If Democrats ever attain full control of the government again...go full DEFCON
*This was a post in another thread but I was encouraged to make it a full OP myself. I've re-edited it.
...If they ever get all three branches. I'm not saying they will this time, but hey, if enough traditional Republicans stay home, even though now they react positively towards Trump in polls, and/or Trump does some really really stupid shit in the months before the election in a desperate move, who knows? Democrats better be prepared for that. And I hope they say "screw bipartisanship" and first thing, rubber stamp all the 200+ bills that Democrats have already put into the inbox for the Senate. Raising the minimum wage, and enacting stricter gun background checks, dreamer legislation, to name a few that would be done quickly.
That would only be the beginning. Create a new "fairness act" requiring any network or radio station be held accountable for propagating lies. That or be forced to not use the word "news" for their network. And that also would include large social media platforms that distribute political ads like FaceBook. And that radio daytime political talk should be balanced.
Then go after gerrymandering all across the country. Make it a federal oversight.
Make federal elections.....actually have federal oversight. Paper ballots unless it can be proven that a machine cannot be hacked, and that there are paper trails.
Start to form the initial stages of transforming the medical system into a single payer funded system. Whether its a more gradual method or not.
I'd go further even. Pass new legislation and a law that would eliminate the earlier Citizen's United legislation. So that, much like the ACA, the SCOTUS had to rule that it is new law, no matter how conservative they were. And work to make federal elections publicly funded. Which would also by its nature eliminate CU. Also require networks to provide for free equal time for both parties. These networks are privileged to occupy the "public airwaves" to make their billions. They should be required to give back to their country by providing free air time for candidates, as is the case in many western democracies, to debate or give equal time statements. So at least that does not have to come out of the public funding. Only advertisements.
And then appoint two more supreme court judges. Nothing in the constitution saying you can't.
This perhaps should be done first. Make everything else easier. And all we'd be doing is evening up the two they stole from us.
Start looking into eliminating the Electoral College.
Oh....some will say, That's too much too soon. Bullshit. I'm sorry to admit Republicans are way ahead of us in this tactic. You KNOW Republicans will oppose anything, even the mildest gun restrictions for instance. So do what they do to us, overwhelm them with legislation. And real change.
Would there be a chance the MSM will be frothing in their talking head mouths every day? Pundits like Clapper going 180 for instance? Yes. But the plan would be to be able to introduce Americans to the possibilities. To also show that they are not the "do nothing Democrats". Love what they do or not.
Might this make any 3 branch Democratic administration a one term admin? Especially if the "normal" MSM also piles on with Fox News? Maybe. But we should be playing a long game. We must stop our shortsightedness. The idea is to get these accomplishments either done or started, and catapult them into the national discourse, from then on. Make them real. Even if for a moment. Because that might be all we need in comparison to any next Republican majority when it tries to take those advancements away from folks.
Personally I think it would galvanize our side. It would garner more voters for us because they'd see us do more than incremental advancements, that promptly get reversed at the next Republican administration. Such drastic changes would be difficult to overturn quickly, especially when many have gotten a taste of the pro-people bills that they were just starting to take advantage of. Dare them to take it away.
And maybe a new Republican admin would be able to reverse some, but the trick is to pass so much that even if we eventually lose some, we will come out ahead.
As one small example to make my point, the ACA and the debate on health care, exposed the ugliness of the "pre-existing condition" excuse policy. Now, its tough sledding for Republicans to pass bills that allow insurance companies to once again use that weapon against coverage for their clients. By adding that requirement to the ACA, and also children being able to use their parents insurance longer, is forcing the GOP to relent now on those issues.
In the same way, many advancements like these would only be appreciated AFTER they existed. And even if only some survived, it would be worth it. So go full DEFCON if they ever hold all 3 branches. Stop trying to not offend all the left over deplorables that wouldn't vote for them even if it were between American Democrats vs. Russian mobsters.
But I don't hold out much hope they will follow that suggestion. They are too used to the cap-in-hand method. Many clinging to the old DLC Third Way and won't be pried easily from their big donors who would be freaking out and threatening them. But that problem will also disappear once publicly funding elections is a thing.
I think Democratic voters are ready and willing to embrace radical change...to improve theirs and their children's lives. And that's why we must elect a progressive, action taker, like Sanders or Warren. I think Biden, and Hillary, and Obama's "caution" against straying too far from the status quo is a huge mistake. That's the last message folks want to hear. Because, if we do have to face Trump, or even Pence, Cruz, Mitt, if Mitch decides to cut his losses, they will run on defending Trump's legacy and "accomplishments". We need our own big ideas to counter.
We need more than...."Vote for us and we will slowly start to chip away at what Trump has done, making sure to have bi-partisan support all the way, and maybe, just maybe, we will be back to where we were in 2016", minus the SCOTUS of course. Have courage to take a leap, instead of a cautious shuffle. Voters will not come out for that!
Campaign finance reform and Super Pacs would be covered hopefully after establishing public financing. Which would include a limit on third party donation amounts, and require public knowledge of who big donors are.
Increasing SCOTUS to overturn CU will remove the present SCOTUS' 5-man crew's NEXT step, which would have been to give corporations the right to vote, since voting has been ruled a form of speech.
Overturn CU, and THEN no corporate lobbying or campaigning as "speech" can disrupt or corrupt the rest of your great to-do list. Bad laws then won't take so long to reverse, and just laws will better spend our tax dollars.
Overturn CU, and laws will get passed in the interests of humans, passed on the merits, not passed to serve the corporate welfare class.
As those human-oriented laws are passed, accompanying them will be tougher laws passed to both monitor and enforce corporate compliance with penalties that record the legal "fault," -- actual regulations laws from Congress, and not rescindable policies from cabinet departments.
No more "free market corporate capture of government" or anything else. The rest will justly come.
Full DEF CON, indeed!
We will hold these truths to be self evident: all humans -- not artificial entities -- are created equal.
... the public behind them nothing will have to happen.
There's no sanctity of vote right now because of objective proven Republican voter suppression.
Artificial "speech" is hegemonic in running these elections, manipulating humans, and it must be stopped.
Humans must be represented in all governance and artificial entities controlled by that governance, not the other way around.
I know I called for that in my OP, and it would still be important for a number of issues.
But barring that drastic move, why couldn't a three-branch Democratic government simply change the laws? I'm not intimately familiar with CU and the legal status it rides on. But just find the legal pin to pull out, like a bill declaring corporations are NOT people. Or that for nationals security, large dark money contributions will not be allowed. They have that power to actually change the law don't they?
And then the SCOTUS would be compelled to not support it as law either. They follow the legislative branch, not the other way around. Isn't that right?
Last edited Fri Dec 13, 2019, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)
process outside of SCOTUS, the law could change for about a minute.
Then after all the congressional time spent, it would just be attacked immediately by corporate groups and wend its way to SCOTUS anyway.
I don't know if I have a good legal parallel here (probably not), but RBG had to look for just the right, tight test cases to shut down 100 years of gender discrimination against women. The same might hold for corporations' empowerment through the courts.
Because without courts actually pronouncing that "corporations are NOT people, my friend", corporations have still been treated as personhoods that get constitutional protections dating back to the Pacific Railroad case that first invoked the 14th Amendment protections, along with other corporation v human interest cases since then. Corps have always, always been the Goliaths to the human Davids, when it came to winning cases that they persisted on fighting across generations.
Either way, SCOTUS has to rule on it. I like the shortest way, which is probably by a major org that argues a series of cases that challenge any legislative decision for or against corporate personhood before the court.
CU is unlikely to be reversed with the current SCOTUS composition -- certainly not by a 'bought' congress, either -- which is why I say that Dems must push for a SCOTUS seat increase first.
All the other changes on your list can be legislated, too, but when corporations lobby against those bills, we usually lose. Just sayin'.
And don't forget the lower courts. Plenty that should not be on the bench.
And while we are at it judges should not get lifetime pension based on their last salary. I was surprised to see this. And judges on senior status should be be paid full salary when their work load is less than full status.