New Rules To "Discourage and Restrain"

 New Rules To "Discourage and Restrain" 

If you have followed this blog you know that my focus has been on the dysfunctionality of the United States Congress; a critical element in the three-pronged governance structure of American democracy as established in the Constitution. It has been my contention that Congress sets and controls the tone for our political discourse. ​O​f course the President is a key contributor, however, a rationally functioning Congress has the power through its "checks & balances" and oversight responsibilities to correct or override a bad acting President.

No matter who's President, little if anything good gets accomplished as long as Congressional gridlock and dysfunction persist. T​he survival of the Trump Party ​will be tested in November, but we must remember the gridlock and dysfunction that was present before Trump will not magically disappear. The country will still be divided after Trump and it will take many years for our political system to evolve with the ever changing demographics of the country.

Congress receives extensive media attention and the general public is constantly exposed to the various characters that represent the public and their behaviors. In fact, a recent poll confirms that, "Most Americans think divisiveness is driven from the top down, by leaders, and not driven by the public itself" [https://tinyurl.com/y4kehpea]. In a deeply divided nation, with the political power oscillating narrowly between the parties and chambers, the extreme ends of both parties have had the loudest voice and perpetuated rhetoric that has become increasingly contentious, disrespectful and polarizing. 

Congress is the mechanism that is supposed to provide a “check and balance” on our political direction. Congress -- the House of Representatives and the United States Senate; both Democrats and Republicans -- have so misused and distorted their responsibilities that the nation is now left without the ability to make even basic decisions or provide the oversight necessary for the survival of our country and the democracy itself [https://tinyurl.com/wsmq55o].

The Founders warned us some 240 years ago [https://tinyurl.com/y27gaj3g], and were seriously worried whether the democracy could withstand the relentless influence and power of political parties. They used terms such as "evil" and indicated that the instincts, the "spirit of party" were "inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind." They said the turbulence of those passions in party disputes were so strong that party victory would be more important than truth or right itself. Their predictions have now become the new reality of American government.

Somehow, despite the overwhelming passions for party and political power the nation has survived over the years. But like a slow motion train wreck it has degenerated to its current state of near total dysfunction.  While the Founders were prophetic in their warnings and vision of possible failure of the democracy they were crafting, they ultimately granted too much power and authority to the very political parties that they feared.

In what maybe one of the most insightful visions into the future ever, George Washington warned in this farewell address in 1796: 

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. . ."

​Unfortunately​, the Founders did not include in the Constitution a mechanism that would "discourage and restrain" the behaviors​ and practices of political parties which they feared the most.​ Instead, in a serious error of judgement, counter to their own inclinations, they made the faulty assumption that Congress would act in the best interest of the country and citizens. They simply said in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution that, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”  

[See, Constitution Annotated for Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: Rule of Proceedings for legal interpretations and citations https://tinyurl.com/y6jnqt7q] ​

So the dysfunctional, tribalistic gridlock that we find ourselves in today is really self-imposed and is the product of years of political maneuvering, manipulation and tweaking of the rules of operation. ​As citizens we want, need and deserve better. Congress, in general, is not responsive to the wishes of large majorities of the population (e.g. gun control, health care, witnesses in the impeachment trial​, policing reforms, mail voting, additional economic stimulus, wearing masks, child care, restrictions on lobbying,​ etc.). 

​"Nearly 75 percent of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, think there is more common ground among the public than the media and politicians portray, according to a Public Agenda report​, Divisiveness and Collaboration in American Public Life [https://tinyurl.com/y4kehpea​].​​ The report on polling conducted one year ago indicates that, "Americans also view political leadership as a central factor that exacerbates divisiveness — and that could help to reduce it.​ [and express]  ​. . .​a powerful yearning from Americans across all party lines for a more collaborative brand of politics that moves the country forward.​"​

​Interestingly, the report also indicates that, "Both Republicans and Democrats indicate that they could imagine finding common ground with about half of people who identify with the opposing party. Republicans and Democrats also see about a quarter of those in their own parties as so extreme they could not imagine finding common ground with them.​"​

​

Congress has proven time and again that it is not capable of determining its ​own ​"Rules of Proceedings" for the good of the country​.​ ​Instead the rules are twisted and designed to benefit ​the party in power​, preserve the party structure and discourage alternatives. ​A new Constitutional Amendment offers a great opportunity to correct this serious oversight of the Founders which is the cause of much of the gridlock and dysfunction of the Congressional system. A new Amendment MUST include some basic ground rules of operation that ​could only be amended with​,​ for example​,​ a ​three quarters (​3/4 ​) ​vote​ of the House or Senate or both, depending on the specific rule​.

Obviously a new Amendment cannot include all of the details of a system of new "rules of proceeding" but it can mandate a process for creating such rules and defining how they relate to the Constitutional requirements of Article I, Section 5. To translate this concept into proposed Constitutional amendment language I would offer as a starting point something like the following:

Proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

 "Section __. There is established in the legislative branch an independent, National Commission On Congressional Rules, whose purpose shall be to review, revise, amend and establish baseline rules of proceedings for the U.S. House and Senate to fulfill the requirements of Article I, Section 5. The Commission shall establish rules of proceedings designed to establish rational, unbiased decision making and to encourage true bipartisanship in fulfilling the Congressional responsibilities in developing legislation, conducting Executive branch oversight and exercising its review and approval functions. Congress shall enact enabling legislation for the establishment of the Commission."

[Note: As a possible model for new enabling legislation for establishment of the Commission I would suggest similar language as the 9-11 Commission legislation, a 10-member bipartisan commission of prominent US citizens, with national recognition and significant depth of experience in such pertinent professions. 
[Title VI i.e. https://tinyurl.com/y6nooym4]

Because it is doubtful that a sitting Congress would propose such an amendment, it may be necessary to pursue a strategy authorized by the Constitution involving a convention where two-thirds (2/3) or 34 of the 50 states make an application for Congress to establish a constitutional convention in order to propose amendments. Amendments would then need to be ratified by either individual state conventions or by individual state legislatures with a three-quarters (3/4) vote. This method has never been utilized and it is noted that the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions [https://tinyurl.com/yxl7wbs5].

Whether it would be proposed by the Congress or by at least 34 states, such an amendment would require a nationwide movement similar to the Amendment 28 movement being conducted by the organization American Promise to restore a democracy in which we the people — not big money, not corporations, not unions, not special interests — govern ourselves [https://tinyurl.com/y27ygahj]. In a previous post I have provided a list of organizations and groups that would be capable of organizing and conducting such a movement [https://tinyurl.com/y5qb35ge].

If such a National Commission On Congressional Rules could be established with Constitutional authority it would be able to establish any number of new and revised rules to achieve more rational Congressional operations designed to reflect the best interest of the country as a  whole. In many previous posting I have advocated and provided details on a system of Shared Legislative Power (SLP), however, in this posting I am not strictly advocating SLP but merely suggesting a few specific rule revisions that I believe would force Congress to act in a truly bipartisan manner that would lead to much improved decision making.

Also as an inspiration and validation that Congress can function in a more civil, professional and responsible manner I offer the testimonials from Democratic and Republican representatives in Michigan that actually experienced participation in a Shared Power Arrangement. Their comments give us hope and a vision for a better future for our country. [See: https://tinyurl.com/ycq4xz22]

Starter List of basic ground rules for a more balanced and functional Congress: (Yes, there would be deadlock at times, but there would also be incentives to reach a real compromise. Compare it to the system we have now that simply cannot make a rational decision.)

1. "Regular Order" - Strict compliance with Regular Order all legislative measures must be assigned to a committee and go through the committee process before a Floor vote can be considered.  Debate and amendments may be considered with all amendments and final passage requiring Two-Thirds (66.7%) approval. 

2. Nonpartisan Staff - All Committees shall include combined, unbiased politically neutral staff similar to existing requirements of the House and Senate Ethics Committees, e.g. "a professional, nonpartisan staff...  perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner...  shall [not] engage in any partisan political activity..."   

3. Proportional Membership - Committee membership makeup proportioned to overall chamber majority v. minority

Example: assume Senate split 53-47 so 53/100 = 0.53 so a 20 member committee divided 20 x .53 = 10.6 round to 11. Committee makeup would 11-9. If Senate majority was 60-40; Makeup would be: 12-8. If Senate majority was 51-49; Makeup would be: 10-10

4. Approval Votes -All subcommittee and committee votes require 75% approval. e.g. 20 member committee requires 15 votes to approve.

5. Co-Chairmanships - All Oversight committees, Special Committees, Approval Committees (Advise & Consent, Treaties, etc.) require Co-Chairmanship with equal powers and combined, unbiased, politically neutral staff. Committee membership remains proportioned, but Co-Chairmanship and neutral staff will prevent political grandstanding and political theater with regard to critically important oversight responsibilities

6. Conflicting Rules - Eliminate extraneous rules that would interfere with this process.. e.g. filibuster, holds, Hastert, etc.

7. Petition For Action - To avoid leadership simply refusing to act as a means to delay or avoid critical issues (e.g. refusing to act on SCOTUS approval, stimulus, etc.) a Petition for Action may be submitted by 10% of the total chamber membership and which must be brought to the Floor for a vote and requiring a simple majority for approval. This would require members to be on record with a vote and combined with other changes (e.g. #5 & #1 above) will provide a transparent process to force action on critical issues and put members on the record.

8. Elevate Importance of Bill Cosponsorship - Devise a system that recognizes the total numbers of members and the degree of bipartisanship for each legislative proposal that will be used to determine the priorities for legislative action. This will put more responsibility on individual members to seek support for their ideas and reward individual and cosponsoring members that can develop priority legislation for action.  

9. Eliminate or Revise The Electoral College Process - As an added consideration to the effort to amend Congressional rules, the National Commission should also seriously debate the Electoral College process and consider elimination or revisions similar to the National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative which makes the national popular vote relevant. 

Democracy On The Brink

Democracy On The Brink
 

Epilogue #1: COMPROMISE v. NO COMPROMISE​ (2/7/20 below)

Epilogue #2: A Constitutional Intervention Movement (9/29/20 below)

As I have written before [https://tinyurl.com/wsmq55o], it is my belief that Congress is at the core of the tribalism and discord within American politics. Congress sets the tone for our political discourse. Congress is the mechanism that is supposed to provide a “check and balance” on our political direction. Therefore, in an attempt to bring reason, common sense and civility back to the country we need to focus on Congress.

We are now at a critical point in the election year of 2020 where literally the future of democracy is at stake. The major issues of the day are important battles, but without a workable democracy we have lost the war.

The solution to Congressional dysfunction is actually pretty simple. The conundrum is how to implement it. The solution to achieving effective legislation and meaningful executive oversight is tedious research, reliance on sound facts, public/expert input, serious discussion, debate and finally compromise. Compromise is the solution.

[Note: I know the term "compromise" is a dirty word in many circles. At a time when the entire Republican delegation in Congress (less one) has refused to publicly recognize the outlandish, abhorrent and criminal behavior of the sitting President, it is difficult for me to discuss the concept of compromise. Yet I must. I don't believe the population at large is reflected in the current crop of contaminated Republican House and Senate members now in Congress. I believe this country was built on the concept of compromise and if it is to survive it must find its way back to tolerance and compromise. There is no other choice if we are to remain a United country.]

George Washington experienced this same frustration in 1785 when he said, "We are either a United people or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation... If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it."

The Constitution which we now hold in high acclaim is a compromised document. In its original form it included major compromises on the issues of slavery, executive power and state v. federal control. It was almost not approved. It was thought to flawed by some of its most ardent promoters, and it was ultimately ratified by a very narrow margin. In the end great leaders came together and proposed and accepted various compromises to form a document that would be acceptable to the majority.

The Founders were actually very liberal in their direction and guidance on how Congress should conduct its mandated responsibilities. They simply said,  “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” (Article 1, Section 5). So the dysfunctional, tribalistic gridlock that we find ourselves in today is really self-imposed and is the product of years of political maneuvering, manipulation and tweaking of the rules of operation. It's not rocket science. Congress makes the rules and Congress can change the rules.

Therein lies the rub -- changing the rules. If the solution to good, effective government is compromise the rules can be changed to require real bipartisanship and force compromise. However, this would require the two major political parties to relinquish some power and control -- an action which they currently relentlessly resist in favor of party over country. The fact, which was overlooked by the Founders, is that it appears that Congress is not capable of determining its "rules of its proceedings" to the benefit of the country as a whole -- only to benefit the party in control at any particular point in time. The result has been the development of a twisted, gnarly mess of rules and procedures laced with loopholes and tricks that generally benefit the party in power. Revenge politics has also resulted in the evolution of defacto rules whereby if your party has manipulated the rules or procedures to its benefit; it is now common practice for my party to do the same.

While the Founders were apparently confounded as to a solution they were aware of the destructive nature of political parties and warned us 240 years ago. John Adams, the man who would become our second President, warned in 1780:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil. . ."

Yet along with the warning, they did give us the tools to address the "evil" by granting Congress the power create its own rules of operation. The problem is how do you force the majority Party at any given time to change its rules when they have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are so they can maintain their power and control.  Congress must integrate the concept of fair and good faith compromise into the "rules of its proceedings". 

Bipartisan compromise is not one or two members of the minority party supporting a measure developed and totally controlled by the majority party. Bipartisan compromise is a process that begins with a level playing field and equal representation of the parties.

It's important to recognize that whenever Congress attempts to seriously investigate itself which it has many times over the years, it appoints a committee comprised of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats and stipulates that any recommendations must be approved by a majority and in some cases a supermajority. It also usually assigns neutral, unbiased staff or outside experts or consultants to do investigations and research as necessary. In many cases the committee will also hold hearings and comment periods to receive information, ideas and recommendations. Such is the case with the latest effort of the House of Representatives in its formation and the activities of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. Several recommendations from that on-going committee, approved by a unanimous vote, have now been introduced in the form of legislation to be considered by the full House.

[See: https://tinyurl.com/sffqwzg]

Congressional members specifically choose this process to lend credibility, substance and impartiality to their conclusions and recommendations. One has to ask, if this is the way we get credible, substantive and impartial results, why don't we utilize this process to develop legislation and conduct executive oversight? This process could be required by Congressional rules.

Instead, Congressional members have chosen a process that provides absolute control to the party that has the most elected members, no matter how narrow the margin. The results are predictable and unacceptable -- sham executive oversight, gridlock and unsustainable, one-party solutions to complex problems that will be overturned with the next change of the legislative majority -- It's insane! A legislative process designed to be unworkable and produce flawed results that will be unacceptable to roughly half of the country.

Yes, one party may have more members than the other and have overall control of legislative priorities, the flow of legislation through the Chamber and various administrative matters; however, we cannot continue to sacrifice good governance and leave the country vulnerable to a lack of needed legislation and oversight for an egregiously flawed system that we know is going to produce unacceptable results. Results that will be unacceptable to a huge portion of the population and guarantee uncertainty for all business operations and the populace because of the political roller coaster of elections and the ever changing balance of power.

Amended Congressional rules, requiring committees to have equal representation from each party, unbiased staff support, and strict compliance with so-called “regular order” could be game-changing. It would require equal, fair, comprehensive expert testimony, media scrutiny and extensive public input and transparency and would force bipartisan legislation and oversight based on research, investigation, agreed to facts & data, and diverse public input and scrutiny. By the time legislation advanced to a floor vote there would be a broad bipartisan coalition of legislators, experts, interest groups and the public to force a positive outcome. Likewise, executive oversight would be fair, balanced and meaningful and not utilized for political theater and harassment of political foes.

Yes, it would be difficult and it is a substantial departure from existing party power politics. But, compare it to what we have now! There would be temporary deadlocks, but eventually compromises would be reached and acceptable solutions would be found. As a country we must ask, "What is our goal?" Do we want to govern for half of the country or are we really the "United States" (and people) of America. If it is the former, we should be considering concepts of secession, dissolution and reorganization. If it is the latter we need amend our Congressional rules.

The fact that Congress cannot effectively deal with the most pressing issues of our time -- infrastructure, health care, immigration, climate change, entitlements, income inequality, international trade, civil & human rights, etc. -- is at the core of the public's unrest with the political chaos and tribalism that exists. Additionally, objective, unbiased and critical executive oversight is not possible under existing rules. It’s time to force Congress to change the rules and truly put “Country Over Party.”

Our country is struggling now just as it was some 240 years ago when a small group of concerned patriots saw the need for a major change in the government structure. They took on the nearly impossible challenge of moving the country from the Articles of Confederation to a new Constitution of the United States.

It takes leadership to effectuate change and we are on the brink of electing the next leader. To force the changes that are necessary, a knowledgeable, inspired, patriotic statesman-like leader in the Oval Office could use the power of the bully pulpit to unite the country and the powers that are needed to force such a change.

Pray or seriously hope for leadership to emerge.

Epilogue #1: COMPROMISE v. NO COMPROMISE​

For those that argue that you cannot work with or compromise with Republicans and Trumpers who are on the wrong side of history; I understand and struggle with the concept myself. But I ask; what is the choice? As I mention in this posting, what is the alternative? Revolution, civil war, secession, dissolution, reorganization, governmental collapse via impasse or simply transformation to autocracy? I guess those are alternatives, but not if the goal is to save democracy in the "United" States and preserving the Constitution and the rule of law. Yes, I believe we have severely veered off course and I don't claim to understand how virtually half of Congressional members can support the disgusting, odious, egregious and criminal behavior of the current President.  We are talking about stark, contrasting views of the two political parties of the country and a nearly equal divide among the populace. 

It's important to remember that we have reached this point of nearly irreconcilable​ ​differences because we did not compromise. And I mean real compromise; real bipartisanship as discussed above. We allowed the cancer of tribalism to go untreated and allowed it to metastasize throughout the fabric of our governmental structures. 

Ironically, the level of vitriol and rancor between Republicans and Democrats ​is not new and ​currently, takes on a similar intensity ​as ​that ​which ​existed between Federalist (supporting the Constitution) and Antifederalist (opposing) during the period following the Constitutional Convention and prior to its ratification (Sep. 1787- Jun. 1788). ​Then as now the future of a bitterly divided country was at stake.​ Compromise ultimately saved the day.  Can it do it again? ​

For the last 30 years the country has dealt with an erratic, oscillating shift in political power characterized by changing Republican and Democratic control of the presidency, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Since the turn of the century the majority power of the House and Senate shifted frequently​ but the majority numbers were never more than 18% and were almost always less than 10%. In the House a Party advantage of 43 votes or less generally determined majority power control and in the Senate a 10 members or less resulted in a Party control advantage. The point is, in this nearly equally divided country a very small percentage advantage in the House or Senate establishes total control of that branch of Congress. Under existing House and Senate rules the Party with the most number of members (no matter how small the difference) has total control of all committees and can completely set the agenda and overrule any opposition of the minority Party.

As I have written so many times before, with the country so deeply divided and the margins of political power control so small, there will never be real legislative bipartisanship as long as one party controls all legislative committees. Equal membership on committees and strict compliance with regular order would force compromise and unbiased oversight​ [https://tinyurl.com/vnwpfoo​]​​.  

​
T​he survival of the Trump Party ​will be tested in November, but we must remember the gridlock and dysfunction that was present before Trump, and we must realize the country will still be divided after Trump and it will take many years for our political system to evolve with the ever changing demographics of the country. 

As a reminder of our divisions, the continuous nature of our differences and the fact that some things never change, remember ​the quote above from John Adams 240 years ago ​when ​when he referred to the Political parties as the "greatest political evil under our Constitution.”​ As ​I discussed in a previous post many of the Founders warned us about the issues of political party power and their potentially dangerous and destructive nature, but admitted that the spirit of our beliefs are inseparable from our nature​ as a people [See: https://tinyurl.com/tynk4t4].  

If it is our desire to continue our democratic republic and keep our Constitution viable we must learn to live with these intense differences within the populace and within our political parties. We have been neglectful in addressing this issue and have now let it evolve on its own to a critical juncture​. If we cannot see or understand ​that the current system is not working after being repeatedly reminded -- we are blind and there is no hope; we will simply self-destruct in a matter of time. Otherwise, we can open our eyes and make the changes that are needed -- not minor tweaks -- major Congressional rule changes that force legitimate compromise.

I have offered a solution which has had some limited tests with positive results. I seriously invite readers to read the testimonials from Democratic and Republican representatives that have actually experienced participation in a shared power arrangement. I think you will find it remarkable [See: https://tinyurl.com/ycq4xz22]. 

There is never a good time to implement the politically sensitive changes that are necessary, but we are at the crisis stage -- the bubble is about to burst. Changes must be made if we are to save our democracy. There are other​ alternative solutions​ and refinements, ​I'm sure. ​However, i​t is my belief that new Congressional rules must have at the core the principle of compromise and equal representation of the parties no matter who holds the narrow numbers lead.

Epilogue #2: A Constitutional Intervention Movement

 

Our democracy was in serious trouble when I originally wrote this posting on February 7, 2020. I warned then, "the bubble is about to burst. Changes must be made if we are to save our democracy."

In the last eight months over 200,000 members of the American public have died and that number may double in the not too distant future. We are spending trillions to deal with the coronavirus and we'll spend trillions more. Small businesses are failing at an unprecedented rate; wildfires, hurricanes and erratic weather are ravaging our country; a divided population in rage is protesting, rioting and even killing on the streets of our cities; trust in government, elections, science and medical information has been shattered. 

We are now faced with a President and millions of followers that claim a peaceful assumption of power in the aftermath of the upcoming election is only possible if the President wins. There is actually a legal and constitutionally plausible path to keeping a non-elected President in power (https://tinyurl.com/yycgqxcd). And finally, even in the face of catastrophic events and issues demanding extreme and urgent action, we have a Congress that is totally incapable of making a rational decision for the good of the country -- only politically expedient decisions are possible like blatantly hypocritical appointments to the Supreme Court.

Rational thinking is the ability to consider the relevant variables of a situation and to access, organize, and analyze relevant information (e.g., facts, opinions, judgments, and data) to arrive at a sound conclusion.

As a nation we have already transitioned beyond democracy. Our government is now operating in a quasi-autocratic mode where decisions are made by Executive Order while a deadlocked and dysfunctional Congress only observes. We must also be reminded that the upcoming election is not the solution. The country was divided and locked in a dysfunctional quagmire before the current President and will continue to be confronted with the same insane patterns of dysfunction even if one party dominates the Executive and Congressional branches. 

We have witnessed over and over again that ideological overreach in one-party decision making is soon rejected by the voters in the next election and reversed or blocked by a new party in power. The constant repeating of this insane pattern has degenerated our government to its current state of dysfunction. How many times will we continue on this path before we change? 

Without a serious, nationwide Intervention led by experienced, rational, objective, bipartisan individuals, organizations and universities our democracy will be lost. We are exceedingly close to the ultimate failure of the great American experiment. Congress has proven time and again it is not capable of addressing the issues or correcting itself. The Intervention Movement must be on the order of developing An Agenda For Constitutional or Institutional Reform. 

There are hundreds of organizations; thousands of staffers; and billions in financial resources already committed to related matters that could be united and focused on such an effort. It takes leadership, concern and commitment; but it is possible. I would suggest starting here: https://tinyurl.com/y5qb35ge.

It's time we must stop talking about Constitutional Crises and start talking about Constitutional Solutions.

Insanity Defined

Insanity Defined

No matter who's President, nothing gets done as long as Congressional gridlock and dysfunction persist. 

We cannot keep ignoring major issues, conducting sham executive oversight, or trying to develop unsustainable, one-party solutions to complex problems that will be overturned with the next change of power -- It's insane! Solutions exist. Legislators must be forced into real bipartisanship.

There will never be real legislative bipartisanship as long as one party controls all legislative committees. Equal membership on committees and strict compliance with so-called “regular order” would force compromise and unbiased oversight. 

Amended Congressional rules, requiring an equal number of members from each party, could result in forcing bipartisan legislation based on research, investigation, agreed to facts ​& data, unbiased staff analysis, equal, fair, comprehensive expert testimony, media scrutiny and extensive public input and transparency. By the time legislation advanced to a floor vote there would be a broad bipartisan coalition of legislators, experts, interest groups and the public to force a positive outcome.

Yes, it would be difficult. There would be temporary deadlocks, but eventual compromises would be reached. Compare it to what we have now!

The fact that Congress cannot effectively deal with the most pressing issues of our time -- infrastructure, health care, immigration, climate change, entitlements, etc. -- is at the core of the public's unrest with the political chaos and tribalism that exists. Additionally, objective, unbiased executive oversight is not possible under existing rules.

It’s time to force Congress to change the rules and truly put “Country Over Party.”

For additional information see my blog post.

https://t.co/s4AMQ1nAO5

See testimonials from Republicans & Democrats that have actually experienced Shared Legislative Power: 
https://tinyurl.com/y4eeg5z2

There is now a proven model process for bipartisanship; it only requires a willingness to end gridlock.

See the December 11, 2019, Update on the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress https://tinyurl.com/sffqwzg

Draft Impeachment Resolution DJT

Draft Impeachment Resolution DJT

[Please note this is not an official document, but is simply a hypothetical example]

As most persons are aware, the procedure for removal of a President is included in the U.S. Constitution and was envisioned by the Framers as a check against an out of control President that could represent a threat to the security and institution of the country and its people. The process contains two parts: the approval of the articles of impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives; followed by a trial and conviction or acquittal in the U.S. Senate. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution grants to the House of Representatives "the sole power of impeachment", and Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 grants to the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments". Actual removal requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

​Article II, ​Section. 4​ set out the standard for impeachment, saying: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or ​"​other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.​" 

According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation​ (CRF)​, a​ ​high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. 

The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt​. . .The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes​. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

Constitutional scholars have generally agreed that not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office. Impeaching a president overturns an election and therefore a president should be impeached only for “serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government,” or for “such crimes as would so stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public order.” [from CRF and Charles L. Black's book, "Impeachment: A Handbook", https://tinyurl.com/ldeg7qh]

The Constitutional Center indicates that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, indicated the “constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” Thus, the Center says, "In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. . . the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate." [see https://tinyurl.com/y3g7zyme]

What I find disturbing is that the Democrats who currently control the U.S. House of Representatives seem so hesitant and reluctant to initiate the impeachment process despite the enormity of evidence in existence regrading the gross malfeasance of Donald J. Trump. Further, the Democratic leadership seems to be insistent that more and more evidence and facts are needed to move forward with the impeachment process. Additionally, House Democrats and the news media in general seem to be creating a popular impression that the impeachment process is incredibly complex and would be extremely time consuming, requiring months and months of further investigations and hearings.

In fact, Bill Clinton's impeachment resolution was introduced and narrowly passed within three (3) days. Yes, the actual proceedings took a few weeks but the House Judiciary Committee did not conduct further investigations of its own and basically accepted findings included in Special Prosecutor Ken Starr's report of his already completed extensive investigation. A situation that very nearly mirrors the recent completion of the Robert Mueller investigation.

With all of the above in mind, and the evidence and information currently in existence, I have taken the liberty to provide a first draft of an impeachment resolution for Donald J. Trump (based on the impeachment resolution for Bill Clinton). I would maintain that the resolution could be finalized and the notations of "attached details" could be quickly assembled with extensive documentation under each identified charge. Even allowing for the entire month of June to complete the resolution and supplemental materials, I am suggesting that the package be introduced and passed by the U.S. House of Representatives with an effective date of July 4, 2019. The resolution and articles of impeachment would then move to the U.S. Senate under the control of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for a trial if initiated by Senator McConnell. If a trial were to proceed, all Senators would be on record with a vote on the resolution. There is not a specific Constitutional requirement that the Senate conduct a trial or do so within any specific time limit following a House impeachment vote. [see: https://tinyurl.com/y84eb5ym]

Articles of Impeachment Against ​Donald J. Trump 

   (House Resolution ​xxx, One Hundred ​Sixteenth (116) Congress)

                    CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

                   July 4, ​2019.

           RESOLUTION

      Resolved, That ​Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States 
Senate:

      Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against ​Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

                               ​                        

ARTICLE I

      In his conduct while President of the United States, ​Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the 
best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice​ and jeopardizing the security, safety and well being of the United State:

      ​As summarized below and detailed in extensive attached information, Donald J. Trump, throughout the time of his Presidency, has repeatedly failed to uphold his oath of office and has on thousands of incidents failed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ​to the people of the United States of America and our friends and allies abroad. Contrary to that oath, ​Donald J. Trump ​has​ willfully provided, ​and encouraged others to provide ​false and misleading testimony ​and information to the American public, Members and Committees of Congress, and various foreign governments.

      In ​conducting these actions ​Donald J. Trump has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the ​Constitution and the ​people of the United States.

      Wherefore, ​Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United 
States.

ARTICLE II

      In his conduct while President of the United States, ​Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the 
best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence​,​ testimony ​and information ​related to ​his alleged illegal activities and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

      The means used to implement this course of conduct ​and/​or scheme​(s) ​included one or more of the following ​23 listed and documented ​acts​ presented here in no particular order​:

1. 10 counts of alleged obstruction of justice included in the Mueller report [see attached details] (Note: Various obstruction charges would be subject to indictment were it not for the DOJ policy regarding indictment of a sitting President and the current AG's stance in support of that policy. (https://tinyurl.com/yy9pulz9)

2. 1,000+ [6/4/19] former federal prosecutors serving under both Republican and Democratic administrations confirming obstruction [details https://tinyurl.com/yy9pulz9]

3. Repeated and persistent lies to the American Public; most notably the Trump Tower Moscow deal, who would pay for proposed Mexican wall, and the results of the Mueller report [see attached details]

4. No separation of business and financial dealings from government business; emolument clause violations [see attached details]

5. Investigations and retribution against political enemies [see attached details]

6. Refusing to honor subpoenas and requests for information (RFIs) from Congress [see attached details]

7. Ordering & requesting administration staffers to commit crimes [see attached details]

8. Violating norms of protocols regarding communications between WH and DOJ/AG [see attached details]

9. Lying on Airforce 1 about Trump Tower meeting with Russians [see attached details]

10. Overseeing as Commander in Chief, false speculation about Iran escalating war efforts [see attached details]

11. Refusing, in direct violation of laws, to turn over tax returns to Congressional committee [see attached details]

12. Violating norms of protocol in terms of Presidential signals on stock market movements, i.e. gains and losses; especially considering personal, family benefit [see attached details]

13. Selective approvals (despite recommendations to the contrary) and disapproval of National Security Clearances for friends, family and political enemies [see attached details]

14. Accepting Putin assurances over National Security experts advice regarding election interference [see attached details]

15. Persistent strategy and actions designed to heighten divisiveness in the U.S. population [see attached details]

16. Advocating and insisting for a Mexican wall contrary to best alternative recommendation [see attached details]

17. Significant violations of law, norms and protocols in dealing with the Mexican and Central America immigration issue [see attached details]

18. Jeopardizing national security by misuse of cell phones, email and meeting arrangements with foreign governments by him and his family [see attached details]

19. Exuding a sexist, racist and bigotry attitude; most notably with Charlottesville; comments about Mexicans and Muslims, comments about interactions with women and lies and coverups in dealings with porn stars [see attached details]

20. Witness tampering & misuse of pardon power [see attached details]

21. The issuance of Muslim bans; a series of discriminatory executive orders and proclamations [see attached details]

22. International embarrassment and misrepresentation of the United States on the International stage [see attached details]

22. Releasing classified, top secret U.S. security information to the Russian government [see attached details]

23. Failing to provide leadership in a nationwide effort to insure the security and integrity of the election infrastructure in the country in light of findings of substantial interference of Russia in the 2016 election process. [see attached details]

     In all of this, Donald J. Trump has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the Constitution and the people of the United States. Wherefore, Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: Clerk.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note On Process & Timing: Impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton were initiated following the 1998, midterm election "lame duck" session of the outgoing 105th United States Congress. Unlike the case of the 1974 impeachment process against Richard Nixon, the committee hearings were perfunctory but the floor debate in the whole House was spirited on both sides. 

Somewhat similar to the Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller investigation, in the Clinton impeachment, Special Prosecutor Ken Starr had already completed an extensive investigation, the House Judiciary Committee conducted no investigations of its own into Clinton's alleged wrongdoing, and it held no serious impeachment-related hearings before the 1998 midterm elections.

The resolution, H. Res. 611 [see: https://tinyurl.com/mva9hcq], sponsored by Rep. Henry J. Hyde [R-IL-6] was Introduced on December 16, 1998 and narrowly passed by the full House of Representatives, 3 days later on December 19, 1998. Clinton was impeached on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed including abuse of power. Clinton became the third sitting president in history against whom the House of Representatives initiated impeachment proceedings. [see: https://tinyurl.com/hfchwqs]

Additional Note: Note: Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA-30], in fact, did introduce H. RES. 13 on January 3, 2019, on impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. The resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and has one cosponsor. [see: https://tinyurl.com/ybgz9tgu]