wish.

People in elected office have sworn duties. They are in a contractural relationship with the citizens, and that makes them fiduciaries, with fiduciary duties that must be upheld- or they are breaching their contract.
They are employees. Being elected is being chosen for a job, but when the Oath of Office is taken, the status of employment and contractual obligations begin. The employment of members of Congress is not with the state they represent, it is with the Federal government. Their first obligation is to best interests of all the nation; the second to the best interests of the district they represent. As the Federal government is in effect an employee of the people- ALL elected people are fiduciaries, and their fiduciary obligations are to the ALL the people of the United States.

Of course there will be challenges. They are expected, and prepared for.

Hopefully, that will clear up some concerns.

 

Hard to impeach when all your final judges are corrupt too.. We're at a junction today that conventional removal is impossible..

 

As we found out by impeaching tRaitor tRump.

No, we're at a junction where we need to turn off the T.V.'s and become Americans Again!!!

We have a Constitution that made us great, it has never failed us; we have failed it.

 

And you'd turn off the TV in favor of say POLITICAL FORUMS and social media that promote hatred over common sense, RIGHT?

 

I pretty much have. I don't take this forum seriously; I only read and post to ... test my theories and those of "experts" and "sources" I've come to trust and rely on; not all of which are always correct. I watch zero network news beyond streaming a few sound bites from it now and then. OR, when like the other night, something important takes place.

 

Uh, huh

 

I hear ya

 

I hear lies from the govt repeated all over this forum.

1/ Russia attacked/invaded Ukraine.
No it didn't put the timeline together, Victoria Nuland had prime
responsibility for starting the war, Russia and Ukraine got along
until she got involved and with a budget of 5 billion got the war
started.

2/ We are winning!
No, the state department released Victoria because they don't
need her services anymore because the war is about to end.

3/ Putin wants to take over all of Europe
4/ because Putin is 5ft7 the same as Napoleon.
5/ and Russia is the same as the USSR
Etc.
People believe whatever is in the news.

 

Well more power to you if it works.

How do you keep it from becoming political?

Both in the evaluation of congress members and in removing them?

 

Wow.
Condescending and arrogant.
Your plan appears to have some merit but you're not willing to take questions or criticism.

Its ok. Hopefully the plan is bigger than you and will survive you.

 

This IS NOT a Courtship.
It's a RESCUE MISSION.
Perhaps you have heard the saying- "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". Those are the options. There will be all kinds of obstruction from the people who want chaos to rule, and we will have to overcome those. We will need to help others who want to assist in leading, and in following. Baseless criticism however is more an obstruction; it serves no purpose. There is nothing to gain by entertaining it, but time is lost by getting drawn into it.

The website has gone to great lengths to provide answers. Questions are welcome.

Some however will tell us why they don't think it will work, despite having no idea what would be better- and they are not asking questions.
They aren't asking to learn, they criticize to obstruct. It's a challenge, in effect saying you must convince me why I should help save my country- or care.

As I said, this is a Rescue Mission.
Baseless criticism is saying they don't like the color of the life preservers, asking why we don't have any that match their jacket, and telling us they won't accept anything that doesn't.
This is what our political advisor called a "flypaper argument", a common tactic in congress used to talk a bill to death so it never gets to the floor, and a vote. Lots of them on PF and other forums. Human weakness. Not an asset.

Legitimate questions welcome. Endless arguments with no purpose are obstructions to our mission, and we can't indulge that.
If you take offense, that is unfortunate, but is your choice, not our intention.