Summary of A Plan for a Citizens' Initiatives Amendment to Improve Our Dysfunctional Government and Control its Excesses

1. Influence over Congress by special interests has become excessive, making it dysfunctional and greatly harming the people. Our federal government promotes special interests over the people's well-being. As a result, each year our federal government squanders at least $350 billion of the people's wealth—over $4,000 per year from a family of four. Moral decay in our highest elected officials permeates governance and the business elite.

Ideally, the people can elect representatives who will solve the problems. Unfortunately, special interests already influence candidates long before the people vote. Our constitutional checks and balances cannot restrain the impact of media's enormous cost and its extremely persuasive technologies. Huge campaign spending by special interests translates into almost permanent reelection of their chosen candidates. Inevitably, those elected have obligations to their contributors and government becomes dysfunctional. Congress will not resolve these problems because solutions are contrary to the personal interests of a majority of its members. Voters may change political leadership, but improvements are temporary because underlying causes remain unchanged. Evidence shows that these systemic problems continue to grow. Fundamental concepts of our republic are defined in the Constitution's preamble—it should be a government that promotes the general welfare. Excessive promotion of special interests' welfare over the people is clearly dysfunctional governance.

The solution must lie in improved checks and balances rather than in the hope that a preponderance of congresspersons can ever overcome their human nature. This plan follows the constitutional remedy prescribed by the Founding Fathers. In essence, it is an improved version of the ballot initiative solution that the people used over 100 years ago to limit State governments' domination by big business. A greatly improved nationwide initiative process has ample safeguards ensuring that special interests can never gain control, that ballot initiatives will be important and clear, and that Initiatives receive extensive public feedback before they get onto the ballot.

2. Only the people can protect against congressional excesses and deficiencies. History proves that Congress cannot do it. Constitutional separation of powers bars such control by the President, Judiciary or States. A commission of appointed or elected members cannot have this power because it is constitutionally unqualified and because members are open to manipulation both by special interests and by Congress.

Politics is about power. Because congressional maneuvers and special interests largely nullify their votes, the people have very little federal power. Nationwide Citizens' Initiatives are the only way for the people to gain significant power to set things right. Initiatives are necessary not because the people have a perverse desire to exercise the legislative function directly, but because they have profound convictions that Congress has ceased to be responsive to the popular will and that Congress has no innate ability to reform itself. The goal is to overcome Congress' detrimental resistance to change in order to permit long-term improvement of representative government—not to undermine or to micromanage Congress. Equivalent conditions existed in many State Legislatures prior to 1918, when tens-of-millions of citizens helped to include direct democracy in twenty-six state constitutions.

An Initiatives solution is entirely consistent with the Founding Fathers' views. For example:

Most U.S. Citizens are familiar with initiatives—about 70 percent of the people can vote on initiatives at their state or local elections. Polls constantly show that voters overwhelmingly support nationwide Initiatives by about three to one. By their use of initiatives in 24 states and at local levels for over 100 years, the people have demonstrated that they are competent to exercise this power.

At a national level, Switzerland has used nationwide initiatives since 1891. Switzerland modeled its constitution on the U.S. constitution with a direct democracy overlay. Despite many early political doubters of the people's competence, the people have demonstrated exceptional judgment. Swiss initiatives have never caused a crisis and have several times helped defused crises ^{(Fossedal p. 91)}—a far better record than most representative lawmaking. Starting as a poor mountainous nation with few natural resources and no seaports, Switzerland has thrived to become a top-ranked economic, democratic, and stable nation.

The Founding Fathers in 1787 avoided mentioning any form of direct democracy in the Constitution because they believed that the entire electorate had to meet in one place ^{(Wilson, Madison)}. By 1920, state initiatives had proved that this constraint is unnecessary.

Initiatives are not a panacea for all that ails this nation. Expectations must be realistic. Nevertheless, they will solve many current problems and future problems as they arise. Cumulatively, Initiatives will have a major impact on our nation's success and a huge cost-benefit to the people.

3. An independent Citizens' Assembly must manage the nationwide Initiatives qualification process. Special interests can always find a way to influence any organization with elected, appointed, or hereditary persons in its hierarchy. Therefore, sortition (i.e., random selection) must draw the Citizens' Assembly from all the people. It is that "most exact transcript of the whole society" sought by the Founding Fathers (James Wilson 1787). A deliberative Citizens' Assembly is a far better method than signature petitions for nations and large states. The Assembly will be more tamper proof than a Federal Grand Jury and virtually immune from special interests' influence. It costs less than signature petitions. It permits citizens' feedback on proposed initiatives for many months before the Assembly makes the decision whether to qualify them or not. It operates completely independent of government. It ensures that ballot initiatives are important, well constructed, and thoroughly vetted. Because the Assembly is a single organization, it can rank the proposed Initiatives and select only enough that they do not overload the electorate. It offers independent majority and minority opinions on the Initiatives.

B.C. Citizens' Assembly in 2004 Photo by Stuart Davis #715955 by kind permission of The Vancouver Sun

This plan provides a constitutional Amendment process for creating and sustaining the independent Citizens' Assembly. The Assembly's costs will be less than $100 million per year—less than 50¢ per citizen, 1/10^th of the cost of nationwide signature petitions, 1/60^th of the cost of running Congress, and 1/3,000^th of the cost of government squander.

Deliberative Citizens' Assemblies have a confirmed provenance. The first continuous use started about 594 BCE in ancient Athens, where they called it the "Boule" or "Council of 500." This form of government lasted almost 200 years—encompassing the "Golden Age of Athens," which is the foundation of our western civilization and democracy. There is no doubt of an Assembly's capabilities to do the job. Nevertheless, shortly after the first state application is made to Congress and momentum for change builds, and long before the Constitutional Amendment process reaches an Article V Convention, it will be sensible that one or more initiative states or cities should replace their signature petitions with a citizens' initiatives assembly. This will update details from current experience, manage expectations, and provide an irrefutable demonstration for any doubters.

The Electorate (Ecclesia) gathered near the Agora on the Pnyx hill to vote on Initiatives (Probouleuma or Agenda) set by the Citizens' Assembly (Boule or Council of 500) Photo courtesy of Adam Carr via Wikipedia under GNU License

4. Anticipating federal excesses, the Founding Fathers built a remedy into the U.S. Constitution. Their wording of Article V explicitly grants the States the necessary constitutional power to curb federal excesses by use of the second method of amending the Constitution—i.e., an Article V Convention.

While seeking state support for the new Constitution, the Founding Fathers explained this remedy as follows:

The Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers are united and clear. The people have the constitutional right and the States have the constitutional power and duty to alter a Government that harms the people. Since the problems will only worsen, procrastination increases the dangers—we must check congressional excesses and deficiencies otherwise we abandon our American Dream that is already slipping away.

5. Both U.S. and state constitutions rely on each state to limit federal Government's excesses. These are powerful obligations, because all state legislators have sworn oaths to support both constitutions. State legislators can fulfill their duty most prudently by putting the issue to a state referendum. (State governments can also gain important additional benefits.)

As shown in the separate schematic, State legislation, referenda, and initiatives are valid methods to initiate an Article V Convention. Referenda are preferable because they most clearly unite the constitutional authority of the States with the inalienable right of the people to alter their government. Their unity brings momentous constitutional authority to bear on any constitutional disputes with Congress. Referenda are available in all 50 states.

If a majority of legislators in any of the 24 initiative states disregards their oaths, the people can use a state initiative to initiate the plan. If legislators in any of the other states disregard their oaths, the people must elect legislative majorities who will respect their duty to the people.

However, no matter how much authority the voters and state constitutions give to state referenda and initiatives, U.S. and state Supreme Court decisions generally argue that State Legislatures must make the actual Amendment applications to Congress. The States should comply with this literal interpretation of Article V until the U.S. Supreme Court clarifies these matters.

Congress lacks the constitutional power to deny the States' application, though it may cause delays. Reasonable care will avoid second-method procedural issues and speed the process.

6. When several states support this plan, they should annex it and improve it. After 34 states have submitted applications, Congress shall call the Convention. The Convention will propose the Amendment. Congress will choose the ratification method. Finally, 38 States will ratify it. If state legislators embrace the plan, the Amendment will cost just a few million dollars and could take effect in as little as five years. If they oppose it, costs could climb past 250 million dollars and it could take perhaps 15 years.

7. Passing the Amendment will be tough but it is possible. A page of the web site is devoted to an overall schematic of the key steps to implement the Amendment. Federal government, conglomerate media and many special interests will generally oppose it. Therefore, the Amendment campaign must initially rely on the Internet, whose content the media does not control. Self-initiated support must come from citizens, public interest organizations, blogs, promoting web sites and concurring politicians at all levels of government.

The issue has reached the 2008 presidential race. One candidate, Senator Mike Gravel, proposes a meaningful plan to limit congressional excesses—the National Initiative for Democracy (NI4D). NI4D has much in common with this plan, though there are several fundamental differences. Other presidential candidates realize that the people are serious about forcing Congress to change its ways but avoid confronting the issue of nationwide initiatives. Later, as congressional campaigns gather momentum, the issue will increase in importance but we can expect almost all congressional candidates to finesse it. Some state candidates, on the other hand, may decide that change is overdue and come out in favor.

Ultimately, the amendment campaign must focus on gaining support of state legislators. Realistically, the public debate will begin in earnest only after the first state legislature places a state referendum on their state ballot asking the people in their state if they support a U.S. Citizens' Initiatives Amendment. Their vote will probably reflect the polls—for each one against there are three in favor.

As the peoples' frustration with Congress reaches a tipping point and the States decide to limit federal encroachments, this adjustment to our system of constitutional checks and balances is probably inevitable. A hundred years ago, our ancestors introduced state initiatives to limit big business excesses in state government. Today, we must use nationwide initiatives to limit federal government excesses.