Omnibus Constitutional Amendment
Resolved by the Congress of the United States (2/3rds of both houses concurring therein) that the following becomes an amendment to the Constitution when ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures.
Omnibus Constitutional Amendment
Clarification:
Parentheses are used to express order of operations, and where the parentheses provide information that does not have a mathematical relationship to the external words, those parentheses denote additional rules regarding the directly preceding phrases.
This amendment consists of multiple divisions which refer to themselves as “amendments” or “this article”, of which such language only refers to the information between Division markers (except where they refer to the “Omnibus Constitutional Amendment” specifically by that name). The amendments within the divisions come into effect on a staggered basis where Divisions A and I come into effect immediately after the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment is ratified by 3/4ths of the states; division B goes into effect 40 days after that; division C goes into effect 40 days after B; division D goes into effect 40 days after division C; division E goes into effect 120 days after division D; division F goes into effect 40 days after division E; Division G goes into effect 40 days after division F; Division H goes into effect 40 days after Division G.
The prohibition on long-term appropriations which undermine the uniform taxation system (things akin to "tax credits" or "tax relief" or funds that are proportional to the amount of taxes someone pays) in division B is to make sure that such can be easily gotten rid of by the people using division C to replace the Senate with themselves in referendums and petitions introducing legislation (specifically in being able to simply not pass a bill in order to get those funds to stop). The complete prohibition on using these funds to reimburse local governments who continue to impose zoning laws is to make sure that politicians in the federal government are not pressured by those in local governments to support those poor decisions, and that local governments don’t design their budgets around receiving support so as to threaten politicians in the federal government with mutually assured destruction if the money doesn’t flow (a recognition of how politics works similar to the statements in Section 9 of Division I, as opposed to how people generally think of politics working by saying “x person is allowed to either do Y or not do Y”, where in reality, institutional inertia and NIMBYs generally make things such that politicians never had real options until such a point as something really bad happens because of the Status Quo (this amendment is designed to proactively stop occurrences of that, in using institutional inertia to defeat the worst parts of institutional inertia)).
The free market determination of what monthly rent a unit of land-based property could command for the purpose of determining its value for taxes should be based first (as the floor of what that value could be) as the maximum amount of rent anyone is deriving from that part of the property, the other floor of that value (if the property is not rented out) being the amortized (over 30 years) cost of either building or buying the unit (as a fraction of the usable space in the entire building which was either bought or built by the owner) plus the amortized cost of repairs plus utility costs plus monthly mortgage interest costs; from this floor value, the theoretical rent that could be derived can thereafter be considered increased according to (as in, to a maximum derived from some combination of the following) the rent of any nearby building renting out space, or the amortized (over 30 years) cost of a new mortgage on that place or a nearby place (imagining the mortgage as having the initial payment rolled in with the other monthly payments equally), or the advertised price of renting out space inside the property, or the advertised price of renting a nearby unit (advertised prices mean the price that the owner will immediately accept if anyone offers it). The amount of tolls derived from a toll road per month on average is the “rent” for that property, and in the same way for any property where members of the public pay a fee to get into the property in the first place on a temporary basis. The owner of the property may contest the resulting valuation by requiring any of the relevant tax authorities to find someone or some entity willing to buy the property at that price (if no one is found, then the owner may widely publish a lower price for the property (which may be measured in the dollar value of things other than dollars (like a basket of consumer goods, or have the dollar value correspond to some real number multiple of the value of an inflation metric), which is the price the property must be immediately sold for the first person or entity willing to buy at that price, and otherwise becomes the value that is put into the relevant lambdas of taxation directly (skipping the rent-estimating loop metric in Division B to just have those final property tax values replace the previous values of: st_p_tx=propVal[1](propVal[0]) #state property tax; lo_p_tx=propVal[2](propVal[0]) #local property tax; fe_p_tx=propVal[3](propVal[0]) #federal property tax; respectively. However, if someone is willing to buy the property for that price, then that means 2 things: (1) the property must be sold to the first such person willing to pay in the most convenient method for the owner with the amount after any applicable fees or taxes due to that method being paid separately by the buyer, and (2) before the sale takes place, the seller must pay the difference in tax due in the last 60 days (or the number of days since the lower price was published by the seller as part of reducing the tax assessed on the property, whichever is lower) (the tax over that time being considered as pro-rated as if the tax were paid in daily increments) between the tax assessed based on the published price that the buyer was buying it for and the tax assessed based on the equations of theoretical rent that could be derived from the property (this value could be paid to the governments in question on behalf of the seller by the buyer in order to make the sale be immediately executed). The published values of properties by land owners who wish to reduce the value of their land for the purpose of taxation are always valid for any buyer for 60 days (or until the owner changes the listing, which if lower changes the sale price immediately, or if higher only takes effect after that 60 days and only if no offer is made), and anyone is allowed to republish such listings far and wide (provided they are not making any statements suggesting that money for the property should be sent anywhere other than to the actual seller), and the listings must appear on widely used internet platforms for buying property with all the information on what it is that a potential buyer is getting (unless if such platforms charge a fee for the listing greater than $1). Note: for the purpose of calculating someone’s net receipts, property taxes paid during the course of ownership of a property are considered as if they are subtracted from the sale price of the property as is the initial sale price of the property and any payments made to advertisers or realtors to bring in customers to that property; these property taxes are discluded even if the property has been rented out during that time (with the net receipts from rent necessarily discluding the cost of property taxes as per the relevant equations) (in other words, this forms an incentive to rent out property as much as possible even if the main intention is to eventually sell the property); this is also binding on any other jurisdiction that wishes to impose what is often called a “capital gains tax.”
The just compensation for the purpose of the 5th amendment (with respect to land-based property) and required for any similar taking of private property (de facto or de jure) away from the uses of that private person or entity is calculated in a similar manner as to the calculation of the property value for property tax in Division B of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment, with that calculated value forming the lower bound for calculating the compensation (the upper bound being the lower of: {what value of a 30-year mortgage (using current market interest rates and 0% down on the initial payment, and constant payments thereafter) that would correspond to the rent that could be expected to be derived when used in the maximally profitable way on the free market, or {the published price of the property by the current owner}) (a value strictly between those two (or equal to the upper bound) must be used). De facto takings includes the use of regulations on land use such that someone could not cover their entire property with houses or tents or RVs without the threat of government action being taken against them (other than government action against someone creating obviously unsanitary conditions (such as in not having a septic tank in areas without centralized sewers) or conditions opposed to the protection of human life of those humans the owner authorizes to be there); the governments imposing these restrictions have 40 days after this amendment is passed to withdraw those restrictions or to make a declaration that they are not going to take action against people violating these restrictions, otherwise they must pay the eminent domain price of whatever portion of someone’s property they are preventing from being used; the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Interior are required to withdraw enough of these restrictions within that 40 days so that those parts of the government are not required to pay out more than the amount of money Congress has specifically authorized to them to settle claims arising from this sentence; this section on takings does not cover tenant protections, nor restrictions on what type of materials may be used in building housing and other buildings (as referred to in Division B), and those restrictions will likely prevent any long-term use of tents or RVs; restrictions on removing the oldest trees on a property as a matter of preventing erosion may still be imposed provided that enough trees can be removed from a property to be able to build a suspended sufficiently large housing structure over the entire property (presumably with separate lights and watering and ventilation for the now enclosed protected trees).
Tenants preventing changes to the property they are renting do not make themselves subject to needing to pay the property tax on their unit separate from the owner (especially since the rent the tenant pays allows the owner to pay the owner’s property tax); these protections of property against government intervention do not stop governments from preventing the construction of factories or mines or buildings designed to release pollutants.
Start of subsection on takings
This subsection goes into effect 90 days after the passage of this amendment.
Property taken from a private person on account of failure to pay property taxes (where the private person has been given a couple months notice on the payment cost and no more than 10% interest (annualized percentage rate)), (or where property is given in lieu of money (or as a portion of the money) in order to pay a fine (where the government in question is required to accept the property (if it exists within the jurisdiction of that government) at a rate equal to the assessed value of the property, not exceeding the value of all relevant fines) (the owner may divide the property into convenient units that make sense relative to the structure of how the property looks, with proper rights of way to get onto the property given)), or on account of abandonment of property to avoid paying property taxes must first be sold on the free market (with enough notifications to possible buyers to maximize the amount the property could be sold for) if the government in question either has debts it can pay off (which is the first use of the money, but only if the government in question has restrictions that prevent it from immediately taking on more debt without a referendum of its jurisdiction) or does not have all the funding it would need for the next 18 months of its budget (if it’s budget were to remain at a constant monthly rate relative to the average expenditure of the last 12 months) (where allocating that money to those months at that rate is the next use of the funding). If the government in question does not have those two possible uses of money from normal sales of property, then the government in question must instead sell the property in an auction (with proper notification to as many likely buyers as possible, and with large properties divided into convenient units that can be understood by most buyers in the area) done only with people who have lived in the area under the jurisdiction of that government for the last 10 years who did not own (de jure, or de facto through a company) any housing-type property anywhere in the last 365 days and who has not (nor through a company) ever been sold or given land-based property by that government (nor it’s predecessors in that area). In the case of all such property sales under this paragraph, the resulting property is unzoned and has no deed restrictions (other than the definite limits that prevent the owner from transgressing the property of their immediate neighbors, and not violating rights of way) or use restrictions (besides in not releasing bad waste products or harmful or smelly emissions in areas with those laws, and needing to follow any laws imposing fines on vacancies and fines on the existence of parking spaces (or on having too many parking spaces)); however, the properties sold at auction exclusively to property-less 10-year residents have the restriction that the buyers cannot use any sort of mortgage or loan in order to buy the property nor can the buyers sell nor rent (except for a rental cost less than or equal to the property taxes plus government fees plus government fines associated with the property plus the 30 year amortized cost of what was paid originally for the property in light of current market interest rates on mortgages), nor take out a loan on the property for the next two years after the sale and must make that property their primary residence for those two years at least (if this means that the property gets sold for the $50 inside someone’s wallet at the time of the auction plus his silverware and jewelry, then so be it; violating these restrictions causes the property to be taken back immediately by the government that sold it).
End of subsection on takings
People stopping the development of a property nearby them through administrative means (such as by asking their local government to step in to stop the developer) can avoid becoming subject to needing to separately pay the property tax for that unit if they can show that the development of that unit of property would destroy their property (for example, the owner of an apartment directly above the apartment owned by a developer could prohibit the developer from removing or drilling his ceiling (since that action would trespass the petitioner’s floor), and similarly with the apartment below a developer stopping the developer from drilling the developer’s floor (since that action would trespass the petitioner’s ceiling), or in stopping the construction of a factory or mine or building designed to release pollutants (dumpsters that are regularly emptied to an area miles away, and sewer systems that are similar to what the petitioner uses for human waste do not make a building into one “designed to release pollutants”)).
For multiple local governments with the authority to tax a property, the lambda representing local_tax is the sum of the lambdas of each local government’s tax as a function of property value (so if school board A has a 1% property tax, and water maintenance authority B has a .1% property tax, and the county government C has a .2% property tax (all having taxes imposed on relevant property D), then the lambda would be “lambda x: x*.013”, with the portion of the tax stated by the program under “local tax” being .01/.013 of the tax going to A, .001/.013 of the tax going to B, and .002/.013 of the tax going to C (for more complicated functions of property value, just each relevant local government gets a fraction of the stated local tax based on taking each’s relevant stated percentage of property value for the discovered value of the property and dividing by all such relevant local governments’ percentages of value taxed)). For properties in multiple jurisdictions taxing property, the lambda is “lambda x: <function of local government A’s tax>(x*<fraction of market value of all properties owned by the entity that fall in jurisdiction A>)+<function of local government B’s tax>(x*<fraction of market value of all properties owned by the entity that fall in jurisdiction B>)+…” (with the fraction of local taxes owed to each jurisdiction of all local tax being based on the combined market value of the property in that jurisdiction divided by the total market value of all property owned by that entity) and in the same way for an entity that owns properties in multiple states. For an entity earning net receipts in multiple jurisdictions, the lambda of tax is established the same way, replacing the fraction of market value of property with the fraction of those net receipts that entity earns in each jurisdiction separately relative to all net receipts earned in the United States.
In the case of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Friends U Can't Trust and Eric Brunetti, the decision is ruled in favor of the U.S. Patent and Trademark office. This is an easy case to decide given that trademarks are necessarily a limitation on someone's freedom of speech that Congress itself imposed, and so it is well within Congress's rights (especially under the 14th amendment power of Congress to impose rules for protecting people's rights) to prevent someone from being able to trademark a word or phrase for any reason, so long as the reason is conditional on the word or phrase itself (this is a matter of preventing Congress from taking away someone's trademark as a punishment for that person not doing something else that Congress could not otherwise force them to do (e.g. that denials of trademarks can’t be a means of vengeance for saying that a politician is bad (however, the slogan that a politician is bad can be made untrademarkable)), which in no way is happening in this case because the law in question is giving the standard of what the people at the U.S. Patent and Trade Office would consider immoral (regardless of the flimsiness of that standard, it is still based entirely on the word or phrase in question)). The decision of the Supreme Court is reversed in this case, it is so ordered.
The definition of the word “frivolous” for the purpose of Division A of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment is not a word that can be defined by law other than by a constitutional amendment, and for the purpose for which it is stated therein, there are many state laws and local ordinances which cannot be used to aid a plaintiff in lawsuits under certain circumstances because of that word (other than where the plaintiff is someone asking for declaratory relief in order to avoid a lawsuit in the future). An example of where this applies is in a lawsuit against someone for giving away food for free where the food might have problems with it that are unintentional and where the method of giving away the food for free is such that the beggar could reasonably expect that the food might have problems (the evaluation of such cases must be done in light of the fact that were those cases going to succeed, then food would have to be thrown away entirely, which is a far greater problem as long as anyone goes hungry), or where the case a city has against an unlicensed food vendor (regardless of whether or not they force the thing to have original jurisdiction given to a non-judge bureaucrat) does not provide for remedies to allow for that food to be sold with proper warnings that none of the food has been inspected (or to hire someone using the same method that larger chains use to make sure only good food is sold (or, if cheaper, to pay for city officials (or some food scientist) to scientifically prove that the food is edible to a reasonable confidence) (though if it has been inspected by one government agency, the vendor would have the freedom of speech to say which ones have done inspection) (and, of course, measures to make sure that general sales, income and profit taxes are accounted for)), then the city's case against the unlicensed food vendor must be thrown out as the city being frivolous (because if the case lacks the remedies listed, then it is clear that the city officials care nothing for their food safety mandate, but only to make money from licensing fees (which then violates the social contract of government that their actions must have a net positive benefit on society, or, at the very least, have a tendency predicated on justice)). More generally, the cases where it applies are things like imposing liability on the owner of a property for harm caused to someone entering the property and getting hurt where the way in which that person got hurt could not be traced back by the plaintiff to malice by the owner of the property, or is on account of something the owner physically did against the plaintiff (such as by the owner (or an employee of the owner) punching the plaintiff), or something that is very uncommon among land owners on the owner’s property which harmed the plaintiff physically (such as a booby trap). The design of the word is to protect the common person against lawsuits over things which are clearly minor grievances (such as the color of a fence), or where the common person would likely feel that they had little control over the circumstances of the harm they are held liable for, and to prevent a large portion of the economy from being eaten up by people hiring lawyers and filling up the caseloads of the courts in general. The word is not meant to shield corporations (or any organizations with a multi-level hierarchy of paid persons) when they are acting in a capacity that has the potential to build up a pattern of harms against their paying customers or employees (minor grievances are no longer something that can be brushed aside for them, and they often have the option to have more control over harmful situations than they generally lead juries to believe).
In the case of Epic Games v. Apple, Inc, the court, in order to follow the relevant precedents and laws brought up by each side (and to follow an absolute standard that does not require lawyers to relitigate every step (thus resulting in the situation this amendment is trying to avoid: having a large portion of the economy given over to lawyers)), must rule that Apple is required to have an update to its iOS platform that allows a user to go into the Settings App, then go into a sub-menu of that app and have the ability to access a root shell (meaning that from it one can access every aspect of the device with human readable commands and bash shell scripts without requiring passwords other than the user’s own passwords (general coding knowledge being inevitably necessary)) (with a virtual keyboard that has the normal English characters and access to a button labeled “ctrl” (with “ctrl”+”C” sending SIGINT to the current process on the root shell, “ctrl”+”K” sending SIGKILL to the current process on the root shell, “ctrl”+”T” creating a new tab that the user can switch between via labels at the top, and “ctrl”+”D” typing the null character as input) with the ability to run the commands: kill, rm, sudo (with the ability to supersede the normal permissions of the kill, chown, chmod, mv, mount, umount, nano and rm commands), ssh, sftp, lspci, printenv, bash (and thus get access to normal bash commands), source, export, cc (to run a native C compiler to allow code to be run with ./filename2 after using cc on the C source file with “-o filename2” (or without the -o option instead using mv a.out filename2 before running ./filename2 (or just running "./a.out" after compiling without -o, or running it with "export PATH=$(pwd):$PATH && a.out" after compiling without -o)) (potentially with more complicated options available)), nano (to open a text editor that can read and write files in the current working directory), curl, wget (in order to get a file from an online source), python (in order to interpret and run code consistent with some open-source version of Python 3 (widely accepted as part of its standard) that has existed as of January 2021)) and have the ability to use any file ending in “.iso” downloaded from internet by the root shell as a replacement operating system instead of iOS. Apple must also provide information on developer.apple.com on how to use functions on its native code libraries in C code to make an app on someone’s home screen that is indistinguishable from an app from the App Store (the requirements to get such a program to work could be something like requiring the code to use one of the C++ standards instead (or use C# syntax), and/or typing in a reasonable number of include directives, typing in a reasonable number of options at compile time, and/or downloading a couple of reasonably sized libraries that are open source). This update must come within 6 months of the ratification of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment (or earlier if the relevant judicial order says so), and Apple is allowed to have a warning page in front of the checkbox to get a root shell (where the user can press on the box labeled “continue” in 12 pt font to get past it) and a warning page before the checkbox to alter the operating system with a file immediately chosen thereafter (where the user can press on the box labeled “continue” in 12 pt font to get past it). The root shell can be exited (back to the normal home screen) at any time by pressing “ctrl”+”k” when no process is running, and the submenu for choosing a new iPhone operating system can be exited by pressing on the always-available button labeled “back” in 12 pt font. This ruling is made with seemingly extreme specificity in order to reduce the costs of compliance for Apple, and because the people Apple will task to work on this project will otherwise find some way to circumvent the purpose of the anti-trust law in question (such as by making it ridiculously inconvenient or slow or human-dependent for a user to do what the user wants to do with the phone), and because the normal way in which Apple would be forced to allow certain games into its App Store (as per the petitioner's original request to have Fortnite on the App Store) would harm Apple’s ability to accomplish objectives that are likely very reasonable (especially in light of the fact that courts should not be central planners in controlling the normal operations of their market place (as stated in the relevant precedent)). This precedent also forms a basis of how other tech companies who purport to sell hardware can prevent their hardware from being found to fall astray of antitrust rules with respect to limiting the kinds of software their users can have on it (the basis of this understanding is that an operating system can be visualized as a set of rules that hardware follows unerringly, and thus could be imagined as a contract for how the user can use the hardware, but allowing a user to run arbitrary C code that can use all the hardware features means (based on computer science theory) that anything can theoretically be done with it (the ability to replace the operating system, use shell scripts, and use the particular commands listed being a part of preventing more arcane methods of making an unreasonable anti-competitive restriction on what software can be used (especially given that relying on someone personally writing C code on each device would often mean writing more code than any human could write in 80 years in order to accomplish basic additional functions))). This paragraph is so incorporated into the forthcoming judicial order in the case of Epic Games v. Apple, Inc.
For the crime of 100,000 counts of murder committed by Purdue Pharma and Richard Sackler with the weapon of choice being opiates, all of Purdue Pharma’s and the Sackler family’s assets (including the intellectual property and land property (with land being retrieved after sales being the land based in the United States) Purdue Pharma has had in the last 3 years (being retrieved from whomever it has been sold to), and including the employment contracts the company has had and which the Council on Health would like to maintain for the purpose of creating pharmaceuticals for use in their public hospitals, or where the Council on Health would like to reorganize the workers to fill up positions elsewhere in its operation) are seized and given to the Council of Health created in PIPECCAA (the Act passed prior to the passage of this amendment) for the purpose of paying for the creation of new public hospitals and for creating the pharmaceuticals that those hospitals need. Richard Sackler is sentenced to death by firing squad. Other people conspiring with them in the murder of more than 100,000 people via the use of a murder weapon consisting of opiates must be prosecuted separately (with the ones found guilty sentenced to death if they could foresee the harms caused by making or distributing opiates, and the standard length of imprisonment for murder if the person could not foresee the harms they caused by their actions in making or distributing Purdue Pharma’s opiates) except for the ones the Council on Health believes are needed for the production of pharmaceuticals for their public hospitals under PIPECCAA (and the Council on Health may change their minds at any time about these designations on an individual basis (basically this forms the equivalent of a military draft (of those making or distributing Purdue Pharma’s opiates) into helping out these new public hospitals with significantly higher consequences (compared to draft-dodger penalties during the Vietnam War) for not participating in helping the hospitals). For this purpose, the pardon power for the crime in this conspiracy is moved from the President to the Council on Health (the President may continue to use the pardon power for crimes that are not included in these 100,000 counts of conspiracy to commit murder). This judicial order replaces the settlement reached for the case against Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, and revokes any payments made to their lawyers (who must return any remaining funds in their bank accounts unless they can make a deal with the Council on Health to work for them for a time (presumably as managers and secretaries) in exchange for keeping those funds) or made by them under the authority of the bankruptcy court (such as creditors of Purdue Pharma needing to return what was paid to them under this bankruptcy). The Council on Health faces no liability from this seizure except the specific liabilities it chooses to have, each being fully severable.
(The following paragraph is only important when Division B comes into effect, so some policymaking will have to be done before then) Defined-Contribution retirement plans, provided that the worker entitled to one through a job (or having had their defined-benefit plan bought out by the provider with a replacement defined-contribution plan with a starting lump-sum amount based on a reasonable approximation of the value of that defined benefit plan with respect to the maximum value of a loan the person could get that is only leveraged on some number of expected payments from the defined benefit plan (or where a local government or state government has been lobbied by their employees to convert defined-benefit pension plans into defined contribution plans at some rate consistent with the budgetary flexibility the state or local government has (in the absence of tax increases, or increased fees or more fines) in order to avoid losing their plans completely as per the possibilities in the later divisions of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment (e.g. the bankruptcy of very special types of local governments (as per Section 11 of Division G), the bankruptcy of a state government, or the passage of a state law which requires the very special types of local governments to get rid of pensions in order to take on further debt))) is not able to access the money in any way for the worker’s personal benefit prior to the end of the worker’s term of service for which that plan is given, by virtue of the income within the plan being able to be considered as given to the worker in the future, the worker is only taxed on the as of yet untaxed funds in the plan at the time that those funds are withdrawn from the plan (at that point the funds act as income). Making sure that all loopholes in withdrawing funds from these kinds of plans prior to the end of a worker’s career are closed is something that Congress will have to make sure of prior to the time that Division B goes into effect in order to avoid the money being put into these plans getting taxed at the time it is put in (since the tax system in Division B otherwise treats these plans as if they are normal savings accounts or investing accounts). Stopping the withdrawal of funds from defined-contribution plans necessarily means also stopping debt collectors and bankruptcy courts withdrawing these funds (as part of preventing the worker from circumventing these precautions by simply taking a loan that leverages the value of the retirement plan in order to effectively get all the money out immediately), and Congress can obviously make the date at which withdrawals from these defined-contribution plans can start be later than the end of the worker’s career (like, say, requiring the former worker to be over 62 years old) and limit the maximum amount of withdrawals per month (which may be useful to avoid complaints over surprise tax bills and avoid inflation/market crashes).
References to pensions being able to be removed only refers to defined benefit pension plans (these are plans that are economically equivalent to the government selling debt against itself to that worker (just with repayment happening over a longer period of time and not allowing the worker to resell that pension to someone else)); plans that are “defined contribution” get to stay intact (which makes sense given that the money is already placed in that plan every time that worker would get paid instead of the money being used to pay the worker directly (and having that money be considered as outside of the worker’s reach (and thus not part of the worker’s income) until the worker actually starts withdrawing from the plan as the plan allows (at which point it would be a part of the worker’s income)) and thus the local government or state government would be physically unable to withdraw that money, and are not being held liable to be forced to pay something in the future (it is this idea of being forced to pay out in the future which is inconsistent with how politics works when it comes to the reasons why a state or local government would need to go bankrupt under the sections regarding that in the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment (while most people would think of government bankruptcy as inherently bad, these kinds of clauses are necessary to prevent far worse outcomes, for prior to the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment the only way that a state government could discharge its debt would be to have that government pass a law declaring itself to no longer exist (you could call it “Mikhail Gorbacheving yourself”) and having some chaos ensue (such as corporations based out of the state being in legal limbo (it is likely that they will attempt something like getting declaratory relief that they are exempt from any law that would disband the corporation, but I digress (note: every word from “Mikhail” until the first instance of the phrase “Division A” outside of this parenthetical is meant to be read in a way that is dripping with sarcasm, since being serious about state government dissolution is the kind of thing that would burn the mind of any philosopher thinking too hard about its implementation))) until some groups of people are able to meet and deliberate forming new governments, then petitioning Congress to accept them as states (no guarantees on that since they would likely have to queue up behind Puerto Rico before getting back in), in the meantime losing their Senators in Congress (since Senators must only represent states that exist), and having their bureaucrats cart home what was previously property of the state, but is now the property of whichever U.S. citizen seems to have a good enough reason to have it since the state no longer exists))).
Division A: Limitation on Court packing, and removing personal electoral calculations from the minds of state court judges.
Section 1
From January 20th at noon on a year following a year divisible by 4 to the next January 20th at 11:59:59.999 A.M. on a year following a year divisible by 4, the President shall appoint exactly one justice to the Supreme Court, provided he can get the advice and consent of the Senate to do so. The number of seats on the Supreme Court shall expand or contract accordingly. The President can get one additional appointment in that time with the advice and consent of the Senate if, after making that other appointment, the number of Supreme Court justices is less than 7. If the number of Supreme Court justices is less than 5, then one may be appointed by the Senators representing 3/5ths of the states who also represent 3/5ths of the whole number of Senators and 1/2 the members of the House of Representatives signing a piece of paper stating “<name of person> is now a Supreme Court Justice”, only making an appointment like this a maximum of once every two years (and only when there are less than 5 justices (this clause effectively forms a backstop just in case the Section 7 of Division C of the omnibus constitutional amendment reference to “extend the lives of judges” does not work out during a time where the chambers are in agreement about that section in not desiring a President)).
Section 2
From January 20th at noon on a year following a year divisible by 4 to the next January 20th at 11:59:59.999 A.M. on a year following a year divisible by 4, a maximum of 49 judges (of which, at most 20 may be to judgeships that are not strictly for appealing decisions of courts that use juries) may be appointed to seats with jurisdiction such that they never use juries. During the same timeframe, a maximum of 200 judges may be appointed to seats with jurisdiction such that they require juries.
Section 3: Eliminate judicial elections
State governments have until 5 years after this amendment is ratified to change their constitutions to not have provisions involving having the people vote directly on matters of who shall be a judge, have “judge” in the title, or otherwise have any powers that revolve around resolving what the law means on a person-by-person, or company-by-company, or class-by-class basis for the purpose of giving out penalties from determining liability or guilt from arguments and/or evidence in any kind of civil or criminal case. Each state government that continues to have someone in a position of the sort described above have any sort of election or vote of the people directly involved in their placement shall have all new vacancies in those positions (even the ones that don’t have an election involved) be filled only by the United States President appointing judges with the advice and consent of the Senate to those positions (do not count against the maximum number of judges the President may appoint), who shall serve for a term of good behavior as determined by Congress (as in, are not removable by procedures happening in the state (except where other divisions of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment provide such powers to bodies elected by open party ticket proportional voting)), and who shall not have their salaries (paid by the state government) nor jurisdiction reduced (except by Step 4 of Section 10 of Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment, where even though the judgeship may no longer be de facto elected, if state law still says that position is elected, the area where the election would have happened is still important when agglomerating area in the resolution of a proportionally elected lower house of a state government making new local governments under Section 10 of Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment). Once the requisite amendments are made in such states, the new vacancies in those positions can then be filled by the procedures laid out in those amendments. Those not appointed by the President can obviously also be replaced by the procedures in those amendments.
Section 11 of Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment is something a state government could use to avoid having a judgeship be subject to an election de jure such that this section of this amendment would result in requiring replacement judges be chosen by the President only removable either (through impeachment and conviction by the U.S. House and U.S. Senate) or (by a 2/3rds vote in an upper chamber of the state’s legislature provided it satisfies the conditions of its election for “Potential Choice 1” of Section 8 of Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment). It avoids those limitations by granting a proportionally elected local government the power to appoint judges (or a combination of them to appoint state judges) via that section.
Section 4: Monotonically decreasing restrictions on convicted criminals
After the trial for a crime, and then after conviction and thus having restrictions placed on that person's life, the net restriction must either stay the same (up to the end of the sentence) or, if the restrictions decrease on net, must stay at the lowest level of restriction placed on the person or lower that has occurred during the person's sentence. The restrictions can only increase thus if the person gets convicted for a new crime (those restrictions decreasing in the same way whenever they do). The idea is to stop a repeat of the tragedy of Amy Locane serving time in prison for drunk driving, then being a model citizen for 5 years before going back to prison because the judge wanted to shore up support in the judge’s re-election campaign (in this case, as soon as Amy Locane would be given parole, she could only be put back in prison if a jury specifically convicted her later of a different crime that in and of itself would lead to that new prison time).
Section 5: Additional Powers of the Supreme Court (pursuant to Article III of the Constitution saying that the Judicial Power is “vested” in it)
The Supreme Court has the sole power to determine the scope of what cases can be appealed to it (this repeals clause 2 of Section 9 of Article I, moving that power to deny a Writ of Habeas Corpus solely to the Supreme Court). The only exclusions to the power to appeal a case are: if the case was a criminal case where the trial court (either at the indictment stage or conviction stage) determined that someone is not guilty, or the case is one of those listed in the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment as being not appealable, or it is a hearing by a legislature on whether to remove an official from the same government from office (such as with impeachment and conviction (where the penalty arising from it does not exceed removal from office and disqualification from other offices), or with votes of no confidence in state legislatures that have moved over to a parliamentary-style democracy (note that I would have excluded the latter here on account of votes of no confidence not being remotely close to a judicial activity, but it is stated for completeness)), or the case is a type of civil suit where the plaintiff is a governmental entity and the defendant is a private person/entity and a law exists which precludes the government entity in this type of case from appealing when a judgement is ruled against the government, or frivolous lawsuits already decided as such against the plaintiff. (Theoretically, the Supreme Court could give themselves the power to review court martial cases, though they would not be able to remand the case with instructions to a court martial, but only give such a decision as: “don’t impose this punishment”, “reduce this sentence to be this long”, “reduce this penalty to be ___”, “this person is acquitted”, and “we request some new evidence on the understanding that we can’t request the court martial to find it”). Thus the Supreme Court could grant itself the power to hear appeals of administrative hearings, appeals of private arbitration (this is not construed to guarantee the legality of private arbitration (excluding by actual judges as occurring in PIPECCAA)), and similar quasi-judicial decisions, and from that be able to move the place where those appeals are heard to other appellate courts they would find convenient (consistent with how they can use load balancing as explained below).
The Supreme Court has the power to tell courts that have appellate jurisdiction (either on the state, local or federal level) to be the ones responsible for granting review of a decision by a lower court that otherwise might not seem to fall into their jurisdiction, but which was otherwise only going to be reviewed by a court with appellate jurisdiction that is otherwise swamped with cases (generally this means the Supreme Court delegating appeals to the Supreme Court to instead be heard by courts which share the Supreme Court’s understanding of how laws work). For this purpose, the Supreme Court is given $100,000,000 per year in funding out of the general tax revenue to hire staffers to figure out how to use this power in a way that causes the least amount of confusion while balancing the case load of courts that have appellate jurisdiction. This money is given out in the form of no more than $200,000 per year salaries per staffer and no more than $30,000 per staffer for the expenses relevant to carrying out these duties (buying paper, printers, flights, office space, pens, computers and other materials, etc); money not spent this way on a per-staffer basis is returned to where that tax revenue was going otherwise (by default it goes to the General Treasury, though if the law that is recommended to be passed in the non-binding postamble in the last section of the last division of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment is passed, then the money (having been taken from the 7.5% pot (the “other” category)) would be returned to that 7.5% category). The point of this is to prevent having too many trial-level courts be appealed to a single appellate court such that that appellate court is effectively no longer able to make sure the rules were followed by the lower courts because there were too many cases to look through.
Section 6: Ecuador v. Texaco (Starts with a story, then establishes a single instance of civil and criminal liability against members of the federal courts in the personal capacity of the judges concerned during the course of their normal duties (imagine this as the U.S. Constitution being the prosecutor, jury and judge) that is not exerted via the normal proceeding of a trial of Impeachment).
Texaco has since had its assets incorporated into Chevron, who in any case were the ones who convinced the U.S. courts to have the trial be moved to Ecuador, where the courts determined that Chevron would have to pay a settlement to the people living there that is higher than $9 billion and less than $10 billion (this amendment allows the settlement to be paid in the form of multiple molten salt thorium thermal reactors (using the air-fed design with a “kidney” to remove the fission waste as it floats to the top developed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory) providing a total of just more than 1 GW of baseload power for the community plus power for powering a water desalination plant (built from the money out of the settlement as well) on the coast of Ecuador and pumps along the length of pipelines (also provided out of this settlement made of materials consistent with providing a long lasting supply of water) to provide water to the villages affected at a rate of 1 gallon per day per person as of the population count of the affected areas in the year 2000). Chevron then proceeded to stop themselves from having to pay up because they invoked the RICO Act on account of an alleged bribe by the environmentalists who were suing on behalf of the people of Ecuador. The critical evidence that this crime occurred came from the testimony of an Ecuadorian judge, who later recanted this testimony in public. In the course of this RICO case that was allowed to go forward in spite of this, the lead attorney on the side of the environmentalists was placed under house arrest for two years for contempt of court in not turning over his devices in order to determine his assets for the purpose of settling the judgement against him. The executive branch of the United States refused to prosecute him for this, but yet the judge in this case appointed a private prosecutor for this, which breaks the fundamental balance of powers laid out in the original Constitution, specifically that prosecutorial discretion (in another embodiment, prosecutorial discretion could be seen in the pardon power) on the part of the executive is a necessary part of the policy of the federal government as decided by the people through the proxy of elections for the office of President, and thus is necessarily a representational issue that must be carried out by a representative of the people as elected to have that capacity.
Judge Lewis Kaplan, Judge Loretta Preska, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court were complicit in stopping the Ecuadorian verdict from being carried out, and in such a determination, these judges must pay restitution (evenly divided among themselves) to Donziger for $812,000, and Judge Kaplan is prohibited from taking up public office, is denied his pension, and is sentenced to 4 years in prison in a state prison in Alabama chosen randomly out of a hat, where he must have a roomate who was convicted of murder. Judge Loretta Preska is found guilty of violating her oath of office in this case (specifically by not conforming to allowing prosecutorial discretion by the executive branch, which is a critical component of forming the executive branch’s policy (having the check on when such prosecutions occur determined indirectly via elections)), and is thus prohibited from holding public office, and is sentenced to one year and one day in prison.
For the purpose of preventing this situation from happening again, it is made a rule that:
- When the defendant in a case successfully moves a case to a particular jurisdiction the defendant asks the case to be in (whether inside or outside the United States), and the courts in that jurisdiction (along with all higher relevant appeals) decide (de facto, by refusing an appeal; or de jure) against the defendant, the courts in the U.S. will not interfere with the carrying out of the penalty.
- No person may be imprisoned (or face a restriction on movement attached to criminal liability if that person defies the restriction (i.e. in the manner that someone who is wearing an ankle bracelet who can be arrested if the person is outside a designated zone is effectively considered imprisoned under this rule)) by anyone not acting on behalf of the executive branch of the federal government, a state government, or a local government, and who is acting on behalf of its relevant executive branch prosecutors (i.e. there is no such thing as “private prosecution”). This is not to be construed as preventing the court martial cases against people referred to in Division G (especially given the fact that the jury necessarily consists entirely of members of the U.S. military, a suitable stand-in for having an executive branch prosecutor, and given the fact that the Speaker of the House is elected, the Vice President of the United States (specifically the one who is President of the Senate) is elected, the Speaker of a proportionally elected lower house of a state legislature is elected, and the normal jury that was referred to would have been convened by an executive branch prosecutor (prior to the jury moving the case to a court martial)).
This section is not retroactive except as to the penalties stated herein, and the fact that anyone currently confined on account of a private (or non-executive branch) prosecution must be immediately released.
Section 7: Standing for court cases made on account of the structure (i.e. how people are appointed or removed, who answers to whom, who has the power to control salaries, limits of salaries, and similar) of an executive department or agency
The executive branch does not have standing to sue on account of the structure of a system in the executive branch.
The judicial branch does not have standing to sue on account of the structure of a system in the executive branch.
A private person could have standing to sue on account of the structure of a system in the executive branch, but only either where Congress has passed a law indicating that the structure is intended to be a certain way but it is de facto following a different structure (examples of this would be Congress stating that the qualifications for a position are stated in a list, but where someone got the position who was not qualified while the person who is suing is himself/herself qualified (or someone being wrongfully removed from one of those positions, or deprived of one’s entitled salary or pension while in the position), or Congress stating racial or gendered qualifications for a position, or (in the case of there being no President (and thus a prohibition on members of Congress from making appointments (outside of their personal staffs as referred to elsewhere in the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment)) having someone who is qualified for a position be denied that position on account of members of Congress effectively telling the executive head making the appointment who that person may specifically appoint to that position), or in extremely limited circumstances where it is clear that the structure is unconstitutional in a way that clearly deprives voters of any means of indirectly affecting its actions via a series of elections over many years (examples could include granting someone a position that exerts executive or quasi-legislative power with a term that could last a lifetime, or such a position that acts like a title of nobility via allowing the person in that position to always appoint that person’s successor (though (in the case of there being no President, and thus forcing Congress to rely on those already appointed to make appointments) if there exists a convenient way to change up which appointed person is making an appointment for a position using a small subset of Congress (such as a simple majority vote of the House, or the simple majority vote of a relevant Senate committee), or if the qualifications for someone taking up a position are extraordinarily narrowing based on measurable competencies (such as a single-elimination chess tournament), then this avoids such suits). In lawsuits by a private person regarding being removed according to a process that is different than the one stated in law (which means that the person was not removed), provided that neither house of Congress nor a relevant committee of Congress is a party to the lawsuit, the resulting decision of the lawsuit must be based on an assumption that the only lawful method of removal that exists for the position must be the one stated in law.
A state government does not have the standing to sue on account of the structure of a system in the executive branch except to the extent that the structure would violate the second clause of the second paragraph of Section 3 of Article IV of the constitution (prejudicing the claims of particular states (such as by naming a particular state among a list of qualifications to hold an office (such as requiring residency in New York in order to have a seat on a commission for national financial investigations))).
A local government does not have the standing to sue on account of the structure of a system in the executive branch.
A foreign government does not have the standing to sue on account of the structure of a system in the executive branch.
A chamber of Congress has the standing to sue on account of the structure of a system in the executive branch.
A committee of members of Congress that is recognized as having some authority (generally this is in the form of having the right to subpoena documents and testimony) over a relevant part of the executive branch has the standing to sue on account of the structure of a system in the executive branch that touches on the recognized topics that committee is concerned with.
Generally, the suits that involve members of Congress are unlikely to succeed unless the system in question was either not created pursuant to a law, or if it was created pursuant to a law but acts in a way that is contrary to the intention of the laws passed regarding the kind of activity the system in question is pursuing, or if there exists a President and Congress realizes it has divested too much power away from the President. When these issues arise, the resulting court decisions should only ever be seen as a temporary fix, with the proper fix being to pass a new law of Congress to clarify the issue.
Sections 8: Equal Protection Clause Clarification
The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment has several functions:
- Stop requirements based on race or any similar mostly immutable aspects of someone’s external appearance (such as aspects that are changed by painting oneself to be a different race, cybernetic enhancements (excluding enhancements that provide someone with a weapon more lethal than the strongest natural human’s hand, and excluding “enhancements” that turn someone into an obedient agent (in which case such groups making such a change should be prosecuted for murdering the original person that had some semblance of free will)), genetic modification (excluding enhancements that are similar in danger to having a venomous snake (such as having shark teeth growing out of an elbow), and excluding changes that turn someone more violent (or make them desire to break some minimum standard of morality that has been made a law)), implants (excluding the possibility of a drug smuggling operation that implants a plastic bag of cocaine into someone’s abdomen to move it across a border, or the similar implant of weapons to get across checkpoints unnoticed, or similar), and attachment of flesh and bone appendages (excluding designs on generating feelings of nearly universal disgust or to violate public indecency laws)). (i.e. you could not penalize someone for having or not having an internal heart rate monitor, for “external appearance” is a very loose requirement here, it is specifically stated here in order to avoid overturning laws that discriminate based on mental states (since, of course, we don’t want courts to weigh the nebulous concept of “state interest” in whether they can imprison a kleptomaniac), and to a lesser extent allows for minimum requirements of healthiness in order to take up a position where that is relevant). Note: this doesn’t stop organizations from not having ugly people in public-facing roles (provided that such standards are widely held and not based on race). This doctrine should also be used to stop de facto racial segregation.
- To require states to follow the first 9 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
- To require states to stop the adjudication of disputes via such things as duels or Lynch mobs (and to make sure that public trust in the court system is high enough that people don’t often consider using duels or lynch mobs).
- Require States to have some method of adjudicating disputes between private parties where there is a meaningful method by which the facts can be disputed and the case can be resolved according to general laws.
- To make sure there is a meaningfully high probability that disputes between a more powerful entity or person (either politically or economically) and a relatively marginalized person will resolve in favor of the relatively marginalized person according to a positive-slope logistic regression curve with respect to the extent to which facts and {good policy, what would be favorable in terms of an absolute sense of justice}, and the text of the laws in question can be considered to favor (or at least in a manner not disfavorable too (after normalizing results with respect to what kind of results can be expected from using better paid lawyers)) the relatively marginalized person. (Note: this doctrine is not used when the relatively marginalized person is bringing a frivolous case, and it is very important that state legislatures be invested into following this doctrine and should be advised on this by judges acting in their capacity as private citizens in hearings on legislation.) This doesn’t stop public policy measures that will likely save lives or help society in general that seem to be unpopular or harmful in localized ways (like by not having vaccine makers face liability for problems with their vaccine in order to make sure vaccines are made in the first place).
- To make sure there is a meaningful method by which disputes between the private individual and a governmental entity can be adjudicated where there is a high probability that the private individual can, even when acting pro se, have the adjudicating body resolve against the government and to have the probability be correspondently higher when private individual’s arguments (either through (1) interpretation of the law or (2) in a sense of good policy and moralistic sense of justice (either is sufficient for a victory by the private entity)) are better than the arguments of the governmental entity. This applies to such things as hearings on urban renewal (where there may exist certain laws in many states that provide more protection than the 5th amendment provides) where those who would have their property taken must have a high probability that they could entirely stop their property from being taken (when they have the ability to speak at hearings on these things) (the probability of this must be determined by a wholistic view of the situation, such as how politically accountable those making the final decision are (including the structure of party primaries, and how that can contribute to built-in advantages for people who have already been advantaged due to previous government policy), whether they received campaign funds from property developers or hotels, how long their tenures are, whether or not news organizations in that area are able to be frank with their viewers about these problems (and whether news organizations that can provide in depth coverage exist in the relevant area, and whether they have the necessary independence and freedom from the fear of retribution), and so forth).
In other words, the equal protection clause is more about stopping the worst aspects of human nature, and stopping the most insidious aspects of political power (particularly in areas where most people are uninformed or apathetic). The equal protection clause is therefore not something that can be used as a pet project for getting rid of legislation based upon maintaining minimum standards of morality (this sentence thus entirely overturns Obergefell v. Hodges, Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), United States v. Windsor (2013), Bailey v. Mansfield Independent School District et al, No. 3:2018cv01161 (N.D. Tex. 2019), Bush v. Gore (2000) (not relating to the others, but forms a case where the equal protection clause does not apply based on not falling into one of the six doctrines), and potentially overturns several other cases as they are discovered by the Supreme Court to be using the equal protection clause in an incorrect fashion).
Division B: Uniform Taxation
Section 1
In General — The other income tax legislation (or profit taxes or other direct taxes) that Congress has previously passed, (other than that which exists in the content of the bill entitled “The Permanently Increasing Provision of Ever Cheaper Care to Americans Act (PIPECCAA)” that was passed prior to the ratification of this amendment, and only while that bill is not directly changed) shall have the liabilities for that tax be replaced with the time-to-time tax (on the time period that Congress chooses (by default: “a yearly tax with monthly payments based upon any person’s expected liability for the tax year, with legal action only taking place if the liability is left unpaid at the end of the tax year”)) equal to the value of the following expression (using parentheses to determine order of operations):
(the net receipts of an entity within the United States) times the arctangent(, in radians, (of the natural logarithm( of the net receipts, )) multiplied by three divided by 50, all of this then) divided by the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter plus {value of all land owned by entity}*arctan(ln({value of all land owned by entity})/beta)/pi. Local and state governments are only liable for the property tax part of this equation, and only where the property concerned is that which would appear to be owned “de jure” by a private entity, but which has such restrictions imposed on it by said government to be as though (according the theoretical formulation of Free Market Capitalism) the apparent owner cannot alter the property in such a way as to increase mutually beneficial trade (e.g. any state or local government that imposes zoning laws or otherwise prevents someone from building a reasonably safe (reference rkvd2021) skyscraper in his or her backyard is liable for the full value of the property tax associated with that property (hypothetically, the Federal government can thus have 3 times the property tax given to it if both the state and local governments do this, and 4 times if there is an additional association imposing similar restrictions)) (Note: trade necessarily includes dividing up a property and dividing up housing units in that property and selling deeds to those units with proper rights of way to get onto and out of each unit (though a home owner’s association would continue to have the power to block the sale (except to the biological descendants of the person holding the property, and (if the home owners association has less than 100 owner-occupiers or has more than 20,000 people living under it, or if less than 75% of the people in the HOA are owner occupiers (or related by marriage or direct descent to an owner occupier), and otherwise if a poll of the members returns that they are willing to sell that property under eminent domain, and otherwise if the owners of the particular parcels agree to sell land under eminent domain (or abandons the property to avoid the property taxes)) the home owner’s association cannot block the sale of property to a governmental entity using eminent domain (at which point that part of the property can no longer belong to the home owner’s association) (in the case of a property being abandoned over to a bank to settle a mortgage, the home owner’s association can set a time limit of no less than 60 days for when the property must be sold to someone with the minimum qualifications necessary (of which the highest bidder in that time who has the necessary qualifications is sold the property))) of property under their jurisdiction to someone not meeting minimum requirements of an objective measure of credit worthiness, or not meeting a certain number of character references (presumably with respect to making sure the community has a minimum level of its members desiring what is best for the community), or who is not a living individual human); outside of the industry of house selling (where local government regulation is getting taxed directly by this amendment (as a means of destroying local governments that stop people from selling more housing)) local governments have generally been given leeway on regulating trade to prevent consumers from being harmed) (the hard line on “reasonably safe” (reference rkvd2021) kicks in for regulators who do not wish to be liable for the property tax where the regulators can put on a restriction that requires new units to be made of material no more expensive (and no more internal space filling) than 1 foot thick concrete reinforced with high nickel steel with 6 inch thick high nickel steel doors with every type of fundamentally different biometric security lock available for less than $1000 in the open market and the least pickable mechanical lock for less than $1000 and have water lines for one sink and toilet plus 2 more water lines per 2000 square feet of internal space, centralized heating and air conditioning powerful enough to keep the internal space at 40 degrees away from the external environment with no more than 7 degree variance per 50 feet of connected space within a unit, and enough 240 V (with a rating for at least 20 amperes; the voltage could instead be as low as 120 V depending on the relevant rules) sockets spaced around such that were the simplest light bulb connected directly at that socket without furniture and without people, there would be no shadows (this is the line where an additional restriction of even the smallest amount (additional cost in either time for building or cost of materials) imposes tax liability on the local government in question (in other words, this exact hard line will likely be immediately enacted by them to replace zoning laws))). Anyone who uses a lawsuit or other administrative harassment against a developer either that has something to do with what was built or as part of a general strategy to raise the effective price (in the form of lawyer’s fees and delays and similar) of construction, if the effective price of what they have constructed and are expected to construct plus all such harassment to that point is greater than the maximum cost of construction that may be imposed above (was generally designed around local governments wanting to limit competition in the housing industry while avoiding liability for the property tax) that person or entity engaging in administrative harassment must pay the U.S. government one year’s worth of property tax for that location, plus the pro-rated property tax that would be commensurate with that entity virtually owning that property for as long as the development or sale of the property gets delayed strictly due to that administrative harassment (hypothetically, this could be unbounded tax liability if the harassment is such that the developer simply drops the project (whether forced to, strictly speaking, or just de facto pushed slightly over the edge of economic viability), never completing it); this clause inherently means that a future owner of the property doesn’t face any extra liability if it sued based on something like failures in construction that make the place uninhabitable. State and local governments also have property tax liability if they use a property they have in a way that matches private enterprise rental properties as a way to impose zoning laws by taking the above section to its logical conclusion with respect to skirting property tax liability (the logical conclusion they may have come to would be to purchase all of the private homes in a district, and then rent those homes back to their previous owners in a way that allows those previous owners to sell the rental contract to someone else (basically replicating what their property taxes generally do)); such state and local governments which do that are liable for the property taxes for such privately used land as if it was a single private entity owning all such properties; this does not apply where the state or local government is actively building up such properties under its control to provide competitively priced housing and it does not apply to such properties where the state or local government owned the land it is renting out continuously to that point since before February 5th, 2021. Companies owning property that was stymied from being developed and homeless people living in an area in question may use the principle of mutually assured destruction (in that: “you take away my competitive advantage or ability to get housing in an area, I use this to take away your organization!”) or a company facing unfair competitive advantages (from the one you are competing with to provide housing who is not paying this property tax) to have standing to sue to force an organization or government to pay the property taxes under this amendment (this will likely happen if a tax collection authority gets politicized or gets politically targeted (which is something that should be avoided (the tax system itself, by becoming so much simpler, is designed to allow current tax collection budgets (or marginally higher budgets) to be sufficient for collecting taxes))).
Definition: beta, a variable with the value of 1000 in the first tax year in which this amendment is in effect, whose value is reduced by delbeta(1000, beta) where [delbeta=lambda x, g: sqrt(abs(418-g))/x if g>418 else g-418] for each following tax year until its value is less than or equal to 418, at which point beta is fixed at 418.
Definition: net receipts, all value taken in by an entity (for mathematical purposes, this shall be according to the market value of the dollar) inside the area under the control of the United States minus gamma.
Gamma is the reduced value of all outlays of an entity in direct pursuit of profits except where the entity is a natural person performing human effort (i.e. labor (referred to as "income" (not to be confused with the revenue of a company)) is taxed exactly according to the wage).
Outlays in gamma are reduced by being multiplied by the (total revenue made in the United States) divided by (total global revenue).
The value of net receipts is never below zero, with excess gamma going into the next tax period. For this purpose, ln(epsilon)=0, where epsilon is any value less than 1.
Exemptions (a to e):
(a) Money paid to state and local governments is exempted from consideration as ‘net receipts.’ (This is resolved more neatly by the algorithm in section 5 once it goes into effect, with this exemption built into it (not having the earner calculate it outside of the algorithm).)
(b) Interest paid by banks for deposits to them and interest from government (state, local or federal) bonds (provided the government bond was originally sold on a perfectly free market) are exempted both on the bank and depositor (as in, if a government bond was sold first to a selection of friendly investment banks and/or government employees and/or political donors (as opposed to having bidding done for a bond under a well publicized and easily accessible way for all members of the public to be involved (such as having the original bidding for the bond done directly on the NYSE (note: any commission that NYSE gets from this listing is taxable, and the government in question must shop around to find the service that can auction the debt for the lowest price (theoretically, they could use GoFundMe and say how much the debt being sold is worth and how much money has been contributed so far and the last day to contribute (as long as each contributor can withdraw their contributions by the last day to contribute) and after that last day to contribute send out fractions of the debt instrument to each contributor proportional to that contributor's contribution, and this method will probably be the most fair provided the government in question does the bare minimum of advertising))), where someone with the bond does not get taxed on the interest on the bond (though they would be taxed on capital gains realized by selling the bond to anyone other than the government originating it)), then the amount of money that selected group earns from the bond is taxable as income, and similarly for whomever the bond is sold to (and the bond must be marketed as such an undesirable bond)).
(c) Risk taken on to the funds of an entity to start a business to the extent the money is risked paying American workers is to that same amount exempted from their first revenue stream (layman’s terms: a two hundred percent exemption to begin, because money paid for wages is also money spent in the pursuit of profits) and is thereafter an exemption of the wages of those workers as generally enforced, but added to it by the product of the number of American workers for the entity (only those who are employed through the whole year preceding the payment of tax) and the geometric mean of the wages paid to those workers through to the end of the year and of the natural logarithm of the number of American workers employed by that entity (employed by the entity through an entire year to that point) divided by one hundred (layman’s terms: a one hundred percent base exemption thereafter (based on the definition of net receipts necessarily not including money paid in pursuit of profits (such as money paid for the wages of workers)), increased minutely as a business employs more Americans (though decreased when the level of pay is unbalanced, as per the definition of the geometric mean)). For the exemption of the initial profits that equal money risked paying American workers at the start of a business's existence, that only applies to businesses that produce physical consumer goods, and Congress may pass laws limiting what kind of industries may benefit from that exemption (such as in minimum qualities of consumer goods, environmental practices they must have to qualify, and working conditions that may be higher than for other businesses in order to get that early exemption on profit equal to initial risked capital spent on workers), and of course can resolve to allow other agencies to refine those higher requirements under those agencies' legislative mandates. In order to qualify as funds risked paying American workers in the earlier (greater) exemption, those funds cannot include the money paid by customers for the consumer goods that business creates, and the funding gets capped at the current amount risked as soon as consumer goods are sold by the business for a marginal price that is higher than the marginal costs to make the good. The consideration by the IRS that multiple companies are actually the same company according to circumstantial evidence is important for policing this exemption to prevent a company from continuously re-establishing itself and disestablishing itself in order to keep all of its profits.
(d) For a married couple, the sum of (their number and the number of their natural children and their number of adopted children)=‘n’; tax=net receipts of all members times atan(ln(net receipts of all members/n) times .06)/pi+{land owned by all members}*atan(ln(land owned by all members/n)/beta)/pi. (In other words, for a household with only the natural children of the married couple, it is as though all of the household’s income and property was divided evenly between the members with each member paying taxes separately (the equation then neatly allows one member of the family to pay its taxes)). Note: someone who has a child is no longer (even if she was previously) herself considered a child for this purpose (also goes for anyone who has a child legally bound under their care not themselves being a child (i.e. that if a Child Protective Service hires a 17 year-old, that 17 year-old is no longer a child, and someone listed on the birth certificate of a child as a parent is not a child)); children someone has with someone other than their married spouse do not confer these benefits.
(e) Payments to entities to the percentage that each dollar directly provides a long-term benefit to marginalized humans are exempted from taxation. (i.e. charities are not perfectly tax deductible (the dollars of a charity that are definitely not providing a long-term benefit to marginalized humans are such things as advertising budgets, and payments to people (particularly to executives of the charity (except for the billable hours they are getting their "hands dirty" (as the expression goes) physically helping the marginalized (writing emails and going to meetings (unless the marginalized person is at the meeting, and the meeting is providing that person help), and going to fundraisers are not charitable, being counted as overhead for the purpose of reducing the amount that anyone who contributes to the charity is able to deduct the expense)), accountants (except for the time directly providing accounting services to a marginalized person who actually needs that service), lawyers (except for the time directly providing lawyering services to a marginalized person who actually needs that service), or to landlords where the charity is using land not belonging to the charity (i.e. that creating a fund that simply moves homeless people into private hotels and motels is not sufficiently charitable, but buying land for its real value and building housing for the homeless is charitable (of course the charity would still need to pay the property taxes, and would thus be incentivized to sell the property to the homeless person for well below the market value, provided they means tested the person to make sure the person could reasonably be considered marginalized)), and so forth (this is to avoid donations to a charity being able to be a deductible expense except to the extent to which the charity is able to efficiently help marginalized people with the money)) for some reason that is not directly creating or moving the things used by the marginalized people), with political action committees being taxed like corporations (and similarly if the existence of an entity is not predicated on directly providing long-term benefits to marginalized humans with the money donated to it (a company created for the purpose of making a profit is definitely not such an entity, an entity for finding news is not such an entity, and a company created to help someone get elected or help an issue be seen by elected officials is not such an entity))).
(f) Reductions in the cost of tuition for educational institutions (these are often referred to as “scholarships”). Note that any stipend above the cost of the tuition will be taxed as income, unless it comes in the form of things like discounts on the price of campus housing, or discounts on food, or discounts on books, or discounts on anything else sold by the educational institution for use by the students as part of their education.
The enforcement mechanisms of the Internal Revenue Service are not changed by this amendment, except in that they shall treat agglomerations of companies that effectively act as though they were all a part of the same company (will require some circumstantial evidence to establish this) as if they were the same company, and that the payments used by companies in the U.S. in order to offshore profits that could not reasonably be explained as [payments for physical goods or the direct labor of employees to produce what was brought to market] is considered a part of the company's taxable profits: payments to company executives that are not able to show they are actually bringing things to market (or producing value for the company), payments for intellectual property licenses that belong to companies or persons outside of the U.S. (if they were in the U.S., then those companies and persons would be paying those taxes anyways, so there is no need to tax the company for the same thing in that case), stock buybacks (excluding buybacks of stock on the open market during business hours where most people in the U.S. consider to be the market for selling stocks for prices that are both less than what shares were selling for the previous day at any time and prices that are less than what shares were selling for at any point in the previous month), stock dividends, and any other way that the IRS finds is a way that companies are offshoring profits to avoid the taxes in this amendment are considered part of taxable profits. Payments made for the profit-seeking expenses of the business out of the money left over after it paid taxes are counted out of the future revenue of the company only (thus preventing them from forcing a large amount of headaches at tax collection agencies, and preventing them from polynomially increasing the time for the calculation of taxes described later).
The budget of the Internal Revenue Service is not changed by this amendment.
Section 2
Congress shall have the power to define “married couple” for the purposes of paragraph (d) or if they fail to define it or rescind their definition, then it is defined by state law for the purpose of taxation.
No appropriation of money may be made for the purpose of repaying some entity’s tax liability under this article except as part of an appropriation bill that eliminates itself at the end of a time period from when it was passed by Congress to less than 732 days later (obviously this means the current system of payouts to people not otherwise earning an income can still continue outside of the regular appropriation process, and this also means that the annual appropriation process is still valid). This does not affect the funding provided under PIPECCAA.
No new appropriation of money may be made beyond the levels at their highest point in the 2016 federal budget to state governments, local governments, or housing associations who are made liable for property taxes under this article until 8 years have passed from the enactment of this article (then following the above restriction on the length of time of appropriations which undermine tax liability) (basically this is just prohibiting Congress from giving money back to them so that Congress doesn’t feel pressured to let them keep their zoning laws (the point of that part of this article is to so excessively tax those imposing the equivalent of zoning laws that those organizations either cease to exist or get rid of their zoning laws)).
Congress may not impose taxes outside of this one other than duties and excises uniformly imposed on all the items of specific types of physical goods, or some classes of goods from particular countries (fundamentally limited by the treaties made going forward with those countries, except where the other country does not fulfill its obligation under that treaty (the only means by which treaties which provide duty-free trade going forward may end)).
Any member of Congress has standing to sue to get rid of appropriations bills or other similar rules that violate this amendment, and shall continue to have standing within those cases brought if that member gets expelled after bringing that case.
Section 3
The word ‘borrow’ is stricken from Article I, Section 8, the second clause. Further national debts are strictly limited to paying for the direct creation of capital investment physical goods that can be basically proven to be able to substantially increase the economic well-being of the United States to a greater value than the cost paid (this means debt cannot be used to finance loan guarantees, nor can it be used to subsidize or to purchase goods that are consumed (excluding the purchase of consumables whose consumption is only for making something permanent that provides greater economic value to the United States than the cost of the debt to make it), nor to pay for services (other than where the service makes something that is permanent enough to still have it while not continuing to pay for it, where the permanent thing provides greater economic value to the United States than the cost of the debt associated with it and with the service to make it (i.e. you can use debt to pay for the hands-on billable hours of engineers, blue-collar workers and technicians making capital investment physical goods, but not for bureaucrats or managers)), nor similar) (the debt could include making broken roads flat, making treacherous rivers navigable, and making automated flexible manufacturing capacity to sell goods that are highly valued on the free market (to a greater value than the cost of materials and amortized maintenance cost of the factories and amortized cost of the machines over a lifetime of making goods) to pay back the debt), or paid out under the 14th amendment specifically for stopping rebellion, or paying interest on debt.
In other words, everything that the US government could possibly pay for that has, or is likely to have, a special interest group that wants continuous payments for it is not something that can be paid for via debt (since the things which provide greater economic value to the United States than the cost of the debt, especially those things which are profitable for the US government, are things which only attract support to the extent that the greater economic value provides tax or other revenue that can be used to pay for the interests of some interest group); excluding the extent to which it is generally popular (the word "generally" here should be a tip off that the thing is likely something that can be paid for via debt, provided the economics agree) to have cheaper 3D printed metal items that match what consumers want (while following free market principles of making a profit from selling them); and excluding the extent to which it is generally popular to make more roads that are usable in desired areas, and so forth.
Section 4
Those with permission to print U.S. dollars may only henceforth do so to purchase debt from the United States government or to make sure the dollar denominated deposits in a bank that has no other assets to pay those depositors back has money to pay the rest of the dollar denominated deposits back (with whatever extra requirements Congress imposes on such things to limit the number of institutions who qualify for deposit insurance) (i.e. these two sections together mean that hyperinflation should be hypothetically impossible (provided, of course, that the courts remain vigilant to stop the President/Congress from effectively redefining rebellion to allow for vast amounts of ongoing debt financing far into the future (such a de facto redefinition would be illegal, but I realize that just saying that in Constitutions hasn’t stopped very creative fascists in other countries))).
Section 5: Limitations on taxes by all levels of government
The remainder of this section goes into effect 730 days after this amendment goes into effect, with any state or local government that has not defined its property taxes and income taxes as a lambda over property value and a lambda over income+profit having all of their tax laws replaced with the equations (based on the same yearly metric as the below Python program): property_tax=lambda x: 0.001*x+.0001*ln(x)*x; income_plus_profit_tax=lambda value: value*((tax revenue of government in 2016)/(gross domestic product of the jurisdiction under that government in 2016)+ln(value)*.00436). "value" being the profit+income passed to the function, and the other parts being obvious (with "lambda" in this case referring to the "lambda calculus" of mathematical functions). For local governments that did not exist in the year 2016, the state government that that local government has most of its territory in has that state government's ratio (of tax revenue to GDP, in this case whatever that ratio is in the year before the local government came into existence (as opposed to the year 2016)) as the ratio used in the equation (provided that that new local government has the ability to charge taxes and that no other local government shares the ability to tax people in the area (in case that another local government shares the ability to tax the same area, the people in the shared area pay taxes first to the earlier local government, and then to the later local government up to the maximum required based on the default lambdas (or lambda x: x*ln(x)*.00436 paid to the late-comer local government if that is a higher amount))). Those authorized by the same to collect taxes shall still have the authority to collect taxes, but it is these taxes that they will collect. If the way in which a state's tax (or local government's tax) is defined causes errors, that state (or local government) just uses the above default tax system. If the way in which a local government's tax as proposed does not cause problems in the python program lower down, but when the constants are edited by the voters as part of a referendum on changing constant values in the lambda to values that cause exceptions to be thrown, errors to be thrown, non-numeric values or infinite runtimes, then the above default tax system is used instead of the one edited by the voters, see Section 6 for an example.
What were previously tax exemptions in a state or local government's jurisdiction that can't be expressed as a lambda of a person's income+profit or lambda of property value must now be expressed via appropriations bills of the state or local government (economists would say they are the same thing, but lawyers will disagree, particularly when there are legal requirements on a government according to its constitution or charter that require it to have a balanced budget (stopping excess appropriations) (it is politically far easier to take away appropriations to a company that are given out without a competitive contract than it is to take away a corporation's tax exemptions (which are now no longer a thing)); and often their rules require appropriation measures to end after specific time periods).
Note: in the below code where it says “the information derived from this search may not be used for taking legal action against #people using those options).” this just means that the listing itself can’t be used as evidence in these cases, but can be used to inform warrants based on complaints about having too many tourists in an area (as a part of using prosecutorial discretion in determining which tourists to remove to maintain a minimum quality of life in an area, such as by first imposing penalties on rentals given out to people who are buying or selling things that harm people’s health).
When someone calculates their average periodic taxes with respect to some unit of time consistent with when taxes are due (with the assumption of their revenue or income following a mostly constant level that is the average of what they have earned in the last 365 days, and then evenly dividing the tax burden found for one year over the tax periods in question (division by .5 would mean the tax period looked at is 2 years)), that person can use the following steps to come up with tax liability:
Step 1: Calculate the value of all land-based property
#a python program that can be loaded into a file to do everything
from math import atan, log, sqrt, sin, cos, sqrt, pi, tan, pow, ceil, floor, exp
ln=lambda x: 0 if x<1 else log(x)
print("What monthly rent does your property have a free market ability to command overall: ")
monthly_rent=float(input())
print("What is the free market yearly interest rate on mortgages: ")
market_yearly_interest_rate_on_mortgages=float(input())
print("How many years has it been since division B of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment was made law?")
beta=1000
years=int(input())
delbeta=lambda x, g: sqrt(abs(418-g))/x if g>418 else g-418
for I in range(years):
beta-=delbeta(1000, beta)
print("Input the lambda in one line that represents how yearly state property tax is calculated (use the syntax \"lambda x: x*sqrt(x)*.06\" where sqrt(x) is replaced with the math functions that find the tax rate in the state, and .06 is replaced with any constant in the tax rate; use math functions among the following: atan, sin, cos, sqrt, tan, ln, pow, ceil, floor, exp, -, +, *, /, **, abs, and other built in python functions (do not use exec, and do not use global (the same restrictions apply to all other places where a lambda is input)))")
state_tax=""
local_tax=""
federal_tax="" #by default is lambda y: y*atan(ln(y)/(beta))/pi #this result gets multiplied by the number of times per year that Congress requires taxes be paid (the default is 1 (i.e. as written)).
#thing="state_tax="+str(input())
#exec(thing)
state_tax=input() #If a TypeError occurs, comment this line out and uncomment the above two lines.
print("what is the lambda of local property tax: ")
#thing="local_tax="+str(input())
#exec(thing)
local_tax=input() #If a TypeError occurs, comment this line out and uncomment the above two lines.
print("What is the lambda of federal property tax: ")
#thing="federal_tax="+str(input())
#exec(thing)
federal_tax=input() #If a TypeError occurs, comment this line out and uncomment the above two lines.
#Python program for calculating taxes
#go to the propertyValue function to see where the main action is at
def helperProg(valFunction, initial_value, state_rate, local_rate, federal_rate):
if initial_value<=0.001:
initial_value=0.001
iniVal=valFunction(initial_value, state_rate+local_rate+federal_rate)
if iniVal<=0.001:
iniVal=0.001
secVal=valFunction(iniVal, state_rate+local_rate+federal_rate)
if initial_value<=0.001:
secVal=0.001
count=0
prev2=abs(iniVal-secVal)
while (count<100 and abs(iniVal-secVal)>1):
count+=1
iniVal=valFunction(secVal, state_rate+local_rate+federal_rate)
if iniVal<=0.001:
iniVal=0.001
secVal=valFunction(iniVal, state_rate+local_rate+federal_rate)
if secVal<=0.001:
secVal=0.001
if prev2<abs(iniVal-secVal):
secVal=(iniVal+secVal)/2
else:
prev2=abs(iniVal-secVal)
if iniVal<secVal:
return iniVal
else:
return secVal
#state_tax, local_tax, and federal_tax need to be defined like "lambda x: x*atan(ln(x)/1000)/pi" #######(follow the comments below) or like "lambda x: x*.008" (where .008 would be the fraction of the #value of the property that a government takes as property tax in a year
def propertyValue(monthly_rent, market_yearly_interest_rate_on_mortgages, state_tax, local_tax, federal_tax): #monthly_rent is what the free market would indicate that rent prices could be derived #from a property, especially looking at the rent prices that people can get by semi-illegitimately #using rooms in their house like hotel rooms on such sites as AirBnB and social media based rental #arrangements (the information derived from this search may not be used for taking legal action against #people using those options).
rent=monthly_rent
interest=market_yearly_interest_rate_on_mortgages
iniVal=rent*12/(2*interest)
#state_tax is the amount of tax a state imposes on property as a function of the value of the #property per year
#local_tax is the amount of tax the local government imposes on a property as a function of the #value of the property per year
#federal_tax is federal_tax(value)=value*atan(ln(value)/lambda)/pi*(average number of times #congress imposes the tax (which can be any positive real number))
tx=state_tax(iniVal)+local_tax(iniVal)+federal_tax(iniVal)
secVal=(rent*12 - tx)/(2*interest)
if (secVal<0):
secVal=0.001
sumVal=[0, 0, 0]
count=0
prev2=abs(iniVal-secVal)
non_convergent=False
while (((not non_convergent and count<300) or count<100) and abs(iniVal-secVal)>1 and (not non_convergent or abs(iniVal)<1E+19)):
count+=2
rates=[min(.1, state_tax(secVal)/secVal), min(.1, local_tax(secVal)/secVal), federal_tax(secVal)/secVal]
rates=[i/max(1, 10*sum(rates)) for i in rates]
sumVal[0]+=rates[0]
sumVal[1]+=rates[1]
sumVal[2]+=rates[2]
tx=state_tax(secVal)+local_tax(secVal)+federal_tax(secVal)
iniVal=(rent*12 - tx)/(2*interest)
if (iniVal<0):
iniVal=0.001
rates=[min(.1, state_tax(iniVal)/iniVal), min(.1, local_tax(iniVal)/iniVal), federal_tax(iniVal)/iniVal]
rates=[i/max(1, 10*sum(rates)) for i in rates]
sumVal[0]+=rates[0]
sumVal[1]+=rates[1]
sumVal[2]+=rates[2]
tx=state_tax(iniVal)+local_tax(iniVal)+federal_tax(iniVal)
secVal=(rent*12 - tx)/(2*interest)
if (secVal<0):
secVal=0.001
if (abs(iniVal-secVal)>=prev2):
non_convergent=True
else:
non_convergent=False
prev2=abs(iniVal-secVal)
if (non_convergent):
if sum(sumVal)/count>1:
tot=sum(sumVal)/count
sumVal[0]/=tot
sumVal[1]/=tot
sumVal[2]/=tot
state_tax=lambda x: x*sumVal[0]/count
local_tax=lambda x: x*sumVal[1]/count
federal_tax=lambda x: x*sumVal[2]/count
return (helperProg(lambda x, y: (rent*12 - x*y - federal_tax(x))/(2*interest), rent*12/(2*interest), sumVal[0]/count, sumVal[1]/count, 0), state_tax, local_tax, federal_tax)
else:
if (iniVal<secVal):
return (iniVal, state_tax, local_tax, federal_tax)
else:
return (secVal, state_tax, local_tax, federal_tax)
propVal=propertyValue(monthly_rent, market_yearly_interest_rate_on_mortgages, state_tax, local_tax, federal_tax) #The user writes the 2 numbers in using the comments above, and the three functions are #defined by law
#step 2 calculate the property tax for each level of governemnt
print("The yearly property tax owed to the state government is: ", propVal[1](propVal[0]))
print("The yearly property tax owed to the local government is: ", propVal[2](propVal[0]))
print("The yearly property tax owed to the federal government is: ", propVal[3](propVal[0]))
st_p_tx=propVal[1](propVal[0])
lo_p_tx=propVal[2](propVal[0])
fe_p_tx=propVal[3](propVal[0])
#step 3: write in the value for the following variable (use net receipts as calculated in Section 1, #but do not deduct taxes from the value yet):
print("What is your before-tax income: ")
grossIncome=float(input()) #do not put in symbols outside of {"0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "0", "."} do not put in commas, braces or quote symbols
pipeccaa=grossIncome*.05
print("Does the PIPECCAA Act still exist unchanged (enclose the answer in quotes)? ")
q=input()
if (q[0]=='y' or q[0]=='Y' or q[1]=='y' or q[1]=='Y'): #looking for an answer of "yes", "Yes", or #"Yea", "yeah"
grossIncome=grossIncome-pipeccaa
print("The amount you owe under the PIPECCAA Act is: $"+str(pipeccaa))
print("Input the lambda in one line that represents how yearly state income tax is calculated (use the syntax \"lambda x: x*sqrt(x)*.06\" where sqrt(x) is replaced with the math functions that find the tax rate in the state, and .06 is replaced with any constant in the tax rate; use math functions among the following: atan, sin, cos, sqrt, tan, ln, pow, ceil, floor, exp, -, +, *, /, **, abs, and other built in python functions (do not use exec, and do not use global (the same restrictions apply to all other places where a lambda is input)))")
badInput=True
thing=""
state_tax=input() #If your interpreter takes in your input as a string, uncomment the 12 commented #lines below and replace this with: state_tax=""
print("See comment if you see the word str here:", type(state_tax))
#while badInput:
# thing=input()
# if thing.find("exec")==-1 and thing.find("global")==-1 and thing.find("lambda")==0:
# badInput=False
# try:
# exec("local_tax="+thing)
# local_tax(100)
# except:
# badInput=True
# print("Try again")
# else:
# print("Try again")
#thing="state_tax="+thing
#exec(thing)
print("Input the same thing for yearly local income tax: ")
local_tax=input() #If your interpreter takes in your input as a string, uncomment the 12 lines below #and replace this with: local_tax=""
#badInput=True
#while badInput:
# thing=input()
# if thing.find("exec")==-1 and thing.find("global")==-1 and thing.find("lambda")==0:
# badInput=False
# try:
# exec("state_tax="+thing)
# state_tax(100)
# except:
# badInput=True
# print("Try again")
# else:
# print("Try again")
#thing="local_tax="+thing
#exec(thing)
print("Input the same thing for yearly federal income tax: ")
federal_tax=input() #If your interpreter takes in your input as a string, uncomment the 12 lines below #and replace this with: federal_tax=""
#badInput=True
#while badInput:
# thing=input() #by default lambda x: x*atan(ln(x)*.06)/pi or (if Congress changes the number of #times per year the tax is collected (may be any positive real number): lambda x: x*atan(ln(x/(number_of_times_per_year_it_is_collected))*.06)/pi where x is yearly income)
# if thing.find("exec")==-1 and thing.find("global")==-1 and thing.find("lambda")==0:
# badInput=False
# try:
# exec("federal_tax="+thing)
# federal_tax(100)
# except:
# badInput=True
# print("Try again")
# else:
# print("Try again")
#thing="federal_tax="+thing
#exec(thing)
#step 4
def real_income(gross, state_tax, local_tax, federal_tax):
if gross<=0.001:
return (0.001, lambda x: x*0, lambda x: x*0, lambda x: x*0)
inc1=gross-state_tax(gross)-local_tax(gross)-federal_tax(gross)
sumVal=[0, 0, 0]
if inc1<0:
inc1=(gross+0.001)/2
tx=state_tax(inc1)+local_tax(inc1)+federal_tax(inc1)
inc2=gross-tx
if inc2<0:
inc2=(inc1+0.001)/2
non_cov=False
count=0
prev2=abs(inc1-inc2)
while ((count<100 and abs(inc1)<1E+19) or (not non_cov and count<300)) and abs(inc1-inc2)>1:
count+=2
tx=state_tax(inc2)+local_tax(inc2)+federal_tax(inc2)
sumVal[0]+=min(.5-federal_tax(inc1)/gross, state_tax(inc2)/gross)
sumVal[1]+=min(.5-federal_tax(inc1)/gross, local_tax(inc2)/gross)
sumVal[2]+=federal_tax(inc2)/gross
inc1=gross-tx
if inc1<0:
inc1=(inc2+0.001)/2
tx=state_tax(inc1)+local_tax(inc1)+federal_tax(inc1)
rates=[min(.4, state_tax(inc1)/gross), min(.4, local_tax(inc1)/gross), federal_tax(inc1)/gross]
rates=[i/max(1, 2*sum(rates)) for i in rates]
sumVal[0]+=rates[0]
sumVal[1]+=rates[1]
sumVal[2]+=rates[2]
inc2=gross-tx
if inc2<0:
inc2=(inc1+0.001)/2
if abs(inc1-inc2)>=prev2:
non_cov=True
if (abs(inc2-(inc1+0.001)/2)>.001):
inc2=(inc1+inc2)/2
else:
non_cov=False
if non_cov:
if sum(sumVal)/count>1:
tot=sum(sumVal)/count
sumVal[0]/=tot
sumVal[1]/=tot
sumVal[2]/=tot
#The very fact that federal tax uses the atan(...)/pi in establishing the tax rate (and #thus never reaches 50% tax) and uses the natural log function to normalize it for reasonable values #makes it play well with other tax systems for achieving convergence.
return (helperProg(lambda x, y: gross-x*y-federal_tax(x), gross, sumVal[0]/count, sumVal[1]/count, 0), lambda x: x*sumVal[0]/count, lambda x: x*sumVal[1]/count, federal_tax)
else:
if inc1<inc2:
return (inc1, state_tax, local_tax, federal_tax)
else:
return (inc2, state_tax, local_tax, federal_tax)
grossIncome-=st_p_tx+lo_p_tx+fe_p_tx #cancel out the property taxes before calculating income taxes ####(since both are necessarily taxing one's income)
realInc=real_income(grossIncome, state_tax, local_tax, federal_tax)
print("The income tax you owe the state for the year is: ", realInc[1](realInc[0]))
print("The income tax you owe the local government for the year is: ", realInc[2](realInc[0]))
print("The income tax you owe the federal government for the year is: ", realInc[3](realInc[0]))
Section 6: Examples of tax systems
A local tax system may be incentivized to use an extremely complicated lambda when voters are allowed to choose replacements for constant values, an example of this is:
local_tax=lambda s, low=1, high=100, med=31: s/(100-31/(1/(s*s+1)+1+0)-1/(31/(s*s+1+0)+100)-0) if abs(100-log(100)**(sqrt(log
(100))+cos(100)))<atan(100) and (s<31/100 or s<1) else s*med/100 if abs(100-log(100)**(sqrt(log(100))+cos(100)))<atan(100) and (abs(sum([(t/100)**(med)*exp(-(t/100))/100 for t in range(0, 31*100, 1)])-s)<1) else local_tax(s, low=low, high=med, med=(low+med)/2) if abs(100-log(100)**(sqrt(log(100))+cos(100)))<atan(100) and (sum([(t/100)**(med)*exp(-(t/100))/100 for t in range(0, 31*100, 1)])>s) else local_tax(s, low=med, high=high, med=(med+high)/2) if abs(100-log(100)**(sqrt(log(100))+cos(100)))<atan(100) else local_tax(s)
This equation entails that if a local government, for some reason, was required to have a referendum listing constants to change, voters would see:
“If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of 1: ______; If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of 100: ______; If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of 31: ______; If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of 2: ______; If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of 0: ______.”
Basically all of the values that voters would thus put into the equation would either not change the outcome of the equation by that much (or increase the taxes they would pay) or cause some error (like division by 0), or cause an infinite loop, thus mostly preventing a coordinated change by anarchists to get rid of their local government (though they would be successful in keeping the local government bound to the functions for the default tax lambdas of that government stated at the start of Section 5). This otherwise forms a very slowly increasing progressive income tax following the inverse of the factorial function divided by 100 (in this case, it would be the approximation of the gamma function of med+1 that maps the factorial function onto the positive real number domain).
If, however, the local government that is for some reason required to have voters vote on constants were to use the default lambda of the federal government's default income tax (lambda x: x*atan(ln(x)*.06)/pi), the voters would be able to choose virtually any constant, where replacing pi with 4 would cause it to be (lambda x: x*atan(ln(x)*.06)/4), which is a significant reduction in taxes, and similarly with changing .06 changing the progressive nature of the tax (where making it significantly smaller significantly reduces taxes), thus making it very easy for voters to make it hard for that local government to exist.
However, a local government that has restrictions on its taxation (requiring it to allow voters to change the constants in the function) that designs the lambda such that the voters can't change it without causing an error cannot make their function more complicated (specifically no more characters) than the inverse gamma function example given (which mostly limits the only options the voters have for replacing 100 with another number being to change it to 25 or 31).
Division C: Proportional Representation and Limitations on the Executive
Section 1
The House of Representatives shall only be considered to have passed a bill when the requisite majority of their “seats” shall have certified their support of the bill. Furthermore, this certification may be in the form of a faxed signature on an identical copy of the bill given while not present in the chamber, or in a similar secure fashion as technological advance permits. Furthermore, no one except for the clerk of that chamber shall be required to be present in order for business to proceed as usual provided that members communicate with each other with reasonably secure technology.
At the start of each session of the House of Representatives, all members must hear the following non-binding advice (contained between two quotation marks):
"Use the resources of this government to ruthlessly pursue strong reductions in the prices of housing, electricity, water and durable goods based on free market principles. The ruthlessness must come from the business paradigm of using the free market to massively increase the supply of those things in areas where prices rise (or are higher than the amortized cost of building up that supply by your own actions). You must be ruthless in building automated factories and 3D printers and in using eminent domain to build faster than your private industry competition, while making sure that rules of states and local governments do not stymie new private individuals from helping out to provide goods people need on the same free market principles. Building out electrical capacity is a good place to start, place molten salt thorium thermal reactors near mines with the materials necessary to build more of them, use the electricity to help run the robots building the factories and sorting the materials from the mines to build more molten salt thorium reactors, factories and robots, looping the automation and using the vast number of new reactors along the California coast to provide the electricity to run desalination plants owned by you, then sell the water to provide the funds to build pipelines (powered by molten salt reactors along its length) from the coast to Arizona, selling water along the way wherever a profit can be made. Use the revenue generated from similar projects to build automated factories for making concrete 3D printers, then use those concrete 3D printers to start building massive housing complexes in every place where the cost of purchasing property is less than the prices that each unit of housing could be sold for after building ever more units higher up, and reinvesting those profits into building automated factories for building all the parts necessary to make the massive housing projects. Further benefits can be secured for the future by building rapidly reusable molten salt thorium thermal reactor-powered rockets, and proceeding to use them to efficiently build automated factories on the Moon capable of using the elements there to build every piece of themselves, then exponentially increasing industrial capacity for cheaply producing durable goods that can be used on Earth years later. Wait to pursue social policy until after the economic benefits of this plan have been secured indefinitely into the future by automation. If your initial reaction to this plan is disgust, rethink your entire paradigm until you can realize that you will have to put away the previous eras' paradigms of city planning and beautification if you are to ever make everyone live better lives.
You should probably also hire enough independently-minded journalists (as far as having shown willingness to criticize you, your parties, the federal government, state governments, local governments, and the governments of allies) to investigate any problems that are currently happening, or may be about to happen among different federal government agencies, and especially in investigating how to avoid state and local governments moving resources away from the public good. You should provide these journalists enough support to make sure they can get their peer-reviewed pieces they determine may be necessary to convince voters to make all necessary changes to make sure the public services that make their lives better are protected (both from politicians and corporations) at every level of government, and make sure they are able to freely report on any problems (perceived or otherwise) happening or about to happen at the hands of any number of corporations. The support should be sufficient to have their stories and statements of how to act appear on radio and TV spots and social media feeds more often than is necessary for voters to put people into positions to change things for the better.
Another strong recommendation is to make laws to imprison anyone who pays ransoms and fines them the amount they paid in the ransom. This recommendation is on account of the fact that money is power, and thus a sufficiently advanced ransom-industrial complex is indistinguishable from a replacement of your democratic government with a shadow fascist government.
In order to make sure there is a continuous supply of people who understand how to properly exercise political power for the benefit of many, you will likely benefit from passing a law to require that elected student governments at schools where a student may live on campus for longer than 3 consecutive months at a time over the course of more than 730 cumulative days of being at the campus and pays to be there will have such student governments have the power to control all the funding derived from student payments for housing and meal plans, and have those elections provide for allowing the students to decide (by the median value chosen) the salaries of different positions in the student government. This law would allow the student governments to potentially provide more efficient meal services and housing options at a lower price, and necessarily involve canceling prior contracts that harm the ability of these student governments to carry out this duty, and have the terms of many members of these student governments outlast their terms as students (such as by using the optimal election process for the special type of local governments discussed later in the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment where a single legislative/executive parliament has members in their positions for anywhere from 2 years to 4 years to 6 years based on the approval voting part of the election, and potentially have an upper chamber of 4 classes of 7 each elected by a different kind of proportional election staggered every year (and potentially 1 additional member (having the privilege of serving in both chambers) per year that an average student would be at said school (this would be 4 members for most universities and private high schools), each elected by a separate approval voting election by those who are in a given year of schooling) with the responsibility of approving or disapproving any new spending program by the lower chamber and approving or disapproving grants of tenure to professors, and having the power to remove (by some supermajority vote) a food service worker or campus housing manager or other person appointed by the lower chamber, and otherwise the lower chamber can do everything with simple majority votes (other than make contracts that persist after the end of the term of the member whose term lasts the longest of those approving a contract, nor violate the integrity of contracts, nor take on debt)). This then allows more people to get involved with the nitty-gritty work of understanding that all policy has some winners and some losers, and it is critical to make sure those on the losing side of policies (presumably inefficient food service companies, or companies that were previously administering housing on land owned by the school) do not include the voters in elections for student government, and that the student government meaningfully increases the wellbeing of the students (particularly the poorest of them). Congress could give itself power over this on the understanding that if a university or private school is selling food and housing, it is engaging in regulate-able commerce, and that the alternative to a school providing meaningful democratic participation to its students could be something like Congress creating government offices corresponding to each school in the nation where the person appointed to that office must correspond to someone chosen by a free and fair advisory election by the students of the school, and Congress could give those offices the power to figure out what price controls the U.S. government should impose on housing and food sold by the school in question, and then receive tax revenue from the school in order to pay for programs for students at that school. For schools owned by a state government, Congress would have even more power to make the system created at the school match this idea because Article IV of the Constitution grants Congress to power to guarantee to every state a republican form of government, and this kind of student government design (particularly in how it teaches students what it means to meaningfully make policy and deal with consequences) guarantees that there is a supply of people in that state who are capable of running a republican form of government (and that it prevents an entrenched oligarchy from taking over what would be in this case an arm of state government), and that Congress has the power to alter voting regulations of state governments.
Use the ability of Congress to regulate interstate commerce (and the extension of that to basically every aspect of the economy by previous court cases) to prohibit couples with net worths of less than $2 million (or in the case of their finances being separate, where either of them have less than a $1 million net worth) from hiring lawyers in domestic disputes and otherwise having the only exception be to hire lawyers at rates of pay that are less than whatever both of them are willing to agree to. This would be useful again in preventing a large portion of the economy from moving over to the hiring of lawyers, and on the understanding that the hiring of expert lawyers in these cases is very similar to a prisoner’s dilemma (where both sides pursuing rational objectives destroy themselves financially) since the resulting decision is likely less predicated on justice so much as it is based on how much can be spent on lawyers. Depending on the success of this kind of legislation in protecting people in general, this concept can be expanded to other areas of litigation (try to do this piece by piece until a major problem occurs in a new area of litigation, then reverse the change in the problem area) between fully private groups (litigation between a entity that is even slightly governmental and a private entity cannot possibly use the same standard, since a private person in civil suits against the government has the very strong protections granted by the first amendment freedom of speech (which includes hiring lawyers in suits against the government) and to petition government officials (which includes hiring lawyers to help write those petitions)) to make sure that bankruptcy through litigation does not become the manner by which an aristocracy can be created and preserved (such as has been done by strategic lawsuits against public participation), and make sure the court system is viewed as being favorable towards the idea of justice.
It may also be a good idea to disincentivize the use of cryptocurrency given that it invariably requires wasting electricity and computer hardware (as part of irrevocably converting two things that have real-world utility into imaginary tokens), but, before banning it altogether, be sure that there exist platforms that can be readily used by Americans and non-Americans, poor and rich alike to reliably trade for goods and services with U.S. dollars (particularly across borders) with effective transaction fees no higher than the cheapest cryptocurrency exchange (of the ones with transaction costs, effective transaction costs necessarily includes the value of coins created by those maintaining the ledger relative to the size of transactions), and the ability to trade arbitrarily small fractions of dollars in amounts that can be reliably represented on computer systems. This should be done in a way that makes U.S. dollars more competitive as a means of exchange than other currencies."
Section 2
Voting eligibility for the House of Representatives election is fully nationalized such that any person who can prove their citizenship, their age being greater than or equal to 18 years, and that they have not voted previously in that election at such places (reasonably close to all eligible voters living in the United States or its territories) designated by Congress and run by officers of the United States (or Post Offices if no such places are established) may vote once and sign one petition in the House of Representatives election per House of Representatives election, which shall be according to the following section.
The Department that shall account for these votes shall not be able to be influenced by the President, and Congress shall choose multimember commissions that have been known to avoid political influence to investigate cases of not counting proper votes. If Congress has not been able to make such a choice, then the choice may be made for them by the courts on the application of a class action lawsuit by eligible voters against Congress for such a failure.
The one voter=one petition signature and one vote in a specific type of election per time that election happens rule applies for the other elections this department arbitrates.
For referendums, this rule becomes one voter=one signature on a given petition introducing legislation and one vote in a particular referendum on an item, where votes are accepted over 30 days and counted as immediately as possible.
Section 3
There are as many seats in the House of Representatives as dictated by the following equation: ceil(1.63798639121 *pow(population, 1/3)). (ceil is the ceil function from the Python math library, pow is the pow function from the Python math library, population is the population of the U.S.) The election for these seats shall happen through the month of October in every even year.
Each political party who wishes to put forward candidates for the House of Representatives election must send a petition list of consenting candidates (along with each candidate’s line of succession, chosen by the candidate (and placed inside that original petition) after they are chosen by the party) to the above designated department to allow each potential voter to sign an identical copy at any of their offices (may be digital). Those candidates shall only appear on the ballot if that petition receives signatures of at least 1% of the number of those who voted in the previous House of Representatives election (or 100,000, whichever is fewer) more than 2 months before the ballot is made available in the offices of that department.
The ballot shall consist of columns of all the candidates under their respective party labels with a “radio button” (sort of like a “checkbox” but with the difference of removing your previous choice when you choose someone else, or just the statement “choose one” for paper ballots if Congress passes a law to use those) to the immediate left of the names of candidates to which they correspond, of which each vertical list shall be randomly sorted for each voter.
A vote for one candidate of one party shall be considered a vote for the party. The parties with at least 4% of the vote shall have the seats of the House of Representatives divided to them as proportionally as possible. No candidate may take a seat who has received a number of votes less than 1/3 of the number of people over the age of 18, citizens of the United States, not institutionalized and residing in the least populous state (as of 2020, this minimum number of votes is about 143 thousand) (i.e. someone over the age of 25 who has been a citizen of a state for at least 5 years who receives 144,000 votes cumulatively over one or several states from U.S. citizens over the age of 18 not in prison or in a mental hospital in the month of October and who is listed under a party label that got 4% of the vote gets at least one seat in the House of Representatives). The seats for each party shall be filled by the most voted for candidates of that party until the party runs out of seats or qualified candidates. If they run out of candidates, then the remaining seats go to their most voted for candidate. Under these rules, the voters may cause there to be very few members of the House of Representatives, which is acceptable because it would be what they literally decided to do with respect to not voting for down-ballot representatives in great enough numbers, and each of those members then has a proportionate amount of power over proceedings.
People on the line of succession for a given candidate who is given a seat shall be considered legally identical (especially for passing bills) when taking control of that seat due to the previous dying, resigning, or being expelled by a resolution of 2/3rds of the seats. Seats may not be otherwise transferred (other than by the next election, obviously). This also means that in the case of members being arrested for treason, felony or breach of the peace, the arresting officers are required to provide that member continued access to the reasonably secure communication technology, a fax machine, and may not question the member regarding the content sent to other members of the Chamber, and continues to have no say over what bills can be passed. An arresting officer preventing a member of a chamber from carrying out his or her duties in this way is literally committing treason because to do so is to effectively overthrow the U.S. government by force (and similarly it would be terrorism to use threats against the member while the member is arrested to influence what legislative activities the member engages in (this passage is to enable someone who wins 50%+1 of the vote in themselves (and thus holds 50%+1 of the seats) to work to pass a law which removes themselves from custody, or a resolution which directs the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives to arrest the arresting officers (it is unclear how the latter would work))).
The second-to-last option (to choose from instead of the above) will be a list of currently-serving members of the House of Representatives, of which the voter may choose multiple candidates, with each candidate getting 1/(number of candidates chosen) of that voter’s vote (thus preserving the right of voters to vote for someone currently in office that otherwise falls out of favor of a party) and the incumbents being considered for these seats as if “incumbent” was a separate party designation (who can still receive seats via being given them under a different party label separately).
The last option for any voter in the House of Representatives election shall be “incumbents” whereby each seat receives 1/(total seats) of that voter’s vote, with the votes to a given seat in this way going to the Representative who currently has that seat (worded this way to get rid of ambiguity where a Representative has multiple seats due to the above rules). These fractional votes are added into the above total.
Section 4
Sections 5 through 13 shall come into effect as of July of the year prior to the end of the Presidential term during which the first proportional election for the House of Representatives happened. The President at that time shall remain in office until both the House of Representatives and Senate choose new Presidents from the 4 given as options by the voters. Before members of Congress make a selection, they must be given non-binding advice of, "it is better for democracy to keep the same President or not have a President at all than to choose one who is not approved of by a full 50% of the voters."
Section 5
For all decisions by a Chamber of Congress for choosing a President, an absolute majority of the total number of seats in the Chamber must approve the decision. For all other decisions under this article, fractions are considered from the whole number of seats in a Chamber.
Section 6
The executive power of the United States under Article II is vested in “the President” who consists of either one or two persons, chosen by each Chamber of Congress from among 4 chosen every 4 years by all citizens (over the age of 18 who are not institutionalized (in other words, physically confined in a hospital or prison at the time of the election)) by approval voting from among each who was placed on the ballot by a petition of 200,000 unique citizens who can prove to the new government agency (or the Post Office if Congress has not otherwise set one up under Section 2) for collecting ballots for these truly National elections (for President and the House of Representatives) that they are citizens and that they were not involved in another such petition in the last 4 years.
Section 7
A President has a term of until the Chamber that gave said person the title of President chooses a new President (if both Houses gave someone the title of President, then once both have chosen a new President), but any given set of members of the House of Representatives elected for a term of 2 years may only select a President once in that term, and any given Senator may only, during one term of 6 years, be involved in votes of the Senate in selecting a President 3 times (i.e. changing who is in charge every 2 years on average, unless a Chamber believes that it is in their interests that the current President stay (such reasons that chamber may come up with could include using that power (that is, the power that members of Congress are uniquely qualified to wield because it involves doing nothing in order to have it continuously) to cause a President and his Vice Presidents to run out the clock on how long they can cumulatively remain in office (stated below) and thus have no President, which can then make it easier to pass other sorts of bills, as well as to have a more consistent use of executive power through the executive branch (at the main cost of needing to invest in figuring out how to extend the lives of judges because there would be no one who could appoint new judges, and needing to be more proactive in passing laws to replace executive office holders via disestablishing their offices and giving some other department head some framework (that does not involve members of Congress) for appointing a replacement (one way to limit the current officeholders in making a selection is by doing something like requiring that that person choose the winner of a single elimination chess tournament (likely with substantially different rules like only seeing the parts of the board that one of the player’s own pieces can move to (“Fog of War”), and/or having a system of 512 boards (arranged in squares of 64 boards placed diagonally to make it easier to discern moves along levels of the extra 3 dimensions) to allow pieces to move up to in any of 5 orthogonal directions (with piece moves altered from the original chess rules to have radial symmetry according to any set of 90 degree turns along any two dimensions, and pawns no longer promoting), and/or having additional quadrilateral board positions outside of the original 64 (provided that no piece can be captured in the first turn of either player), and/or having timing rules that are symmetric for both sides to make decisions on moving their pieces (with breaks from the game every three hours for at least 1 hour), and/or additional pieces (including pieces with the ability to make a move that satisfies the rules for either of two or more normal pieces) (provided that each player has the same number of a given type of piece, and provided that no piece can be captured in the first turn of either player), and/or different arrangements of pieces in the starting position chosen by the players (provided that the closest pieces of each opponent start as far away from the other player’s pieces as possible and no captures are possible on the first turn), and/or a system of each player choosing what pieces to use by having the same starting number of points each game to expend on a type of piece (each player spending the same number of points to get a piece of a given type) (provided that the starting position of the players is far enough away in a non-linear fashion to avoid queens from being able to capture pieces on the first turn)) among people satisfying a set of minimum measurable qualifications (qualifications could be things like: citizenship, residency in a country for a number of years or more, a Juris Doctor degree, a Medical Doctor degree, an economics degree, a computer security certification, a number of years of experience in a particular industry (either being one who produces stuff in that industry or one who has worked for a government entity specifically regulating that industry, those years of experience being considered equivalent when Congress is creating a rule under this paragraph to effectively require a department head to choose among a group of one person (or fewer than 1000 people) for a position))))), or using that power to swap Presidents as a political “threat” (as that word is used colloquially, not in court settings, which of course, members of Congress saying that in the other sense couldn’t be questioned anyways under Section 6 of Article I) in order to stop one of them from doing something while that person is in the act of doing something (which is where such things as requiring 30 days’ notice to Congress before a President does something (and otherwise consider those actions invalid) can be a useful tool Congress can impose by law on certain actions for preserving the power of each chamber)). Presidents are still limited to a maximum amount of time in office equal to 87648 hours (slightly less than 10 years) (in the case of Vice-Presidential succession where those VPs are not later chosen on their own by the voters, the partial terms of their forebears are considered added to that term such that they cannot remain in the office of President after 87,648 hours of anyone being President from the start of the first President’s term on that original petition’s list).
Section 8
When selecting who shall be President, a House of Congress may only select from among 4 natural-born citizens aged 35 years or older who are chosen every 4 years by truly national approval voting (4 most approved of candidates by all voters) done over the course of October (using the same system of elections as done with the House of Representatives on every other such ballot) and verified as of December 31st (at the point of verification, the Houses could potentially choose among 8 until January 20th at noon in a year following a year divisible by 4 (unless the period became shorter due to the 4 year time period being set separately by virtue of a President being removed from office by the voters voting in a referendum that the President had used his office to out a whistle-blower (the process is described later in this amendment in Section 9))) of which 1 is chosen by the House of Representatives a maximum of once every 2 years (chosen by open-party-ticket proportional voting (and reckoned as of January 6th at noon after the election over October)), and 1 is chosen by the Senate.
These two choices may be the same person or two different people.
It is the policy of the United States that, wherever there is a disagreement between “the President”, it is ignored in favor of the policy of the heads of the departments concerned in the issue, and otherwise the policy of the existing regulations (with the understanding that this clause cannot be construed to say that policies (or even executive regulations) are in any way less able to be questioned, and they both remain strictly less powerful than laws).
Section 9
The Offices of Inspector Generals (or legal counsel) and anyone else specifically designated for receiving anonymous whistle-blower reports is exempt from providing the information that could identify a whistle-blower, and it is illegal for that information to be released to anyone else, and especially not either President, requiring a referendum of all the American people on whether a new set of options for President shall be chosen should that information be released (the referendum question itself being “Did President <name here> fail to protect a whistle-blower? (yes / no)”). If Congress fails to call for a new referendum using the federal election resources designed for the House of Representatives within 24 hours of this information being released (or the release of information that the President has found this information by any means), then the state governments shall call for their own referendums on this question to be answered within 30 days. The total number of votes cast by a state in favor or out of favor of this referendum shall be considered as the fraction of their voters voting in a given direction divided by the number of votes, then multiplied by the number of people who voted in the last House of Representatives election in that state.
Should, 30 days from states calling for this referendums who represent more than 2/3rds of the voters from the previous federal election nationally, the referendum (once indexed as above) is “yes”, then the previously otherwise most voted for options for President shall replace those losing this referendum (choosing a Chamber at random to be associated with for later replacement) (this new President being considered to have had spent time in office equal to the time since the latest person was chosen to be President by that chamber (thus if the previous person chosen by that chamber was chosen 70118 hours ago, the person's replacement can't be in office for more than 17530 hours)) and the President (or Presidents) known to defy the associated norm is (or are) disqualified to take up the position again. The new election shall happen 90 days after the referendum (whether it was called by Congress or by the states) by the same approval voting method, or once at least 8 people are able to get the petitions of 200000 citizens in order to appear on the ballot, whichever is later, and the voters shall have the next 30 days thereafter to vote on this issue.
The timeline after this other election for future elections is then reset with that 30-day period replacing the month of October with respect to when voters choose candidates for President every 4 years. This doesn’t change how or when the House of Representatives and Senate get elected.
The number of times members of the House and members of the Senate can replace the President in their term is reset after the verification of the new Presidential election results (i.e. that they can replace “the President” who was temporarily put in place due to the previous being removed by the referendum).
Section 10
Each President shall have 1 staff member chosen by him alone for each agency and department of the United States who shall be able to get all administrative information about the agency, and an additional number of such extra staff members for handling communication with the President and similar services equal to the (number of departments and agencies)*ceil(log base 2 of the number of departments and agencies) plus any other staff members that Congress shall have appropriated money for them to use in that manner. These staff members are separate from those vested by law with actual powers (since those require both Presidents in order to express executive power, or at least, had at some point been appointed to a position with power that recursively came from the base case of both presidents (may have been just one President at some time)).
Upon receiving an anonymous whistle-blower report against one of these hand-picked staff members, the Chamber that chose the President (or would replace the President by choosing another of those 4) may, by 1/2 consent, remove that staff member (not the whistle-blower) and further disqualify him or her from serving in any office in the U.S. government while the President who picked him or her remains in office.
Section 11
All heads of departments and other appointments done by “the President” as far as law goes shall be done by both persons chosen as President (may be the same person), and similarly shall be able to (together) make any new decision regarding the use of the military and other forces that have any sort of deadly force capability (as previously authorized by law for terms of no greater than 2 years for those persons that could technically act while on the soil under the jurisdiction of a state (i.e. going back to how navies could be authorized to exist for terms greater than 2 years, and thus this principle can be extended to potentially having a bill that provides for continuity of authorization for some members of government with lethal force capabilities (such as military police) on {waterways, foreign land, federal land not controlled by a state, territories of the U.S., Washington D.C., federal buildings, military bases, the airspace sufficiently far above the ground of a state as to not be generally considered part of that state} provided those forces remain in areas that clearly fall into those categories of places)).
Other Presidential orders must be made by both acting jointly, and any Presidential order may be undone either by a new Presidential order, or by one President and 3/5ths of one Chamber of Congress, or by a joint resolution of 3/5ths of each Chamber of Congress (not involving “the President”), or 2/3rds of one and 1/2 of the other (not involving “the President”), or unanimous of one (not involving “the President”), and such resolutions of Congress need only be faxed (or sent in a secure method) to each member of Congress and be signed by the requisite number of “seats” in a secure way such that Congress does not need to “convene” in order to do this action.
Other orders made by other persons in the executive branch (besides the “staff” members appointed by each solely for the purpose of getting all information about an agency or department to inform the President) may be undone by: a joint resolution of 3/5ths of each House of Congress (not involving “the President”), or 2/3rds of one and 1/2 of the other (not involving “the President”), or unanimous of one (not involving “the President”), and such resolutions of Congress need only be faxed (or sent in a secure method) to each member of Congress and be signed by members holding the requisite number of “seats” in a secure way such that Congress does not need to “convene” in order to do this action.
The resolutions of Congress made under this article fall under the same unconditional immunities with respect to their content as normal speeches within the physical locations of a House of Congress.
Contracts made by the United States may not be vacated (besides what can be interpreted from their terms for ending the contract within the contract and existing contract law at the time the contract was made) except according to the following rules: the conditions "(1)" and "(5)" must be satisfied as preconditions, the rest are satisfied by virtue of the contract being vacated: {(1) the original contract was made by the executive branch where the majority of the terms of the agreement were not specified in the actual text of a law of Congress (such as funding and the very particular parts of what is asked to be done or designed as) nor specified by a resolution of either chamber (or resolution of a Senate committee given budgetary authority by law) pursuant to a law authorizing such a resolution to inform its particulars. (2) Money spent or resources given by the federal government under the contract remain given. (3) If the contract required something be built or a run of items be built for a certain price per unit, the items built by the time the contract is vacated can be sold to the federal government for that same price, which must be paid upon delivery. (4) Items created or purchased under the contract that the federal government has not yet paid for may be used and sold by the company or companies they sell it to however they see fit (with the normal legal recourses against the owner of the items if the items are used by the owner to physically harm someone); this necessarily means that if a company was contracted to make a nuclear weapon, and had only finished refining the Uranium and Plutonium (when not effectively purchased by the federal government by the time the contract is vacated), the same could be used in the cores of nuclear power stations in anyone's backyard (potentially using the rules in division B of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment to build the station out of concrete reinforced with high nickel steel to meet or exceed the standards of a local government or state government that opposes its creation but doesn't want to be taxed out of existence; the only reason then existing to impose legal sanctions on the company (or companies the material was sold to) would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case against the company (using the "corporations are people" principle) to show that it physically harmed someone). (5) The order undoing the executive action making the contract must have been done by one of the following three: {1/2 of one chamber of Congress and 2/3rds of the other; 3/5ths of both chambers of Congress; unanimity of one chamber of Congress} (none of which provide the President a say in matters).}.
Section 12
The line of succession rules beyond those chosen by Presidential candidates to be Vice President (as of when their petitions were made) are removed. If no one shall be “the President” under this amendment (such as by running out the 10 year clock), then all actions the President would be normally required to take are instead taken via the passage of laws such that, 10 days after being made, if the houses are still in session, being the decision, otherwise Congress will allow the heads of departments who had been appointed by “the President” and confirmed by the Senate to remain in place and do their jobs until a joint resolution is passed to remove that department head. Joint resolutions to remove department heads and to revoke a law passed prior to it taking effect (the minimum time before any other law takes effect when there is no President being 10 days plus Sundays) will take effect immediately upon finishing voting in both chambers.
Congress, acting in this capacity without a President, may not itself appoint anyone, instead relying on those already appointed to other positions to make new hiring decisions in the executive branch. Hypothetically this could mean passing a law to allow the Secretary of Defense to appoint a new Secretary of State over, say, a 10-day timeframe from the law taking effect, but the law could not contain any names of particular persons, and could not require the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress, in this case, would not be able to make any formal treaties since there would not be a President, and they would not be able to tell Attorneys to prosecute a particular person given the prohibition on such laws being made (except in the sense that they can petition (in an advisory sense) the Department of Justice to take legal action based on pre-existing laws for protecting the authority of the chamber), but they could still pass a joint resolution to remove a particular attorney (effective immediately upon passing). Congress could not make official treaties, but they could pass normal legislation that may or may not satisfy the demands of a country demanding a treaty (i.e. if a war were to happen and the U.S. were losing, Congress could not decide to give up a state to the aggressor to appease them, because normal legislation cannot do that (it is still an open question whether a treaty can legally do anything other than strictly less than what normal legislation can do (other than provide a permanent free trade area that can only be ended if the other country or countries fail to uphold their ends of the treaty) (only otherwise able to be determined via desperation))).
Section 13
Each Presidential candidate shall choose one Vice President to succeed himself in office (except due to being replaced by a different President being chosen by the Chamber previously backing himself from among their 4 options, or due to the sum of all partial terms of someone chosen by a house of Congress and their Vice Presidents from a single election reaching 10 years in office (i.e. meaning that if Congress waits for 10 years+1 hour to choose new Presidents, there will be 1 hour of no President) ) prior to the petition for the President’s inclusion as someone voters can choose being registered, and each Vice President shall choose a Vice President to succeed himself in the same way, recursively downward to as many as the petitioners feel is necessary.
The most voted for Presidential candidate shall have his Vice President be President of the Senate, having one vote when the Senate is equally divided, regardless of whether the House or Senate has him as one of “the President” (this persists longer than the 4-year timeframe between elections if later presidential options (among the 4 most approved) don’t get more total popular votes than the President or Presidential option whose Vice Presidential choice is in office as President of the Senate), and shall have one vote in any committee or similar body which has meetings and has at least one Senator as a member (the Vice President's vote being counted as "no" unless the Vice President specifies otherwise for that particular vote of the body; note: the body need not officially be a part of the U.S. government in order for the Vice President to get a vote, for if a Senator is on the board of a private company, the Vice President automatically gets a vote on all its board meetings, regardless of whether the U.S. government has jurisdiction over that company (in the same way for other bodies that have one Senator as a member)). This effectively means that Kamala Harris could be the Vice President who is President of the Senate until such time as someone else gets 81,284,667 or more votes as President who does not have Kamala Harris as Vice President on that ballot (which could be a very long time, or otherwise until she dies, resigns, or gets impeached and convicted, at which point she would be replaced by the Vice President of the current option Congress could choose to make President that has received the most votes of those 4 or 8).
Section 14
Sections 15 through 19 shall only come into effect with the Senate election that follows by 2 years the aforementioned Presidential election via approval voting. Preparations should be made before then (in printing ballots, accepting petitions and so forth) to allow the implementation of this to go smoothly. Section 20, Section 21, Section 22, Section 23, and Section 24 shall come into effect with the Senate election that comes after Section 15 comes into effect.
Section 15
The election process in each state, as run by that state, shall have the ballots for Senate elections be revised to have each eligible party (representing enough active voters in that state to have a reasonable chance of getting a seat) petition 5 persons for the position of Senator. The incumbent(s) up for re-election at the same time shall appear under the party label “incumbents” (as well as their own party label if so qualifying). A voter shall be able to choose one candidate under one party label, and that vote counts as one vote for the candidate and one vote for the party label. Of 5 positions in the “delegation” so up for re-election, parties shall receive seats according to the described formula. A party that gets 20% of the vote gets one seat in this “delegation” (in the case of more than 2 parties, the minimum percentage of the vote a party needs to get to have one seat is reduced by ((whatever percentage of the vote the third most voted for party got)/2) with more voted for parties being entitled to their seats first. A party that gets 40% of the vote gets 2 seats in this “delegation”. A party that gets 50%+1 of the vote gets 3 seats in this “delegation”. A party that gets 60%+1 of the vote gets 4 seats in this “delegation”. A party that gets 80%+1 of the vote gets all 5 of the seats in the “delegation.” An individual candidate under a party label who gets one of those above percentages gets that many seats; otherwise, the most voted for candidates of the parties who receive seats get those seats (one candidate per seat in that case); excess seats (seats not granted to a party) of these 5 seats in a “delegation” remain vacant with the caveat that the most voted for candidate of the most voted for party must get one seat in the delegation (if the candidate did not already get one).
Section 16
In votes or petitions of the whole Senate, a “delegation” (that is, all with the title of “Senator” who are from one state and whose term ends at one time) shall only have one vote (an independent Senator just votes normally, but in order for a multi-member delegation to vote, 3 seats of that delegation must vote in one way or else be considered to reject the thing brought forward (thus, states that are so internally divided that only one or two of the 5 seats in a delegation allocated to them are filled can only vote “no”)). In order for a delegation to speak, all of that delegation must be on the floor of the Senate with only one person speaking and with the majority of another delegation standing silent on the floor in support. While so standing for a single speech, no person standing may rely on nonliving aids or other people to keep them upright, and may not consume anything but water or milk. Except for those things listed in Section 17, each delegation may have two speeches without interruption (other than to drink water and milk) in order to stop a vote of the Senate on one thing (the Senate being considered to negate it until it votes in favor) (this resets whenever a new thing (which may be a revised version of the old thing) is brought under consideration).
Section 17
The following decisions of the Senate may be made via having the requisite majority (different fractions of the whole number for different things) of the whole number of delegations in the Senate simply communicating via reasonably secure technology and faxing their signatures onto these bills or resolutions: {votes on trials of Impeachment, resolutions for choosing the President from among the 4 qualified by aforementioned approval voting, resolutions on revoking executive orders and revoking regulations made by executive agencies (mentioned farther up on this amendment), votes on bills that do nothing except maintain current funding levels (where the funding is drawn from tax money (note: the payment on debt is considered automatically approved)) for all government programs (excluding funding under PIPECCAA while it remains unchanged) for a time period less than 364 days (i.e. a “continuing resolution”), (where Section 22 applies) votes on bills as amended by a national referendum of the voters on what percent of the unallocated revenue to spend on different programs as it comes in (where the votes in the Senate that are expressed by such referendums are considered automatic signatures of that many majorities of “delegations”)}.
The following decisions of the Senate may be made while disallowing any further debate: {votes on tabling the thing being voted on to not be brought forward in the Senate except by unanimous consent (i.e. “killing a bill”), votes on moving the Senate to consider something new (which may be a revised version of the current thing under consideration), votes on bills that do nothing except maintain current funding levels (where the funding is drawn from tax money (note: the payment on debt is considered automatically approved)) for all government programs (excluding funding under PIPECCAA while it remains unchanged) for a time period less than 364 days (i.e. a “continuing resolution”), (where Section 22 applies) votes on bills as amended by a national referendum of the voters on what percent of the unallocated revenue to spend on different programs as it comes in (where the votes in the Senate that are expressed by such referendums are considered automatic “yes” votes)}. These motions require that the person making them be the one speaking on the floor of the Senate, and allowing the President of the Senate to ask if anyone seconds the motion ends the speech, and only after the motion is seconded by (the majority of) another delegation not standing on the floor of the Senate may voting proceed on the motion. If the vote fails, then the delegation seconding it and the delegations standing on the floor of the Senate have given up one of the two speeches they are entitled to for stopping voting from happening on the thing they are motioning away from (along with the one speech given up by the one making the motion by allowing the President of the Senate to call for someone to second the motion).
[Note: This mathematically entails that since a minority of the Senate could, at this time, be as large as 50 delegations, and the person speaking for a delegation could only reasonably be expected to filibuster for 24 hours, and each delegation only has 2 speeches it is entitled to (100 speeches total), and it costs 4 speeches to motion to move to something else (with only one getting to 24 hours), that entails a filibuster trying to maximize the chances of moving to something else (i.e. succeeding) could only last 25 legislative days if each motion to move to something else fails (otherwise an effective maximum of 100 legislative days if no motions are made). If the Vice President is a member of a 49 Senator minority, then the effective maximum number of days they could stymie legislation would be (assuming the Vice President being first and last to speak and speaking between each speech for 24 hours at a time, with everyone else in the minority speaking for 24 hours at a time for each of their two speeches) 197 days. This timeline is reduced further by the fact that in order to speak at all, most Senators (it will just be 1/3rd with multi-member delegations that need to do this to start) will eventually need to get another Senator from the same state (and thus presumably someone of an opposing party (unless one party is able to get 80%+1 of the vote in one state)) to be willing to stand with them for that long (who coincidentally has no incentive to do so since the minority of a delegation effectively has no vote in the Senate other than in refusing (or not refusing) to allow members of the same delegation to filibuster). After the later sections come into effect that allow voters of the minority party of a state to best undermine the power of the majority party by nationalizing that state's vote in the senate in referendums (and not voting for any Senate candidates), then it will be likely that all the remaining votes for Senate candidates will go to a single party (thus giving it all 5 seats within the "seat" (that is, the one vote total) of a delegation), but also reducing the number of Senators that can be on the floor to speak and vote on legislation if more voters approve of "referendum-izing" their vote and disapprove of having Senators than approve of having Senators and disapprove of "referendum-izing" their vote.]
[Note also that bills amended by the voters on funding issues in nationalized referendums would, unless they already came from continuing resolutions, have had much debate happen on them already. The exclusion of PIPECCAA funding from continuing resolutions is to protect the funding of the Council on Health and the protections it provides to the Internal Revenue Service’s budget from being reduced by the voters due to the fact that their Section 22 referendums are the only thing that can alter funding bills without requiring the bill be subject to a filibuster.]
Section 18
The Vice President of the most voted for President (otherwise following the line of succession where said Vice President is the Vice President of a current President that leaves office in such a way that the rules of succession have the Vice President take the position of President, and thus the Vice President of that President is President of the Senate) shall be President of the Senate, and shall have one vote when they are equally divided. In debates on the floor of the Senate for each issue under consideration (a single issue to be voted on at the end of the debate), the Vice President shall be able to speak at will while other delegations are not speaking there and while a petition of 3/5ths of the delegations ordering the Vice President to be silent on a single issue (while it remains unchanged) is not made. The Vice President may not use these speeches to make motions (except where specifically allowed to do so by a petition of 3/5ths of the delegations or the rules of the Senate, and otherwise facilitating the motions of delegations under the rules of the Senate made by those Senators and their predecessors).
Section 19
The Senate may by its rules vest permanent committees of their own Senators (appointed in a general (as in, specific rules, but not specific by the name of a State nor names of states nor the name of a person (as in a rule like "all the members of the Senate of the majority party by votes expressed in the choice of Senate Majority Leader that have degrees in economics or finance or accounting or business have 1/2+2 seats in the Senate Finance Committee, with 4 less persons for that committee being chosen among those with degrees in economics from the minority party by the second-most voted for person in the contest for Senate Majority Leader, and, of course, one seat for the Vice President")) manner under those rules with terms of those committee appointments ending on January 6th of every odd year (restarting very soon thereafter; this does not mean the members of that committee immediately lose their positions (except where the particular Senator did not win re-election), but rather that those members are not considered "newly appointed" if their last appointment was prior to that date, thus following the rules in Section 7 of Division I of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment on their replacement) and at the point in time that those committees are first created) with the power to provisionally approve or deny someone appointed by the President to a position that otherwise requires the advice and consent of the Senate. While the Senators in such a committee are able to be notified of the person the President wishes to put in that position (of which the President shall make every effort to notify them), the person may not use any of the powers or benefits of that office until the Senators in that committee explicitly decide to provide provisional approval.
Provisional approval votes must allow the Vice President to cast one vote and must allow all senator members to speak once (with no time limit and no interruption while physically standing up unaided and only pausing to drink milk or water) to prevent the approval (reset when the committee decides to do something else in the midst of such a speech), and otherwise have set times for questions and answers and the ability to subpoena documents that would allow them to determine the qualifications of the person.
Provisional approval ends when the committee uses the same voting process in the above paragraph to determine after the fact that that person was not actually qualified (for judicial positions, the Senators must further prove that the person broke a specific federal law or constitutional provision (or violated the standard of “good behavior”); before this can become effective, they must give the House of Representatives 30 days warning, during which time the House of Representatives can order a non-partisan commission to find out if the accusation is not demonstrably false (if finding that the accusation is demonstrably false, then the provisional approval to keep that judge in that position continues, and the filibuster timers within that committee are reset (Congress may otherwise set up a non-partisan commission to rule on all provisional approval retractions by these committees))), thus removing that person immediately (or delayed on appeal to the aforementioned possible non-partisan commission that may be made to check qualifications). Provisional approval also ends if the whole Senate votes on approval or disapproval, that decision being non-retractable and effective immediately (Intra-Senate positions being obviously retractable by the Senate according to its own voting rules without appeals to groups of non-Senators). Provisional approval also ends if the position is not a judicial position and the President decides to withdraw support for that appointment (for intra-Senate positions, the President's appointment support wasn't necessary to begin with).
Section 20
In above elections for the Senate in each state, there shall be approval voting between choosing a Senator (with any voter making a choice of Senator approving that option) and choosing to vest that one vote in the Senate in the form of direct democracy referendums on all votes their delegation may have otherwise been involved in, except for in accepting or rejecting appointments and determining who of the Senators may be on the Senate committees (which, in the event of direct democracy being chosen (by being the most approved-of option), shall continue to be done by the chosen Senators in the normal way, not appearing on the Senate floor except to vote on those particular questions, and not otherwise having any say outside of those questions).
Section 21
Each voter approving of direct democracy shall have the option to choose one of the following three ways that direct democracy can be implemented:
Option 1: (the state votes against this option unless 50%+1 vote in favor of it) (Only available as an option if direct democracy had been chosen by the state’s voters 6 years prior): Make the way in which direct democracy is used to express that state’s vote in the Senate be permanent (i.e. further votes on this same question every 6 years will only be for choosing Senators for the purpose of accepting or rejecting appointments, and not for changing anything about the way these referendums are done (and thus may not be changed by anyone else either)).
Option 2: Express the state’s vote in the Senate as general referendums of all citizens of the United States over the age of 18 who are not institutionalized and express the state’s voice in the Senate via petitions of the same according to the following quorums (the lack of meeting a quorum is considered a “no” against the item (just as a majority of those voting in the referendum voting "no" overall is a "no" against the item)) chosen by the voters in the state: “_____% of citizens of the United States over the age of 18 who are not institutionalized must vote in a referendum to meet quorum requirements; _____% of citizens of the United States over the age of 18 who are not institutionalized must sign a petition in order for that petition to be the voice of that state in the Senate (i.e. in order to introduce legislation or make anything else not herein listed); I, a voter, choose to have the quorum requirements for petitioning and voting on a bill that only provides funding to currently funded programs of the federal government be (choose one:) <the same as (default if left blank)> <1/2 > <1/3> <1/4> <1/5> <1/10> <1/20> <1/30> <1/40> <1/50> <1/100> the first mentioned quorum requirements; I, a voter, choose to have the quorum requirements for petitioning and voting on a resolution that merely revokes a current executive order or executive regulation be (choose one:) <the same as (default if left blank)> <1/2 > <1/3> <1/4> <1/5> <1/10> <1/20> <1/30> <1/40> <1/50> <1/100> the first mentioned quorum requirements; I, a voter, choose to have the quorum requirements for petitioning and voting on Articles of Impeachment be (choose one:) <the same as (default if left blank)> <1/2 > <1/3> <1/4> <1/5> <1/10> <1/20> <1/30> <1/40> <1/50> <1/100> <1.5 times (to a maximum of 90%)> the first mentioned quorum requirements; I, a voter, choose to have the quorum requirements for petitioning and voting on a change to the rules of the Senate be (choose one:) <the same as> <1/2 > <1/3> <1/4> <1/5> <1/10> <1/20> <1/30> <1/40> <1/50> <1/100> <2 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> <3 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> <4 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> <5 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> <10 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> the first mentioned quorum requirements; I, a voter, choose to have the quorum requirements for petitioning and voting on a resolution to have one of the four options for President who were chosen via approval voting (can only be done up to 3 times per 6 years (representing the length of time for a term as if the vote of a State being expressed by these referendums were a Senator elected to that particular term)) be (choose one:) <the vote of the delegation that was sent to the Senate by this state for this term being considered as having their power replaced by these referendums otherwise in all matters other than appointments> <the same as> <1/2 > <1/3> <1/4> <1/5> <1/10> <1/20> <1/30> <1/40> <1/50> <1/100> <2 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> <3 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> <4 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> <5 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> <10 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> the first mentioned quorum requirements (if this power is not given to the Senate delegation instead); I, a voter, choose to have the quorum requirements for petitioning and voting on an amendment to the Constitution be (choose one:) <the same as (default if left blank)> <1.5 times (to a maximum of 90%)> <2 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> <3 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> <4 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> <5 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> <10 times (to a maximum quorum requirement of 90%)> the first mentioned quorum requirements; I, a voter, choose to have the quorum requirements for petitioning and voting on a non-binding resolution of the Senate be (choose one:) <the same as (default if left blank)> <1/2 > <1/3> <1/4> <1/5> <1/10> <1/20> <1/30> <1/40> <1/50> <1/100> the smallest of the aforementioned quorum requirements; I, a voter, choose to have the quorum requirements for petitioning and voting on a motion be (choose one:) <the same as (default if left blank)> <1/2 > <1/3> <1/4> <1/5> <1/10> <1/20> <1/30> <1/40> <1/50> <1/100> the smallest of the aforementioned quorum requirements;” the referendums and petitions thus are maintained under Section 2 of this amendment (except where it is chosen by a state to have its senate delegation retain the power to put forward and vote on resolutions to have a President from among the 4 chosen as options by the voters by approval voting). Within this choice, bills that have funding provisions follow rules in Section 22.
Option 3: (the state votes against this option unless 50%+1 in the State vote in favor of it (meaning that if 49% of voters in a state vote for this, they are voting instead for option 2)) Have the State government administer the referendums (the vote of the state in the Senate) and verify the petitions (the voice of the state in the Senate) according to their own rules on who may vote.
Congress may by law determine the length of time from when voting commences on something in the Senate to when all votes in referendums due to this section shall be considered to have completed with or without reaching their respective quorums. In the absence of such legislation, voters in these referendums shall be able to start turning in their ballots (with whatever identity verification is associated with that referendum option) from the time a vote is called for until 30 days later and have them counted as immediately as mechanically possible. Motions to table are considered as verified (the vote ending, with the direction that people voted and number of people voting being the two thresholds before a motion to table takes effect after the first threshold of getting enough signatures on the petition is achieved) 10 days after the petition to table something has received enough signatures to have votes counted on it. Thus, a motion to table that passes while a vote on legislation is happening can nullify that legislation as long as the verification date of the table motion is prior to the verification date of the legislation.
If 1/2 or more of the seats in the Senate are expressed by referendums, then sessions of the Senate are not considered to ever end, with all things that are tabled remaining tabled, and all things being voted on or introduced remaining in place for the Senate to pass or remove later. If the House of Representatives passed a bill in one of its sessions, and the Senate passes it in exactly the same form 5 years later, it is still as valid legislation as if the House had passed it 1 day before the Senate passed it.
Similarly, if 1/2+1 of the votes in the Senate are expressed via referendums on a particular matter, the votes on the matters which delegations retain control over are done concurrently with the things the voters wish to introduce and vote on. It might make sense if the Senators who still retain power on the things (that otherwise are controlled by referendums) design a new Senate chamber for themselves so that they can easily swap between votes on appointments and votes on all other matters. In this case as well, in the Senate of referendums if you will, all motions to consider items (that have been introduced, have not been tabled, and have not had voting finish on them) and motions to table (which have been introduced, have not been tabled, and have not had voting finish on them (it would be very hard to table a motion to table, since you would need to know beforehand what motions to table might be made so that your introduction of it can reach the floor faster than the motion to table which you are tabling, so that the time limit for that table resolution to be voted on gets verified before the end time where the motion to table which you are trying to table gets verified)) are considered concurrently with all pieces of legislation whose motions to consider have passed and which have not been tabled (as a clarification of the right to immediately start voting (and having your vote counted immediately) on legislation at your local post office (or whatever department was chosen under Section 2) once the motion to consider it has passed, and the speeches of the Vice President who is President of the Senate and the qualifying speeches of those Senate delegations who still retain the power to vote on legislation (except where it falls under the categories in Section 17) have finished; as long as the matter has not been tabled).
Section 22: National referendums expressing votes in the Senate
When voting on legislation that includes funding provisions, and the funding levels for the different programs have not been already amended by referendum under this clause, the referendum must include, for each program in the legislation: “ __._________% of tax revenues not allocated to programs whose funding levels are set at fixed prices (the default funding level given in the bill under consideration being: [$<value>/year | <value>% of revenue] which is what you choose if you leave this blank) <short description of what the program does> <<numeric place in the U.S.C. where the program appears> U.S.C. <section, subsection, paragraph designation of where the program appears with its authority> | <an efficient description of how to find the program in the legislation being passed>>.” If the percentages of tax revenues to different programs combined exceeds 100%, then all the percentages in all laws passed that state a percentage of revenues going to them are revised by this legislation such that the new percentage of revenues that they use are: (stated percentage)/(sum(stated percentage, for each program with a stated percentage on the ballot))*100% (mathematically, a fraction times 100% is just itself with a more human-friendly representation). Note: for programs given a particular percentage of revenue that also contain a provision preventing it from getting more than a particular amount of money, the excess money goes to every other program in the U.S. government that uses a particular percentage of revenue that has not reached its maximum based on those percentages recursively until all that excess is handed out. The median value of the options put in within this referendum (where a voter chooses a default fixed value, the fixed value is sorted in with the percentages for finding the median by simply taking what that fixed value would be as a percentage of the previous year’s revenue) (the option put into this referendum where a voter does not put a number into a given program is just the funding level in the underlying bill, which is sorted in as well that many times that happens on a ballot to find the median) for each program is considered to be the amended form of the underlying bill to have those levels of funding instead; if the amendment is equivalent to what the underlying bill states (if, for each program, either {the underlying bill states a fixed price and the median value is the same fixed price}, or {the underlying bill states a percentage of unallocated tax revenues and the median value is the same percentage}, the referendum has chosen “yes” to the underlying bill. If the amended bill is not equivalent, then the referendum has chosen “no” to the underlying bill, but the votes in the Senate that are outside of this referendum shall immediately when the result comes in (unless the unamended version is passed outright), vote on accepting or rejecting this amended version without further debate or amendment. This process works very well with having the Senators that continue to have power in the Senate passing a continuing resolution every 363 days in order to allow the people to vote on funding levels for all programs of the federal government, including programs that are designed to be outside the appropriations process (excluding payments on debt, salaries of judges, the salary of the President, salaries of members of Congress, the budget of the Internal Revenue Service, and the revenue and payments under PIPECCAA while it exists unchanged), in which case the continuing resolution shall have the option labeled at the top of the ballot, "This continuing resolution shall remain for __ years (a minimum of 1) (if a President is in that office, then the maximum length of time is 2 years (or two years after a President gets into the office (if no one was there prior and if a President is still in office at that time) whichever is longer to no longer than the number of years stated by the voters)," where, if the version as amended by the voters is passed, the median value chosen shall be the length of time it will last except to the extent where new bills change the funding levels for different things. For passage of continuing resolutions, the option of "no" is not given directly on the ballot (when the voters have the median value for any operation of the government be different from what they are in the underlying continuing resolution, then they are still voting "no" on the continuing resolution, and "yes" for a different funding bill), and no quorum is considered required for passage, though all media organizations in the United States are required to provide a front page piece describing what the voters are considering and the timeframe for voting during the 30 day period that votes are being counted by the department in Section 2 (note of course that the voters could prevent consideration of a continuing resolution by voting “no” on the motion introducing it). If the continuing resolution provided funding for programs that fall into the following categories: {a program called "tax relief" (or has words similar to “tax credit” in the title or description) (will be referred to as category 1), a program that returns money paid under a certain kind of tax proportionally to the amount paid under that tax (will be referred to as category 2), a program that pays money to local governments (will be referred to as category 3) (the exception: if the money is given to local governments by competitive awards based on providing ever more efficient and effective public services or technological innovation), a program that pays money to state governments (referred to as category 4) (exception: funding to state governments as part of sharing the costs of providing rigorously standards-meeting or exceeding public services), unallocated revenue (referred to as category 5) (would happen when the percentages paid out in the original continuing resolution as amended by the voters has the percentages add up to less than 100% or where departments and programs return unspent funds (which, probabilistically speaking, is almost guaranteed to happen)), the agglomeration of programs recommended by a majority vote in the House of Representatives to be reconsidered within the current House of Representatives session as of 60 days before voting starts on the Section 23 referendum (referred to as category 6)} and the continuing resolution as amended by the referendum is passed, then at the two year mark from the time it passed (if it lasts longer than 2 years), a new referendum of the people happens over 30 days outside of the Senate voting process (as in, does not require any sort of motion in order for it to happen) where a ballot as described in Section 23 and explained in Section 24 divides up the funding provided under programs that fall into those curly-brace-delimited categories in the previous continuing resolution.
Bills with approval for a program to take on debt to pay for something listed as an allowed debt item under the Uniform Taxation amendment must be brought forward to be passed separately from normal appropriations bills if the full bill cannot be passed without votes derived from the national referendums (and will require meeting the stricter quorum requirement of whatever percentage of the non-institutionalized citizens over the age of 18 is stated first when voters in a state are choosing to have their voice be expressed by referendum). Bills paying for things with money not being immediately collected as revenue (or being stored otherwise) can be attached to bills paying for things with debt.
The quorum in each respective category of votes (and petitions of introduction) in order to express the vote of that state is considered as determined separately by state (with the exception of no quorum requirement on continuing resolutions), with the quorum to have the capacity to express “yes” instead of “no” being the median value chosen by voters in that state for that category (thus, if the current 100 votes in the Senate were chosen by voters in individual states to all be expressed via referendum, and the median for each expression was well coordinated to be all numbers from 1% to 100%, then, in the case of a majority “yes” vote in the referendum, you could consider the percentage of “the votes in the Senate” to exactly equal the percentage of citizens over the age of 18 who are not institutionalized who voted (of course, this would assume choosing those percentages respectively and enough people choosing the defaults in all categories, because, paradoxically, if Alabama voters were to require 100% participation in order to consider their vote on normal legislation to have happened (with their default answer being “no”), but then chose to have the requirement for Constitutional amendments be 2 times that value, then actually constitutional amendments would only require 90% participation in order to allow Alabama’s Senate vote which is expressed by referendum to be able to say “yes”, because that is the stated maximum for picking that option).
Section 23: Dividing up money away from tax cuts and block grants towards other funded programs every 2 years after passing the referendum-revised continuing resolution.
"The percentage of category 1 funding that continues to be used for the category 1 program is: __.____%. The percentage of category 2 funding that continues to be used for the category 2 program is: __.____%. The percentage of category 3 funding that continues to be used for the category 3 program is: __.____%. The percentage of category 4 funding that continues to be used for the category 4 program is: __.____%; The percentage of category 5 funding that continues to be used for the category 5 program is: __.____%; The percentage of category 6 funding that continues to be used for the category 6 program is: __.____%.
The percentage of each category's funding going to each of the following currently funded programs is:
[<Program name> <short description of what the program does> <location where program's mandate is listed in either the U.S.C. or in other legislative text> category 1 funding: __._______%; category 2 funding: __._______%; category 3 funding: __._______%; category 4 funding: __._______%; category 5 funding: __._______%; category 6 funding: __._______%.]
[<repeat above bracketed item for all programs, departments, and agencies in the continuing resolution>]
The term after which funding altered under this section (excluding funding taken away from programs that were previously category 6 programs that do not become category 6 programs in the next vote on this (i.e. that the House changed its mind about what programs are disfavored)) is put back into category 5 for the purpose of voting on where that money should go going forward every 2 years is: __ years."
Section 24: Explanation of Section 23
The percentages given for category 1 are considered separately for category 2 and so on. Within one category, if a voter chooses to leave items blank, the voter is choosing to move 0% of that category's funding to that program, but if the voter leaves all the items for a category blank, the voter is choosing to not move any money out of the programs of that category. To find the actual percentages for each program taking from the funding of a category (assuming the 0% case previously doesn't hold), take its percentage, divide by the sum of all percentages, and multiply by 100% (will get the same number as if the person chose to have everything match with 100% to begin with overall for a category). The value chosen for any program of taking from a particular category's funding is the median value chosen overall by the voters (once the calculation of the actual choice each voter made is done). Category 5 and debt buybacks are given as the top-level options of where to spend money (with excess beyond the face value of debt going back into category 5 funding). The median of the choice of the term of years stated at the end of the Section 23 referendum is what is chosen by the voters for the time until the money allocated out under the referendum is put back into the category 5 program (that is, the "savings account" of the U.S. government), with no default being set (i.e. it is the median of whatever the voters choose that put numbers into that item). After every 2 years of category 5 money existing on account of the prior passage of a referendum-altered continuing resolution (or on account of money flowing into it via the expiration of a previous section 23 referendum that had 0% funding given for category 5), the Section 23 referendum is brought forward again (i.e. the ways to stop it being brought forward are to bring category 5 funding to 0%, though even then, the savings of other programs that are prohibited from keeping their savings would still end up there, thus presumably having a revote every 2 years into perpetuity (or until the underlying continuing resolution ends), especially if more than 50% of the Senate's votes are expressed by referendums).
These votes happen over 30 days corresponding to the part of the year when the original continuing resolution as amended by referendum was passed. All media organizations in the United States are required to have information on this vote on their front pages during those 30 days.
The ways voters could get direct descriptions of what programs that end up falling under the given categories (1 through 4) are by looking closely at the descriptions of the programs among the listing (assuming they are currently funded as of when the referendum starts). Where multiple programs fall into one category, the reduction in expenditure for the category overall is proportionally divided among those programs based on each program's percentage of the category's overall expenditure.
The manner in which category 6 funding is defined does not preclude the passage of a law allowing the House of Representatives unilateral control over the federal budget (excluding that it would need to work with the Senate to pass a law at least once every two years in order to allow for the existence of armies (construed generally to mean any person who could hypothetically be authorized to carry a lethal weapon on behalf of the federal government on the soil under the jurisdiction of a state (thus requiring many civilian positions to get regular approval); the one way for the House of Representatives to get around this limitation is in Section 25), which would almost necessitate handing back unilateral control over the federal budget unless the adoption of a parliamentary system of government has been widely accepted (with the understanding that simply passing a continuing resolution amended by the voters and not having a President being an effective way to maintain continuity of all programs in the long term, though it may be more convenient to pass a law to move certain percentages of tax revenue to be allocated to programs that fall under the control of specific Senate committees (with other programs being controlled by the House))). That the House of Representatives can put any currently funded program into category 6 effectively forms a stick held by the House of Representatives against a program relative to the carrot of the increased funding a popular program can get via the voters.
Section 25: Conditional upon two things both being true at the same time: (1) more than an absolute majority of seats in the Senate are expressed by referendums and (2) there existed a law passed that authorized armies that did not include any funding provision or mandates and which has any reference to legislation within that law only be to currently operating legislation.
The law that previously passed that authorized armies but did not include any funding provision (and which only includes provisions for the authorization of the existence of those kinds of programs (and the structure of how offices relate to one another), not mandates on particular actions they must take, with all references to mandates being references to the mandates inside a currently existing law or resolutions) can be unilaterally edited by a resolution of the House of Representatives to have its end dates on its programs be up to 730 days after the House of Representatives passed that resolution (not otherwise changing any other words in that law, passing it identically to how it was passed as an actual law in those words). (The way the limitation works is that the House of Representatives could not use the 1941 declaration of war as a basis for continuing the existence of armies since that declaration includes a mandate to attack a country; it instead works as a way to have a backstop negotiated with the Senate just in case the voters decide to move basically all power in the Senate to referendums, and then decide to not come out to vote for the existence of armies or law enforcement programs by the House and Senate passing a bill before that happens saying something to the effect of “All offices in <list of programs that would fall into the broader construction of ‘armies’ in this amendment> that existed in the year 2020 shall exist from the time of this bill being passed until 370 days later”, which can (when this section applies) be unilaterally amended by the House of Representatives later to say “All offices in <list of programs that would fall into the broader construction of ‘armies’ in this amendment> that existed in the year 2020 shall exist from the time of this bill being passed until 370 [+<X>] days later”. The negotiated part of this resolution could be things like providing a reference to a law providing a Senate committee with oversight powers (such that if the referenced law were to no longer operate, then a new bill would have to be created jointly by the House and Senate authorizing armies with references only to currently existing legislation).)
Division D: Limitations on Intellectual Property and the establishment of the intellectual side of YouTube as the common heritage of mankind
No commercially valuable information (except for someone’s own personal information that could be used to establish a bank account in his/her own name (name, residential address, friend’s names, and similar personal details), and information about weaponry that has a greater than 90% chance of having someone killed by an adversary strictly because of the release of the information into the public domain) may be kept from the public domain for longer than 80 years. Thus, it is illegal for technology companies to destroy source code or any company to destroy similar trade secrets because such information belongs to the public domain 80 years after it was created.
If schematics for designing a part are released under right to repair laws (passed by either a state government or by Congress), those schematics cannot be used to show that a company committed intellectual property theft, but the schematics can be used to establish a pattern that some design is "industry standard" by a company accused of intellectual property theft, which means that that company can collect legal fees from the plaintiff at the first level of a court system at which they were able to successfully show that it is industry standard, with no further appeal by the plaintiff possible after that. The jury for trials determining if something made according to some schematics (that a reasonable person would consider "advanced technology") violates intellectual property rights must consist entirely of either randomly selected mechanical engineers or randomly selected electrical engineers (since they would be from across the United States, the jury box must consist of live-streaming software with the ability to hear people at the trial and the other jurors (and have a separate live-streaming application for the jurors to discuss with each other and receive copies of relevant evidence)) (meaning if they rule in favor of the company accused of IP theft stating the basis of their decision being that the thing is "industry standard", the plaintiff cannot appeal their decision). Trials held by these mechanical engineers and electrical engineers shall have the same jurors create rules for themselves (by majority vote) to ask questions of either side (rules that should be designed to avoid them speaking over each other), issue any subpoenas needed in the middle of the trial, and ask questions of those testifying (the judge continues to have the power to set the date of the trial, adjourn the trial (either a recess or asking the jurors to make a final decision), advise jurors on matters of law and the practical abilities of the court, to block questions by the defendant or plaintiff not relevant to the case, to block testimony or evidence not specifically requested by the jurors (provided the normal powers of the judge would allow such blocks for the kind of evidence or testimony in question), enforce the rules the jurors have created on themselves, and the ability to hold someone (not a juror without majority consent of the jurors) in contempt of court (such rulings can be overturned by all or all less 1 of the jurors)).
The aspect of YouTube of being able to watch science and technology videos (as in videos on how to get an experiment to work or a piece of technology to work (including building things from raw materials, and making coding examples)) and videos that accurately reflect problems with the United States government, any state government, any local government, any foreign government, and any corporation shall be maintained into the future. If private owners of YouTube find this to not be economically viable, then the General Treasury of the United States shall be used to maintain the ability to watch and post those kinds of videos forever.
Internet platforms that allow a large number of people to post marketable content which have algorithms to check for copyrighted content must, prior to penalizing a video, check if the material in question is substantially similar to any public domain material (if it is, then the penalties are discarded), check if the context in which the material is used is entirely consistent with a full criticism of it (if it is, then penalties are discarded), check if the use of the material is in a way that is significantly transformed from the copyrighted material (if it is, then penalties are discarded). If penalties are imposed by the algorithm or prior to penalties being imposed by the copyright holder, the defendant can have any such penalty revoked by, in a way that is efficiently facilitated by the platform making sure arguments are received at the same time at the same court, sending in written arguments with no lawyers to argue against the statements by the claimant that are written in plain text by the claimant with no lawyers present at the court, with instructions on how the jury shall see the material in question, the copyrighted material of the claimant, and any similar public domain material. If the jury determines that the defendant’s material falls into any of the above three categories in this preliminary trial, then no further action may be taken by the claimant, and no penalty can be imposed on the video on account of violating the copyright of the claimant. This can’t be construed as preventing such an internet platform from removing content on the basis of it containing factually incorrect slander (or otherwise if it makes statements of fact that are demonstrably false), advocating violence, or containing nudity, or containing advertisements for products and services that the platform reasonably determines as harmful for society, or removing content that provides no value (e.g. recordings of white noise, incoherent rambling, duplicate videos, videos that are too long, videos that have too much duplication within them, reaction videos, or videos that have a previously appearing voiceover/song/noise pattern from someone else superimposed over someone else).
Division E: Limitations to the sources of Local Government funding
Section 1
Local governments may not fund themselves using fees (besides on such things as the people in the area have approved by referendums, which may thus include parking expenses, and excluding fees for accessing public transit (such as bus and rail tickets)), bail, fines (excluding a fine on some entity that equals that entity's unpaid taxes (described below) and up to maximum of 1% monthly interest to a maximum of 10% extra over any taxes not paid on time (paid in lieu of a tax if it is easier for the local government to collect on fines than taxes), fines for vacant indoor commercial space assessed per square foot, fines for vacant housing per square foot, fines for having too many parking spaces (per square foot according to the footprint of the parking spaces as it is mapped on a 2 dimensional map of the local government’s area), fines for littering on publicly owned land (where the accused person has no contract with the relevant government for the purpose of being on that location long-term), fines for vandalism against someone else’s property, fines for noise pollution (where the fine is directly proportional to the number of decibels over the limit set by the most widely published ordinance for that local government (an example fine would be $20 per decibel over the limit (multiplied again by the number of minutes the sound existed during) as measured from the device creating the sound by another device more than 10 feet away), and where said limit is set at a higher number of decibels that can be reached by someone’s vocal cords when speaking at 30 words per minute for 10 minutes (the number of decibels being the geometric mean of the number of decibels that person reached with each word’s loudest enunciation (this would be a good contest among lawyers to find such a loud person))) in an area where the surrounding ½ mile of space around the incident has more than 12064 residents residing there as of the previous census count), or the rental of parking spaces (and are in no way required to have parking spaces); such funds must be sent to the General Treasury of the United States (consider it as the U.S. government taxing those kinds of revenue generation that do not fall into the exemptions at 100%). Local governments can make up this shortfall by using a referendum of the people living in the area to see what taxes they are willing to allow to be imposed (beyond taxes that currently exist in the area). The referendums on imposing these new taxes or fees must be attached to the ballot for the election of a U.S. Senator representing the state (or be attached to the ballot for the election happening in the October right before that election as per Section 11 or Section 12 of Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment), with all ballots from the area in the jurisdiction of the local government where the voter is not specifically answering "yes" to the question being considered to answer "no". (In the case of this local government not being a Section 11 of Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment-styled local government) If the tax in question would not be a uniform tax (such as a sales tax on all goods, or a tax that is a function of property value or a function of income+profit), the referendum on the existence of the tax must be attached to every future U.S. Senate election ballot until "no" has a majority (getting rid of that tax thus). If the tax would be a uniform tax on property, the tax would replace any other property tax the local government imposes if adopted with "yes", and must have an additional option where the voters who say "yes" get a number of blank spaces equal to the number of constants the function uses for calculating the tax, where answers can be accepted in decimal form; the voters not putting anything into the boxes are considered to put the same value as what would be proposed in the rule for the referendum to decide; the voters not putting decimal values would be considered to put in 0; all of the values put in for one of the constants are then considered as having the median value for the constant chosen (example: local government proposes a 10% sales tax (lambda x: x*.1), Alice writes "no" into the box, Bob puts nothing in the box, Charlie puts ".05" in the box; the list of values is {0, .1, .05}, which means that the median is .05, which means that all of the sales taxes the local government imposes are now calculated as (lambda x: x*.05) or, colloquially, 5%).
Section 2
It is illegal for Local governments to expropriate money from people on account of them being found with money (i.e. “civil asset forfeiture” that exists in such stories as a guy at a traffic stop happens to have $10,000 in cash, so the officer takes it (this action by the officer is illegal, and such officers going forward must be prosecuted like any normal (private citizen) highway robber (with no reference being able to be made in court to the fact of being an officer (besides what would be on videotape, not able to be spoken of by anyone at the trial)))). This does not preclude enforcing general taxation that always applies to every member of the public there, nor does this preclude enforcing fines, nor (if the person found with money has a case currently outstanding against them that requires that the person pay) does this preclude enforcing debts. Cash in this sense includes dollar bills (unless found to be counterfeit), 99% or higher purity (exactly one element of:) gold/silver/copper/platinum/palladium/ruthenium coins (unless the coin is marked at a weight different from what it really weighs (if not marked with any clear words stating its weight, then it must be returned immediately in a way that does not give rise to even the appearance of a "shakedown" by "police" (in the colloquial sense)), in which case it needs to be turned in as evidence to a federal government case against the person, or otherwise immediately returned to the person if the federal government is not able or willing to bring a case at that time).
Section 3: Punishment aimed specifically at San Francisco of the size it was in the year 2020, to only affect the confines of that area, and state and local government agents acting therein
In light of San Francisco having a history of directly harming its homeless population, it alone is made subject to this section.
No person may be deprived of their home (specifically, a "primary residence" (the definition of which must be found ad hoc by the jury in the trial on the question of conviction under this section (not using the normal definition of "primary residence" given in any law (this is using the "I know what it is when I see it" doctrine)))) except by indictment as per this section and conviction as per this section for a criminal offense for which both juries decide that that is within the proper punishment.
No person may be fined or otherwise have that person's ability to do business destroyed who is in the business only of selling primary residences; the exceptions are: {as part of the penalty for a crime according to indictment as per this section and conviction for the same criminal offense as per this section; or on account of failure to pay uniform taxes as per a well-published lambda function on sales, income+profit, or property value}.
No corporation may be fined or otherwise have that corporation's ability to do business destroyed who is only in the business of selling primary residences; the exceptions are: {as part of the penalty for a crime according to indictment as per this section and conviction for the same criminal offense as per this section; or on account of failure to pay uniform taxes as per a well-published lambda function on sales, income+profit, or property value}.
Indictments in this section must be made by a grand jury consisting of people who live within 1 mile of the person being targeted who have incomes that are within the range of no higher than 110% + $20000/year of the person being targeted and no lower than 50% – $10000/year of the person being targeted; in the case of corporations, the only limits on who the jury may consist of are that 1/2 of the jury consists of accountants, and 1/2 of the jury consists of economists (in this case, the jury has the authority to ask questions and call witnesses for as much time as the prosecutor). The person must be informed at least 10 days before the trial, and again 24 hours before the trial of all the arguments and possible punishments the prosecutor will bring forward. The person must be offered a free ride to the courthouse with an arrival time within the range of 1 hour 45 minutes beforehand and 30 minutes beforehand. The person shall be allowed to speak to contest each of the prosecutor's points as they are brought up with a total of 1 hour of time the person is allowed to use with relevant interruptions, and 1 hour of speaking time after the prosecutor is done speaking (with the option to get the record of what has been said so far to speak from before starting that last 1 hour of speaking before the jury decides).
Convictions in this section must be made by a jury consisting of people who live within 1 mile of the person being targeted who have incomes that are within the range of no higher than 110% + $20000/year of the person and no lower than 50% – $10000/year of the person's; in the case of corporations, the only limits on who the jury may consist of are that 1/2 of the jury consists of accountants, and 1/2 of the jury consists of economists (in this case, the jury has the authority to ask questions and call witnesses for as much time as the prosecutor). The person shall be informed of when this trial will occur after the grand jury decides to indict and there shall be at least 10 days between the time at which the person is informed of when and where the trial will occur and when it does occur.
A house made according to the law shall be treated the same way as a house built out of a motor vehicle, or a tent, or a cave the person built with sufficient support systems with respect to the buildings above it, or a container (any of which may have been built contrary to the law). The house built contrary to the law which, at the time of construction, blocked the ability of two people on bicycles riding directly next to each other in opposite directions to easily get from one already existent building to another and to get to the public right of way from any existent building, is not considered a house in this section (clear signs to get anywhere along 2 meter wide, unobstructed, flat paths are sufficient conditions to have such travel be considered "easy" as of the time of building the construction).
A house under this section that the state or local government prohibits from being sold is not liable for paying any property taxes, but may be sold unofficially (as if the new person living in it was the one who built it, with a contract between the two certifying the sale with a disinterested witness), with the revenue generated by the sale minus the construction cost (or the cost of purchasing it) is considered as part of the person's income. The state and local government shall still enforce prohibitions on trespassing as normal on a house wherein the person stated to trespass could not be stated to have been living there for enough time to establish a pattern of being a resident there (that amount of time being somewhere near a week and not requiring more time than a month) or who purchased it from the person who owns it.
This section necessarily entails that if more than 25% of the people living in an area of San Francisco are renting their houses, it would be easy for them to conspire to block all evictions from happening in the area, thus entailing that the only way to be in a house is to effectively own it (especially given the 5th amendment's prohibition on double jeopardy), and reducing prices in the area back to a price that someone could pay outright.
The specific language used in describing the well-protected primary residences and businesses selling primary residences is such that they effectively always have two chances to get charges dismissed by a jury that will likely be biased in their favor (the main purpose of this section being to use jury nullification in order to reduce political control over the housing economy in San Fransisco (instead effectively forcing politicians to deal with problems with housing therein using such measures as building more sewer lines, water mains, electrical substations and so forth, rather than pushing the homeless population to yet another city)).
In all civil cases originating from alleged action occurring in San Francisco, if the case involves a single person defendant, then the jury must consist of those living within San Francisco who have incomes no higher than 110%+$20000/year the income of the defendant and no lower than 50% – $10000/year the income of the defendant (someone earning $20,000/year would have a jury consisting of people earning somewhere between $42,000/year and $0/year; someone earning $0/year would have a jury consisting of people earning somewhere between $20,000/year and $0/year (since “earnings” necessarily only counts the positive amounts you receive) someone earning $100,000/year would have a jury consisting of people earning somewhere between $130,000/year and $40,000/year, and so on). If the defendant consists of multiple people or one corporation or several corporations, then the jury must consist of 1/2 economists and 1/2 accountants (in the case of multiple single-person defendants, such a jury may resolve at the beginning of the trial to instead have the trial be done for each single-person directly by the appropriate jury for that person). In either case, the jury may decide after hearing the arguments to either make the normal decisions offered, or impose a fee against the plaintiff equal to the normal cost to defendants of litigation of similar scope to the defendant (in this case, this is money that must be paid immediately, and cannot be tacked onto the value given to the plaintiff if a higher court reverses the decision), or (if the defendant involves multiple people or one or many corporations) may impose an injunction against the defendant continuing with certain practices that would cause market failures leading to the case in question (such an injunction cannot be removed without a new trial called by a higher federal appeals court (such as the Supreme Court) that involves twice as many randomly selected economists and accountants, and cannot be further appealed after that if the majority of the new jury comes to the same conclusion). In the last instance, the jury can call on additional expert witnesses to give testimony and ask questions at length about the economic impact of certain kinds of injunctions becoming normal. If the defendant involves a government, then use the rule on the case being decided by a random selection of 1/2 economists and 1/2 accountants.
The rights above granted under this section cannot be waived. This may not be construed as to say that any other right given under the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment could ever be waived. The prohibition on the waiver of rights under this section is such as to accomplish several policy objectives: {firstly to force the local San Fransisco government to prioritize enforcement of crimes that actually harm society (such as prostitution, drug abuse, robbery, gambling) as opposed to taking away the ability of people to have homes in an area (using the Jakarta/Bedouin definition of home by virtue of letting poor people define what it means for poor people), and secondly to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits (in the colloquial sense) that can happen in San Francisco to the number that can be directly managed in jury trials (and thus force the courts there to prioritize cases that are materially decidable with a clearly in the wrong (in the colloquial sense) defendant (as opposed to taking up cases where the plaintiff could have been involved in creating the circumstances of the harm, or where the defendant on the surface seemed to have nothing the defendant could have done to stop a circumstance))}.
The following forms a separate subsection where each paragraph goes into effect sequentially for the local government of San Francisco.
The local government of San Francisco is revised as of the seating of the elected candidates of an open party ticket proportional election with ranked choice voting within each party, with each party getting a number of seats equal to floor(votes_for_that_party*18/votes_for_all_parties) and filling their seats with their most voted for candidates under the ranked choice voting algorithm, where on the other side of each candidate's name (relative to the side of the candidate's name where the number used in ranked choice voting is placed) is a place for voters to mark if someone is approved to have a 4 year term (where of the 6 candidates most approved for a 4 year term, and of those 6 who actually get seats, those with more than 50% approval by all voters get 6 year terms with the others getting 4 year terms, and those who get seats but are not of these 6 have terms of 2 years). This election shall happen through October of the even year following the seating of the proportionally elected House of Representatives. The parties eligible for this election shall between 9 months before the election and 3 months before the election present their petition with 18 candidates, a line of succession for each, proof that they have widely disseminated in San Francisco at least one policy idea that would affect San Francisco directly if they were to have power in the local government, and have 10 willing witnesses from San Francisco for each of their candidates to testify that they have seen that candidate living in San Francisco for the last 730 days. The voters eligible for this election follow rules that are completely distinct from that of being eligible for voting in state and federal elections, specifically {has lived in San Francisco for the past 184 days, is able to verbally state in English without aid (notes or human or robotic helpers) the things in the following set {for each party: the name of one of their candidates, a policy that candidate has said in the last 184 days, and a policy the party has brought forward; an answer of "no" (without using any additional words and without asking for any clarification) when asked the question "will anyone be penalized for voting for a bad candidate or party?"; an answer of "no" (without using any additional words and without asking for any clarification) when asked the question "should anyone be penalized for voting for a bad candidate or party?"}, has not failed to answer the aforementioned questions correctly in the last 40 days, must not (when their face is scanned with a facial recognition camera which all polling stations in San Francisco shall use) match the scan of someone else's face who already voted in that election, must not (when their right thumb (in the absence of a natural finger there, proceed sequentially to the first natural finger (going to the left thumb if there are no fingers on the right hand), this requirement is exempted for people lacking hands) is scanned with a fingerprint scanner which all polling stations in San Francisco shall use) match the finger of someone else who already voted in the election}.
Once these new local government elected officials of San Francisco are seated, they shall have a new election identical to the one stated above in the month of October of every even year (theoretically allowing the local government to have as many as 30 members of this body (if the percentages of the vote each party gets are evenly divisible by 18 to every bit of precision Python has, and if the six most approved of candidates for 4 year terms all are able to get seats and more than 50% approval)). A majority vote of this body is considered as ceil(10+0.5*(number of members seated whose election happened more than 2 years ago)). A 2/3rds majority vote of this body is considered as ceil(12+2/3*(number of members seated whose election happened more than 2 years ago)). "ceil" and "floor" are Python math library functions.
The new elected body of the San Francisco local government has the exclusive power to, by majority vote, choose the executive officers who have any sort of governmental power that lies exclusively within the area under their jurisdiction (i.e. when the federal government or state government hires people who operate in San Francisco, they will need to also have the authority over and operate in at least one additional acre of area that is not in San Francisco in order to not become an employee of San Francisco). They may also may by majority vote fill any judicial vacancies of their local government. It requires a 2/3rds majority vote of their members to alter the structure of the courts under that local government. The fraction of the revenue (after payments for debt and judge salaries (which are non-decreasing)) of San Francisco's local government going to each policy area they are engaged in (normalized such that the fractions add to 1) shall remain the same year to year except by 2/3rds majority vote of their members to establish a different budget. It requires a 2/3rds majority vote and unanimity among members with terms longer than 2 years in order to remove a judge whose area of jurisdiction falls solely within San Francisco. The local government of San Francisco is granted new powers of exclusive jurisdiction over commercial advertising within San Francisco, exclusive jurisdiction over the operations of educational institutions in San Francisco that receive any sort of government funding, exclusive jurisdiction over any construction project in San Francisco that receives any sort of government funding, and these elected officials of San Francisco's local government are privileged from arrest as long as they both remain in San Francisco and their terms last.
Members of this elected body for the local government of San Francisco shall have yearly salaries that are equal to each other and no greater than $(max(previous_year_salary, 1301.11*C_CPI_U)) where C_CPI_U is the chained consumer price index of all urban consumers, which was 153.715 in August 2021 (thus setting an inflation-adjusted salary of $200,000), and are only expelled from the body on a 2/3rds majority vote (getting replaced according to the line of succession in the party's original petition), which causes the numbers required for majority votes to be set static for the until the next seating of members (meaning that vacancies due to expulsion of members with terms longer than 2 years will make it harder to pass things proportionally speaking, whereas if members on the 3rd year of their terms simply resigned, then the proportions change accordingly (note that any sort of vacancy in the first 2 years of any member's term will always make it more difficult to pass things, with the 10 vote and 12 vote minimums already making it harder to pass things based on the base number of newly elected members being likely 17 based on how the math works out for vote proportions not being whole multiples of 1/18). Each member then has $300,000 per year available for salaries of their personal staff members.
Division F: Limitations on debt
The liabilities for having control over a home cannot be required to be paid after the person benefiting from the home ("tenant" or "mortgage debtor") is no longer living in the home and has granted control to the landlord (in the case of a rent agreement) or bank (or the one underwriting the loan on the house). Neither the landlord nor underwriting bank may refuse to be granted control of the house. In order to avoid any extra or remaining liability on the property, the person currently in control of it need only make a good-faith attempt at returning items enabling control (keys, passcode, etc) and removing their items from the place and not stepping foot in the property again. Note: a tenant who destroys a house ("trashing it", burning it, removing pipes or walls or ceilings or electrical outlets, etc) before returning it to the owner is liable for that damage as is the case for someone who destroys a house before returning it to the owner of the mortgage.
In other words, this above provision means that back-rent is illegal (back-rent is rent charged after a person returns control to the owner), and all home mortgages are now non-recourse based (with the settlement being the property itself). This also means that it is likely that credit card companies will decline payments made to pay rent since that person could simply give the property back to the landlord and not be liable for the debts made to stay in the property. In these cases where it would generally be a good idea for credit card companies to decline payment based on a lack of liability on the debtor due to how the payments are being used, if the would be debtor is lying about the nature of what they are paying for in order to get approval, then there is the weird situation that the debtor is guilty of fraud, but is not liable for fraud (as in the debtor could be tried criminally for fraud and put in prison, but could not be forced to pay money to recompense the fraud); this will likely mean that a settlement will be reached to avoid going to prison that will be based partly on what the value of the original debt was minus some value based on the political climate of the area (since it is likely in most cases that government attorneys will have to use prosecutorial discretion to make sure their voters do not think that the government is throwing people in prison because they are poor (since the criminal cases would have to be public)). The above provision also effectively exempts someone from needing to pay property taxes on a property they do not have control over (in any sense of the term (the liability that comes from making a lawsuit to stop the construction of houses on a property, if successful (either de jure or de facto), provides proof of sufficient control over a property that the successful plaintiff is liable for the property’s property tax in that year)) (this provides a way for someone to abandon a house if the property tax rises too quickly in an area; note however that if the government requesting those property taxes cannot prove that someone would want to buy that house in that area for the price corresponding to that tax, then that price which the tax is based on needs to be downgraded appropriately (this is accounted for in the program in division B of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment), and (if the property does not have a mortgage on it) the owner abandoning a property on account of property taxes is not liable to that tax authority for damage done to the property that reduces its value (the owner would still be liable for damage done to a neighbor's property) (this provides a way for that owner to spite jurisdictions that make their property taxes too high on a very visceral level)).
If the bank that underwrote the mortgage no longer owns the mortgage when receiving the items that enable control, then those who own the mortgage cannot collect on it except from someone who steps foot in the house going forward, and may force the bank to pass control of the house to someone who will actually use the house (and thus be liable to pay the mortgage), or may force the sale of the house to recoup some of their losses (and potentially make money if the owners of the mortgage can find a higher bidder).
Medical debt/liabilities for the medical operations/interventions/pills on a person and student debt for the education of the same person does not persist after that person is dead, with no recourse to the formerly owned items of that person or to any guarantor of the debt (this is specifically such that the people imposing such debts may have to, as part of due diligence, have a psychiatric evaluation of the person to make sure they are not going to commit suicide; the entities funding these debts on a person may also have to evaluate their practices for collecting on debt while that person is alive and the amount of that debt (vs the total debt load of that person, the expected future salary of the person, and the practices of the other debt collectors on that person) such that they can be sure that they are not the ones inducing a suicidal tendency that would reduce their payout). This means that the tragedy of a family going into bankruptcy over expensive, but unsuccessful, lifesaving treatments is impossible (except to the extent that the family pays for it out of money the family had saved up prior to the death of that person (if they paid for the treatment with a credit card or similar, then that lender will eat the loss (which will likely entail that credit card companies will simply reject payments done at hospitals))).
Loans with a greater than 50% interest as an annualized percentage rate of the value of the principle are illegal, with the fine for making such a loan being the ownership of the loan, with the ownership of the loan paid to the debtor.
Collecting on debt which has had bankruptcy declared on it or has already been paid is harassment where the fine is the amount which was stolen via these methods plus the cost of pain and suffering (mental pain included), both paid to the supposed debtor via the person or entity trying to collect.
If Congress has prohibited certain types of debt from having bankruptcy declared on it, then someone who uses the general bankruptcy rules on the rest of their debt is only required to pay the principle amount owed to those creditors at the start of the term of the debt (less the amounts they have paid so far) and do not have to pay interest (besides to account for inflation), nor any compounded interest. If the debt in question that Congress has made non-bankrupt-able is debt caused by fees or fines originally owed to a government (or organization that is effectively acting like a government), then the person has the right to a court-appointed attorney and the ability to get a final verdict (as a civil matter) from a jury of their peers (as in people who have declared bankruptcy before, or who have fines outstanding to some level of government, or who are accountants, or who are economists (with roughly even divisions between the four groups (if they can't be found in the same district and/or state, such jurors can be requested from juror pools of nearby areas))) on whether the fee or fine violates the 8th amendment requirement that such may not be "excessive" (a relative argument that need not refer to any sort of precedent (and will likely be based on the emotional toll of the fine and means testing)); such a jury trial, if favorable towards the bankrupt person in reducing the liability, is non-appealable; the jury has the right to (after being given an hour beforehand with a preliminary discussion of the evidence in question to come up with, by majority vote, the rules by which they will avoid speaking over each other) ask questions of either party and any expert they wish to bring forward, and subpoena evidence for their own reference (the questions and answers to the extent the jury would be satisfied not being able to be blocked); the jury shall be paid (the payment being non-taxable) out of the budget of the governmental organization that levied the fee or fine to no more than 1/10th the original value of the fee/fine (summing the payments to all the jurors (plus the bankrupt's chosen counsel's payment if not the court appointed one) as no higher than that value) and no faster than the minimum hourly wage that can be had in the area in question (with the representative of the government in question being able to stop the trial once the bankrupt person's counsel has spoken for one hour where evidence is brought by the same and provided the bankrupt person and the jury have had the opportunity to talk for as long as the government representative has); if the defendant would prefer a different counsel than the judge is inclined to appoint, and the preferred counsel is able and willing to appear, the government that levied the fee/fine shall pay the exact same non-taxable salary to the counsel as to the jurors. If the general bankruptcy used on the rest of the person's debt is such as to require the sale of all assets and expenditure of all money lying around (with the rest being discharged), the forms of debt referred to in this paragraph may not be construed as to take money out of that pile of money, and thus may only start collecting on debt once the person starts getting money again.
General taxation may not be construed to be viewed as debt, rather it is instead collectable immediately upon the money being available (or, having been made available, guaranteed to be collected later at times set by law), consistent with the value of the part of the economy being taxed (the fraud of having stopped this value to satisfy the corresponding tax from going to the government entity, as it was available, could be punished with a fine (which could either be declared bankruptcy on, or, if Congress does not allow bankruptcy on fines, uses the above paragraph); it is also potentially punishable by a prison sentence depending on the rules and egregiousness of the offense (provided that the rules include looking for a clear pattern or look for moving funds to be outside the grasp of the government in question that originated within its jurisdiction)).
Bankruptcy courts must be deferential towards, and prioritize, people who want to declare bankruptcy who cannot afford any court fees or bankruptcy lawyers, and such people get all the same protections or more protections than corporations and people who can afford lawyers (i.e. a person with no money and lots of debt can use a Chapter 7, 11, or 13 bankruptcy far easier than a group of people that has money for lawyers and such, and the language in those acts for corporations who qualify must be construed to apply to individual people with no money using the Citizens United decision that corporations are people (though with the George Orwell doctrine that corporations and a natural person are "equal", but a natural person is more "equal" (read: "favored") (as far as how more corporatist legislators will feel about this))).
Payments on remaining debt for someone who has gone bankrupt in a way that discharges the debt via selling off assets and using all funds the debtor has must be made proportionally to the creditors according to the principle amount (times (1+x)^years where x is the rate of annualized interest equal to the average interest the U.S. government was being charged for its debt over the same time periods) the creditor actually gave to the debtor (compounded interest not being considered part of the principle amount of the loan) minus the (continuous definite integral of the amounts the debtor has already paid to the creditor for the purpose of servicing any loan to that creditor (for this purpose, where debt is sold by the original creditor to someone else, the payments the debtor makes on the debt are considered agglomerated to both at once as if they were the same company) as a function of money paid at a given time measured in fractional years from the start times (1+x)^(fractional years from that time to the current time) with the integral evaluated with respect to fractional years from the start starting at when the first loan was given by the creditor until the current time). (In English, this just means that money paid to service the loan earlier in the lifetime of the loan is worth more than money paid later, and it is as though the money paid by the debtor was a loan the debtor gave to the creditor where it is the creditor going bankrupt and paying back the debtor as the creditor (In other words, these two equations cut both ways equally, though with the creditor never directly paying anything to the debtor as far as the debtor would see it in the debtor's wallet)). This money is given out proportionally to those amounts (as if the sum of those amounts was the real debt load the debtor has), with any creditor whose effective amount is 0 or less according to that equation being given nothing, and if the proportion would result in the debtor paying at a ratio of $1 per $1 of debt according to that equation or more, then the amount paid out by the debtor is brought to the ratio of $1 per $1 (the debtor keeping the excess).
Division G: Fatal Encounter Police Accountability and More Power to the People in State Legislative Elections and in being able to switch between a Presidential System and Parliamentary System for how power flows in the elected parts of a state government.
Section 1: Who does this amendment target for incarceration while restricting civil rights?
A person who has stated that that person itself operates under the authority of a particular kind of group (stated in section 2), who, as part of those duties, carries a lethal weapon.
Section 2: The group whose members are targeted for incarceration as per sections 1 and 3.
A group that is a government, or which has clearly claimed the authority to enact policy and enforce it through force by its members.
Section 3: The triggering event by which the section 1 person within a section 2 group is affected by section 4.
First, there must be an event in which the person was one of the probable causes in the death of an unarmed civilian.
Second, one of the people/groups that appears in one paragraph in Section 5 must order Section 4 to happen.
Section 4: What happens to the Section 1 person within a section 2 group for which Section 3 is true.
The section 1 person is tried by the closest military court to where the event in the first paragraph of Section 3 took place, where the judge shall, if the court determines the person guilty of killing an unarmed civilian, require a sentence suitable for a soldier committing the same offense as the person (this section may not be construed as abolishing the death penalty ordered under any civil court) (imagine the hypothetical soldier doing the same thing that the police officer is being compared to as not being ordered under a “lawful” order to kill a civilian (lawful is in quotes here because such actions invariably go awry of the 5th amendment, but courts generally don’t like to touch battlefield precedents)).
Section 5: Who can order a court martial of such a section 1 officer of section 2 for which section 3 is true?
A majority of the civil jury in a criminal case made on account of paragraph 1 of section 3 sign a petition to move the case to a court martial.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives orders the person to be tried by a court martial.
The Vice President who is President of the Senate orders the person to be tried by a court martial.
The Attorney General of the United States orders the person to be tried by a court martial.
The Speaker of the more numerous house of the state legislature (or the equivalent person having the support of a majority of that chamber) in which the event in paragraph 1 of section 3 happened in a state that satisfies section 6 orders the person to be tried by a court martial. (This category of calling a court martial only applies in states where section 6 of this amendment applies.)
Section 6: Open party Ticket Proportional Representation in the Lower House of a state legislature
The state has the most numerous house in its legislature elected by open party ticket proportional representation wherein either one of the four below paragraphs is true:
Option 1: When a voter casts a ballot for the state legislative elections, the ballot includes the lists of all parties running for election with columns underneath those labels with the names of all that party’s candidates, and the voter selects one of those candidates of one party, with the votes counted both for the party and the candidate. The parties get a proportional number of seats to their proportion of votes, and those seats are filled by its most voted for candidates.
Option 2: When a voter casts a ballot, the ballot includes the lists of all parties running for election with columns underneath those labels with the names of all that party’s candidates, and the voter selects all of the candidates that voter likes of the candidates of one party, with the votes counted both for the party (one voter=one vote for the party) and the candidates. Each party gets a proportional number of seats to their proportion of the vote, and those seats are filled by their most voted for candidates.
Option 3: When a voter casts a ballot, the ballot includes the lists of all parties running for election with columns underneath those labels with the names of all that party’s candidates, and the voter places a unique natural number {1, 2, 3, ...} next to the names of those candidates of one party, with the votes counted for the party (one for the party, which gets a number of seats proportional to these votes). loop6: Candidates for a party with seats first have all of the votes for that party where a “1” is placed next to the name of the candidate are counted as votes for that candidate. If there are more candidates remaining than the number of seats the party got, then the candidate with the fewest votes in that way is considered removed from the list with the votes that placed “1” next to that candidate’s name (or which have #1 associated with a candidate that has been removed or was never considered in a round, or no candidate (happens if a voter skips numbers)) being considered to have all the numbers on that ballot reduced by 1 (the number 2 candidate becomes the number 1 candidate). If that if clause was satisfied, go to “loop6”, otherwise the remaining candidates hold the party’s seats. Clarification: If a voter "skips" a number when putting in numbers next to names, the algorithm still holds with the side effect being that, whenever the algorithm results in there not being a "1" next to a name on the voter's ballot in a given loop of the algorithm, no one gets that voter's vote with the remaining numbers being decremented in the next loop of the algorithm. The requirement that each number be different is such that a given voter's vote can't go to multiple people at once, since there could never be more than one "1" at once. If a voter's "1" vote due to the algorithm is for a candidate who has already been eliminated, then the vote goes to no one (unless the "1" vote on a future loop due to decrementing numbers goes to someone who was not eliminated by the algorithm) and has its numbers decremented in the next loop.
Option 4: One of the above three options, but where there is a lower limit of the number of votes a candidate has to earn in order to hold a seat of (number of votes cast)/(1.5*total number of seats), in which case the leftover seats of a party are given to the most voted for candidate of the party (who is guaranteed to get a seat if the party gets enough seats proportionally) (though even if this causes the number of members of a camber to be less than the previously less numerous chamber, it is still legally considered the most numerous chamber).
Section 7: Open party ticket proportional representation in the most numerous chamber of a state legislature.
This can either be accomplished normally though the state amendment procedure, or it can be accomplished two other ways:
1/20th of the number of that state’s citizens who voted in the previous statewide election sign a petition forcing a ballot initiative to be made to make one of the above 4 systems in section 6 be considered enacted by referendum (if the yes votes exceed the noes) in the same ballot as the next statewide election that is no closer than 2 years away.
An absolute majority of the members of the most numerous chamber of the state legislature sign a petition making one of the 4 systems in section 6 into law automatically.
Such a change to state law may not be unmade except through the normal amendment procedure of the state constitution.
All other provisions of state election law can still be enforced with the slight changes to the instructions given to vote counters and ballot printers necessary to make the system work.
Section 8: Additional powers of the Lower Chamber when using Open Party Ticket Proportional Representation
Once the change in section 7 is made, the passage of bills by the more numerous house of the state legislature is made by having members who represent the requisite absolute majority of seats sign identical copies of bills and other measures of the chamber (regardless of where they are as long as everyone sees them doing this), and the person chosen by the absolute majority to be their Speaker shall have the power given in Section 5, as well as the power to fire/remove from positions any person operating under the authority/contract of that state government or its local governments who has as part of that person’s duties the use of a lethal weapon, if so supported in having those powers by resolutions or a resolution of that chamber (provided its members do not sign a different resolution rescinding that power (unless that is rescinded, and on and on recursively like normal legislation)).
If the most numerous chamber of a state legislature uses the open party ticket proportional representation system, they can, by a 2/3rds vote, choose to have a referendum during the next statewide election to have one of the following take effect as a change only revocable by a state constitutional amendment (or by the same ballot initiative listed in paragraph 2 of this section when revoking the second of the following three changes (if the second is done) instead of imposing the new voting system):
Potential Choice 1: Have an upper house of the state legislature consisting of n members per class with m classes with the time between elections of different classes on a staggered basis be every 2 years through the month of October of every even year, where each class is elected by one of the 4 systems of open party ticket proportional voting given in section 6 or an election system described in section 9. The values of m and n are chosen as the medians (rounding up to the nearest acceptable value) of the 2 positive integers given by each voter in the referendum (n must be an even number). If the state does not already have an upper house of the state legislature (if one does exist at the time this option is invoked, the referendum must also have the question "Does the Upper House of the state legislature keep its current powers, or are those powers switched with the specific powers listed in Potential Choice 1 of Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment? (circle one)" going with the following if the latter is circled), that upper house is established with co-equal powers (specifically the power to pass or refuse to pass funding bills that expend money (but not bills that defund programs (or temporarily move already appropriated money to another program to allow it to be fully funded up to the limit created by a previous bill providing funding, or to pay off debt), which the lower house can do on its own (provided that the programs defunded are spending more money than they are taking in (i.e. the lower house could not reduce funding for a successful tax collection agency without the consent of the upper house))), pass or refuse to pass tax bills, pass or refuse to pass bills establishing an office (or otherwise restructuring the executive or judicial branches), or pass or refuse to pass ethics code bills, or pass or refuse to pass penal code bills that were passed by the lower house or stop them from becoming law (by virtue of not passing the same)) and have their members have equal salaries as the lower house (requiring both chambers to pass a law), and has the ability to remove the Prime Minister (if such a position is established) by a 2/3rds vote, and has the ability to deny appointments to positions in the executive or judicial branch by a 1/2 vote within 60 days of the appointment being made, or by 2/3rds vote thereafter (this is the only way for the state government to remove judges appointed to state courts by the U.S. President pursuant to Section 3 of Division A of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment). In any case, the upper chamber will have its members have the ability to pass a bill or resolution by members representing a majority of the seats (one extra seat belongs to the person stated by the state constitution as being next in the line of succession after the governor) signing copies of the bill (regardless of where they are as long as everyone sees them doing this) if the bill only removes someone from office, or is a motion to introduce a bill to consider, or is a motion to remove a bill from consideration, or only provides funding for already funded programs, or otherwise has every member finish making their 2 speeches each is entitled to (filibusters wherein they must speak continuously unaided on the floor of the chamber they collectively choose, or otherwise a person needs to get unanimous consent to go back to speaking on the same bill or resolution) prior to voting for or against the bill or resolution on the floor of the chamber. The number of different types of election systems that must be used as listed in this amendment for the different classes must be greater than or equal to floor(sqrt(m)), picking one class randomly to be elected by one of the other election systems where not otherwise defined by the legislation making the upper chamber elected under different rules. If 1/2 of one of the classes resigns or dies in office (in any combination) before the end of the term, then in the next legislative election, all of the seats of that class will be up for re-election by a method chosen randomly from the methods not used for the other class (or classes, if there are many and this has happened multiple times) in that election (i.e. if there were 8 classes, 7 of which were using basic open party ticket proportional voting, and one using ranked-choice open party ticket proportional voting, and one of the basic ones had a majority resign or die right before the election of a different basic class, then someone (presumably the Speaker or Lt. Governor) would have to draw from a hat one of 8 different possibilities listed in this amendment (with the possibilities that require a minimum number of votes or else pass a seat to someone else having the minimum number of votes be (total votes)/(1.5*number of seats up for election in the class) with a random drawing of which of the base systems of voting to use of the 3) that is not basic open party ticket proportional voting, that choice being the permanent way that class gets elected. In this case as well, the term lengths of members would get reduced from 16 years to 14 years now that there are effectively 7 classes that are staggered to 2 year terms (two of them being stacked on top of each other). If yet another class resigns before that same election, then that class also must get elected with a different system chosen randomly that is neither basic open party ticket proportional voting nor whatever was chosen for the other class (reducing the number of things in the hat to 7).).
Potential Choice 2: Turn the Speaker of the most numerous chamber into the Prime Minister of the state, moving the powers of the governor to the Prime Minister (Speaker), who only remains in that position while commanding a majority of the most numerous chamber as a member there (if no one commands a majority there (necessary to have the title of Speaker), the governor maintains his power).
Potential Choice 3: Have the Upper Chamber cease to exist, its power devolving to the Lower Chamber, then in the next legislative election, voters get to vote on whether the Upper Chamber should exist, if yes, then the next legislative election from then has them vote on 1 above. If no, then vote on whether it should exist two years from then, and so on. In this instance, if the upper chamber is voted "yes" to exist, it automatically has 6 classes, one with each type of voting system except for the last listed in section 6 and the last 2 listed in Section 9.
Additional Power: The lower chamber, after being elected via open party ticket proportional voting, can, by majority vote, permanently move the time for their election to occur to the month of October every even year, starting with the next one that would happen after the end of their 2-year term (their current terms being extended until December 31st in that even year, with the Speaker being allowed to keep that position until a new Speaker is chosen), with the new members taking their seats the earlier of: when the vote is certified vs the forthcoming January 6th of the odd year. After the lower chamber is elected in this way, the lower chamber gains the power stated in Section 10.
Section 9: Alternative voting system for Upper Chamber elections (more suitable for smaller chambers)
If Potential Choice 1 in Section 8 (or the "yes" vote on reinstating an upper chamber in Potential Choice 3 happens) is chosen with this section, then all the candidates for the Upper Chamber elections in the state for one class will have all the candidates listed on the ballot wherein one of the following is true for a given class:
Option 1: Each voter places a different natural number (the numbers in the set {1, 2, 3, ...} (which become integers (numbers in the set of {...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...}) during the algorithm)) next to each candidate they like. loop9: All of the “1” votes for each candidate are counted. If the candidates remaining are the same number as (or less than) the number of seats, then those candidates fill those seats (ending the loop), otherwise the least voted for candidate is considered removed, with all of the votes for that candidate (or which have #1 associated with a candidate that has been removed or was never considered in a round, or no candidate (happens if a voter skips numbers)) having all the numbers listed inside of them reduced by 1 (so the #2 candidate is now #1, and so forth), and loop back to loop9. Clarification: If a voter "skips" a number when putting in numbers next to names, the algorithm still holds with the side effect being that, whenever the algorithm results in there not being a "1" next to a name on the voter's ballot in a given loop of the algorithm, no one gets that voter's vote with the remaining numbers being decremented in the next loop of the algorithm. The requirement that each number be different is such that a given voter's vote can't go to multiple people at once, since there could never be more than one "1" at once. If a voter's "1" vote due to the algorithm is for a candidate who has already been eliminated, then the vote goes to no one (unless the "1" vote on a future loop due to decrementing numbers goes to someone who was not eliminated by the algorithm) and has its numbers decremented in the next loop.
Option 2: Each voter selects all of the candidates that voter likes, each vote by a single voter of someone in this class counts as 1/(number of people chosen) of a vote per candidate, and the most voted for candidates fill the seats.
Option 3: Each voter divides their vote such that the voter can either give 1 whole vote to one candidate, or give some real number of that vote between [0, 1] in different ways to multiple candidates, adding up to no greater than 1. The voter can assign the value of "-1" to one candidate (offsetting 1 full vote for that candidate), or divide that -1 value among multiple candidates adding up to -1 among all negative valued selections on the ballot. The most voted for candidates fill the seats. No candidate can be considered elected who gets 0 or fewer net votes, with excess seats being considered non-voting seats (unless section 9 option 5 is using section 9 option 3 to give those seats to candidates with positive numbers of net votes). If the use of this option results in the upper chamber of the state legislature being empty (note: it is as though a person named “vacancy” is holding each of those seats, a “person” who cannot resign or die), then the power of the upper chamber is temporarily eliminated with the lower chamber expressing any powers the state constitution is able to allow it to express in the event of the upper chamber not existing until a future legislative election results in having members in the upper chamber (if the state constitution does not allow the lower chamber to pass a law without the upper chamber's consent, even in the absence of the upper chamber, then the lower chamber can pass it via a majority vote followed by a referendum of the people (given the choice on each ballot of "yes" and "no" with a majority voting "yes"); unless the bill in question only contains funding provisions, in which case it can be passed directly by the lower chamber). The state constitutions do not have the authority to grant a state government the power to remove a judge appointed by the U.S. President (such a power is just granted to the proportionally elected upper chamber of Section 8, option 1; and only while that chamber exists (and obviously only within the limits of the territory of the state, and just the courts which are bound to the state constitution more generally speaking were Division A Section 3 of the omnibus amendment not holding))).
Option 4: One of the above 3 voting systems, but where a candidate with fewer than a threshold number of votes of (number of total votes)/(1.5*number of seats in that class) does not receive a seat, instead the most voted for member of the class receives one of the excess seats, and the rest of the excess seats are considered non-voting seats.
Option 5: One of the first 3 voting systems, but where a candidate with fewer than a threshold number of votes has that seat go to the most voted for people of the class on a proportional basis with respect to their numbers of votes (in the case of system 3 in section 9 being used as the base system, the proportion is based on the sum of net votes between candidates with greater than 0 net votes).
Section 10: Additional power of the open party ticket proportionally elected lower chamber of the state legislature that is elected with votes counted through October of an even year as per section 8
The lower chamber of the state legislature has the power to, by majority vote, alter local government power in their state according to the following plan:
Step 1: The resolution chooses a particular local government in the state on a day that is either a day within an odd year, or a day in the range from January 1st to June 1st.
Step 2: All the elected positions whose authority is expressed directly in an area smaller than the entire state where that area of jurisdiction intersects with the local government chosen in step 1 are accounted for to have the union of all their areas be called the "aggregate jurisdiction" for the purpose of step 2.1 (all of the sub-steps before step 3 being a part of step 2). (A Section 11 local government that has already started meeting in a subsegment of this area gets excluded from being a part of this area (this allows for independent enclaves to be maintained separately).)
Step 2.1: Take the set of points on the edge of the aggregate jurisdiction, then draw a convex polygon with all the vertices being points in that set where the area inside that polygon includes all the points in that set. This is the "Aggregate jurisdiction" for the purpose of step 2.2. The state government is required to send a notification by August 1st to everyone in this area immediately prior to the October election, and social media companies with users in this area must send notifications from September 1st through 15th that the election is happening to the users in this area that October. (A Section 11 local government that has already started meeting in a subsegment of this area gets excluded from being a part of this area (this allows for independent enclaves to be maintained separately).)
Step 2.2: Remove from the aggregate jurisdiction the particular properties owned by the U.S. government under Article I Section 8 clause 17, unless if one chamber of Congress grants permission by a resolution passed between August 1st and September 15th before its original election and the other chamber of Congress does not pass a resolution in that time specifically opposing having the local government also be able to exercise its authority in that area.
Step 2.3: If the aggregate jurisdiction includes the property of a sovereign country (or group that at some point had a treaty with the United States giving them property in an area), the beneficiaries of that sovereignty (citizens or subjects) or their government may publicly disseminate a map on September 15th (to the state government which had control over the step 1 local government) stating clearly the points of longitude and latitude that define the area within their territory that will belong to the new local government (that are contiguous with areas under the control of the local government). In territories from treaty areas or sovereign countries that are given to the new local government, the new local government has sovereignty (limited by Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Division F of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment, Section 1 of Division E of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment, and Section 2 of Division E of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment (as in, the new local government can, within the part of its territory where it is sovereign, create trade agreements with other countries, but since its debt is limited vis-a-vis the state government (and control over bankruptcy in its area belongs to the U.S. bankruptcy courts), it necessarily cannot print currency, and it will still have to abide by the courts' enforcement of the specific civil liberties provided to all of the step 1 state's citizens by specific state laws (if a civil liberty provided to everyone in the U.S. under federal law does not specifically appear in state law, then that liberty need not be provided in the area in which the local government is sovereign), the local government providing those civil liberties to all its residents). If the country or treaty area makes no statement about the territory granted, then the aggregate jurisdiction remains the same as described in step 2.2 (with the same limited sovereignty the local government can express in the area ceded from the country or treaty area). In any case, the area from step 2.2 as amended by countries or treaty areas becomes the aggregate jurisdiction of the local government going forward. Persons born in the area of a local government granted from a sovereign country or treaty area are not citizens of the United States unless granted it by a law of Congress, but do have citizenship in the local government if they do not have U.S. citizenship already.
Step 3: All the elected positions whose authority is not expressed in the area in step 1, but whose authority is expressed in areas fully encompassed by step 2's "aggregate jurisdiction" have, by the number of those positions, expand the number of seats in the local government's legislative/executive body.
Step 4: All the elected positions not expressing authority in the area of step 1 where part of its area of authority intersected the "aggregate jurisdiction" will be considered to have the assets and liabilities that position was responsible for (that fall into the area of step 2) will have those same responsibilities pass to the new local government created in Section 11, while having that elected position now simply just be elected within the smaller area outside the "aggregate jurisdiction".
Step 5: A new local government as described in Section 11 with a number of seats equal to the number of elected positions in step 1 plus the additional number of elected positions in step 2 plus the additional number of elected positions in step 3; all elected with a single open party ticket proportional election through the month of October in an even year, which subsumes the responsibilities and authority of the elected positions in steps 1, 2, and 3.
Step 6: The resolution of the state government making the step 1 resolution describes the initial percentages of revenue (adding up to 100%) as it is received by the new local government (and after it pays the salaries of its judges (non-decreasing), its members (the salary chosen by voters), and its payments on debts) that go into: first responders, public school teachers, lesson materials for public school students, child protective services, jails, renovations of the buildings owned and used by the local government, infrastructure repairs and infrastructure installation that is requested by the people living in the particular spots affected by the installation (where all infrastructure is built using automated systems wherever possible and otherwise use the most efficient means to build the thing desired for the best price), new housing projects (built according to the same most cost effective standards), and house safety and efficiency retrofits (built according to the same most cost effective standards). This initial budget may be altered according to the procedure in Section 11.
Step 7: (May have step 8 happen before this.) If, after the new local government is formed, a majority of the body of the legislative/executive chamber decides that the people living in the areas granted to it under step 2.3 would like to be able to vote in national elections (and referendums) and be under the protection (and necessarily the taxation) of the national government, then the body makes (after getting permission by a resolution of one chamber of Congress (which in its resolution may draw up to 4 geodesic lines that form a polygon contiguous with the step 1 local government whereby the step 2.3 area within that polygon is a part of the United States and a part of that local government, but the step 2.3 area outside that polygon is a separate local government with the same limitations the current local government had within its step 2.3 area (the membership of the new (divided off step 2.3-empowered) local government's parliament is the members of the legislative/executive chamber that are willing to resign their seats from the local government being fully incorporated into the United States to join the new chamber (thus setting the numbers of members in each))) (the first one to give that permission having the ability to make the parenthesized limitation on what area gets included into the United States)) its areas granted under step 2.3 permanently a part of the United States. The area could only be made a state or states if the local government cedes part of that step 2.3 granted territory as a state with the permission of both houses of Congress. The territory granted under step 2.3 that is made a part of the United States could alternatively be incorporated into the state that chose the new local government in step 1 (only requiring the permission of the state government).
Step 8: (May be done in lieu of step 7.) If the United States government wishes to have the sovereign territory of the local government granted under step 2.3 be incorporated into the United State's territory (which necessarily means it still remains a part of the local government), then it must prove in a court instituted by that local government as the highest court that only has jurisdiction in the step 2.3 territory that the territory in question effectively belonged to the United States prior to the formation of the local government in step 6. If the court instituted by the local government does not come to that conclusion, the United States government cannot appeal the decision. If the local government's court does come to that conclusion, then the territory granted in step 2.3 (or the part of that territory the court determined effectively belonged to the United States) is now permanently a part of the United States, just as in step 7.
Section 11: Design of local government created in Section 10
The local government shall have the first ballot for itself use the third voting system listed under Section 6 (also known as "open party ticket proportional voting with ranked choice voting"). The first ballot shall, after listing the columns of candidates for each party, have the following additional questions for voters: "The salary of the members of the new local government shall be $______ per year ($100,000 if blank or incorrectly filled out); the income+profit tax owed to the new local government shall be __/100 paid monthly (minimum 1/100, maximum 49/100, 10/100 default if blank or incorrectly filled out); the yearly property tax owed to the new local government is _.__/100 (minimum 0.02/100, maximum 5.99/100, default .1/100 if blank or incorrectly filled out)." The medians of each of those numbers is the numbers chosen (with the defaults being sorted with the rest of the numbers given for the same position in the question the same way to find the medians). For the purpose of Section 5 of the Uniform Taxation Amendment in the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment, these taxes are listed as: {"lambda x: x*<first median value>", "lambda x: x*<second median value>"} when put in the program. These taxes replace the taxation used to fund the positions which were subsumed.
Once the members take their seats, they shall subsume the responsibilities of local governance in the area in a legislative/executive manner. By a majority of the seats they may: hire or fire any person operating on their behalf (though to remove a judge requires a vote of 2/3rds of the members and unanimous consent among the members with 4 year and 6 year terms (no judge may be removed until at least one member has a 4 or 6 year term), and no more judges may be hired in any two year period than .02% of yearly general tax revenue (as in, revenue derived from general sales tax, general income tax, and general property tax) would allow them to afford (to a maximum of 1% of yearly general tax revenue going to the salaries of judges; both values are calculated as of the revenue received in the last 365 days, with no judge being removed on account of lack of funding, and no judge being hired who was a member of the chamber in the last 1000 days (judges must also resign their judgeships in order to serve in any other governmental capacity)); this clause allows for judges to be chosen in a way that avoids the effects of Section 3 of Division A of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment in a state that otherwise still has judicial elections (the state government can by normal legislation state that some combination of these local government bodies can choose judges satisfying certain experience and education requirements to fill state court positions (this could be used as a backstop by a state government in the event that it is not able to convince its voters (or the other members of its legislature (as applicable)) to change their state constitution to get rid of judicial elections to avoid having a President choose their state court judges as per Section 3 of Division A of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment) ); note that these state court judges chosen by these local governments can only be removed after taking office according to the procedures in Section 8 option 1 (the proportionally elected upper chamber of the state legislature)), make non-budgetary ordinances for the area of the local government that do not violate this Constitution (as limited in areas granted to the new local government in Section 10 step 2.3 by the treaty-recognized organization (either with active or passive participation) in Section 10 step 2.3 (except where step 7 or step 8 apply)), do not violate the laws of Congress passed pursuant to this Constitution (as limited in areas granted to the new local government in Section 10 step 2.3 by Section 10 step 2.3 (i.e. do not violate bankruptcy laws) (except where step 7 or step 8 apply the rest of the laws of the United States)), and do not violate requirements that are imposed under Section 14. By a 2/3rds vote of the seats they may: change the percentage of the revenue as received that goes to one public service they provide vs another. The non-budgetary ordinances they pass which have taxes, fees or fines in them only take effect as of December 31st in an even year provided they were resolved by a majority as an ordinance prior to that September (and were passed in the time since the current members got their seats), and get approved in the ballot in their election described in section 12 and explained in section 13.
Section 12: The ballots for all future elections of the local government created in Section 11
<Party label 1> <Party label 2> <Party label 3> ...
<Candidate 1 Party 1> <Candidate 1 Party 2> <Candidate 1 Party 3> ...
<Candidate 2 Party 1> <Candidate 2 Party 2> <Candidate 2 Party 3> ...
...
[( yes / no ) on <percentage>% tax on <description of particular things or activities taxed>?]
[( yes / no ) on $<value> per unit on <description of particular things or activities taxed>?]
...
If at least one tax is listed above this sentence and approved, that tax shall last ( for 2 years, for 10 years, forever ).
[The sales tax is lambda x: <constant_1>*x*<function involving constant_2, constant_3, ...>(x); the median choice for each number by the voters is used where my choice is the aforesaid where I do not place a value for one of the constants in the following: If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of <constant_1>: ______; If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of <constant_2>: ______; If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of <constant_3>: ______; ...]
[The income+profit tax is lambda x: <constant_1>*x*<function involving constant_2, constant_3, ...>(x); the median choice for each number by the voters is used where my choice is the aforesaid where I do not place a value for one of the constants in the following: If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of <constant_1>: ______; If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of <constant_2>: ______; If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of <constant_3>: ______; ...]
[The property tax is lambda x: <constant_1>*x*<function involving constant_2, constant_3, ...>(x); the median choice for each number by the voters is used where my choice is the aforesaid where I do not place a value for one of the constants in the following: If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of <constant_1>: ______; If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of <constant_2>: ______; If I place a number in the following spot, that replaces the value of <constant_3>: ______; ...]
[( yes / no ) I approve a fine of up to $<value> on <description of conduct fined>.]
[( yes / no ) I approve a fee of $<value> on <description of when the fee applies>.]
The salary of the elected members of the local government is $______ per year ($100000 per year if left blank or not filled in properly). The median of these numbers given by the voters is the salary.
Section 13: The explanation of the ballot in Section 12
"<Candidate # Party #>" is shown on the ballot for each person running as:
"<person's full original name> also known as <pseudonym, trademark> is rank ___ and ( is / is not (circle either “is” or “is not”) ) approved to have a 4 year term"
The first party label under which a voter puts a rank number is the only party under which that voter's rank choices are considered for the purpose of running the algorithm for filling the seats the party gets proportionally under the system described in the third election system of section 6. The circling of the word "is" (for approval to have a 4 year term) within any of these candidate sentences in this ballot is counted for every time it appears, regardless of which party the name appears under; then all the candidates (including the ones who did not get seats) are sorted by the number of approvals each got for a four year term; take the number of them that got the most such approvals equal to (the number of total seats in the legislature of the local government)/3; and, of those candidates in that list by number of approvals, the ones who received seats as per the ranked choice voting get to have 4 year terms, with 2 extra years tacked onto the terms of those who also got more than 50% of voters to approve them for a 4 year term. Those who get longer terms necessarily cause a reduction in the number of seats up for election in the next elections. [This means if voters often approve candidates to have 4 year terms who do not come from their own party, it is likely that the number of candidates who get to have terms longer than 2 years will be substantially less than 1/3rd of the candidates who get seats; meaning relatively more seats go up for reelection next time.]
Specific taxes are only imposed if approved, and only last for the term length consistent with whether the most votes that circled a term length were on "2 years", "10 years" or "forever".
When a general sales tax is adopted by the voters, it replaces the previous general sales tax imposed by the local government.
When a general profit+income tax is adopted by the voters, it replaces the previous profit+income tax imposed by the local government.
When a general property tax is adopted by the voters, it replaces the previous property tax imposed by the local government.
The statements in between "[" and "]" only appear when the local government has passed a relevant ordinance for the voters to approve or deny.
The words contained in between "<" and ">" are meant to be replaced with the relevant words or numbers those words describe (as per the petitions for putting a party list on the ballot or as per the stated effect of the ordinance being considered).
Section 14: Restrictions that can be imposed on Section 11 local governments (either by state law, or by federal bankruptcy courts)
1. The state may provide civil liberties to the constituents (excluding a "right to not be taxed" which can’t exist), which means the local government can't violate them.
2. The state may require the local government to provide public services to their constituents (as programs the state predicts to improve quality of life and reduce the effective cost of living in the area (an example of one of these would be to have a police force that is effective at reducing the number of murders, robberies and stopping harmful drug distribution (supply side or demand side); another example would be local government funded healthcare that is designed to maximize the amount of care provided per dollar spent; other examples are fire departments, emergency management, disaster prevention, public schools, and child protective services).
3. The state government can limit the local government's use of debt by: {prohibiting taking on debt, requiring a referendum to approve debt sales, requiring the local government to adopt a permanent independent council consisting of economists and accountants exclusively hired by them (with the power to veto ordinances and remove ordinances that were created before they were hired that provide what is effectively "corporate welfare" (as in, mostly free money to people who are already rich) or result in a net waste of money with respect to the costs incurred under the ordinance vs the marginal increase in quality of life and enhanced economic activity) prior to taking on debt, prohibiting the use of debt to fund ongoing expenses (such as salaries and maintenance), prohibiting the use of debt to pay a corporation except to pay a competitive price for capital goods that can be repaired in-house and which increase the efficiency (e.g. automation) by which the local government provides for the needs of the constituents, or requiring ending pensions before taking on debt, or some combination of the previous}.
Anyone who ought to have received a service from the local government required of it by the state government but didn't now has standing to sue the local government to require it to alter its budget to provide those services going forward in general. The court in this case has the ability to first end corporate welfare payments in order to have the funds go into the services in question, and, if that doesn't provide enough funds for those services to exist, the court may end the contracts the local government has with corporations that are being inefficient in providing public services on behalf of the local government and use some of the money to provide for hiring people to provide those services and capital goods to automate those services, with the savings going into providing the public service required by the state government, and, if the previous two steps were insufficient to have the required public services, then the court shall end pensions provided by the local government, moving the money into providing the public services required.
If the revenue that a local government makes is insufficient (after the previous steps are done) to pay for state-mandated public services (even after implementing ways of making them more efficient), repayment of debt, salaries of its elected members, and salaries of judges on a continuing basis without taking on debt, then the local government is bankrupt and shall use the independent council of accountants and economists described earlier and the oversight of a federal bankruptcy court to come up with a payment plan within the local government's normal revenue in order to pay back creditors in 20 years or less at some fraction (strictly less than 1) of $(integral with respect to all debt given of ((principle received)*(1.02)^(years since received) – (payments to creditor)*(1.02)^(years since payment))), and discharging the remaining amount after paying back the creditors enough to bring that value to 0. In the case of bankruptcy, if the overall revenue from general taxes is less than .9*(cost of required public services+repayment of original debt+salaries of its elected members+salaries of judges (known as "minimum costs" in the next sentences)), then income+profit tax going forward becomes lambda x: max(0.005, <original lambda>(x))+.01*x. If general taxes were less than .8*(minimum costs), then the income+profit tax going forward increases further by .01*x. If general taxes were less than .7*(minimum costs), then the income+profit tax going forward increases further by .01*x. If general taxes were less than .6*(minimum costs), then the income+profit tax going forward increases further by .01*x. If general taxes were less than .5*(minimum costs), then the income+profit tax going forward increases further by .01*x. In the case of bankruptcy alone is this local government raising taxes without getting voters to approve it in a referendum, and only according to the above sentences, and the lambdas of general taxes are not allowed to be changed until all the debt is paid off (a ratio of $1 paid to $.99 derived from the integral) or 20 years have passed while making the minimum payments on debt agreed to.
Funds from the programs of the state government may not go to this local government if it refuses to collect the general taxes it is required to collect. This may not be construed to mean that it could legally refuse to do so.
Funds from the programs of the national government may not go to this local government if it refuses to collect the general taxes it is required to collect. This may not be construed to mean that it could legally refuse to do so.
Section 15: Limitation on the ability of state governments to reduce the criminal liability of non-governmental civilians who kill civilians.
Laws such as "Stand Your Ground" laws and similar (necessarily including the law recently passed in Oklahoma that "allows" someone who kills a protester with their vehicle while escaping a protest to avoid criminal liability) only apply in public space (being construed for this purpose as meaning all space that is not completely contained by the walls of a building and closable doors; and the space inside a building where non-owners, non-tenants regularly walk around every week for the last month) when the defendant in the case harms the target in a way that does not kill a person. If the original law provided most of its de facto protection (including with respect to effective civil liability (would necessarily be $0 of civil liability if the families of those killed historically with the defendant protected by these laws was not successful in a wrongful death lawsuit against them (or didn't try to have a wrongful death lawsuit))) only in the case of killing the target, all of that protection (both de facto and de jure) moves to protect only those using this defense (that of a "Stand Your Ground" law or similar, which is all that this section is solely about (presumably these laws would necessarily require having a defense based around using weapons in self-defense only (this would not be mandated by the courts, but should reasonably be able to be mandated by the voters via electing sensible politicians to make these laws (I realize this is often unlikely, especially if lower houses of state legislatures continue to refuse to make themselves be elected by open party ticket proportional election, or from a lack of public investment into effective public education, which all must be decisions that necessarily come from the same people that made bad decisions on these matters (such is democracy))))) when non-lethally harming the target.
Those civilians who kill civilians in a public space must have a grand jury be given the option to indict them with murder and have a prosecutor pursue it if the grand jury comes to that conclusion, with the grand jury being given the evidence on whether the person to potentially be tried killed someone who had themselves just killed someone or was imminently about to do irreparable harm to someone, and, if so, advised to consider not indicting the person with murder (but that being "advice" in the colloquial sense, not the legal sense, since the grand jury must be reminded that its decision is the decision that only it can make).
If (1) there are at least 10 cases in one year in a district (or at least 45 cases in 5 years in a district, or at least 70 cases in 10 years in a district), wherein (2) someone was killed (3) where the defendant made an argument that involved the passage of the state's stand your ground law (or similar law that reduces criminal liability when someone is killed in public) (assuming that such a law exists in the state), and (4) the defendant was able to not face any penalty greater than 1 year in prison and a $10000 fine (no penalty (such as if the jury decides "not guilty") is considered as a non-penalty satisfying this condition 4), and (5) there is a 5 sigma statistical correlation between those who got away with the offense and the demographic (race or percentile bracket of relative income in the district (where someone who has 95% of the residents of the district earning more than that person is in the 95th percentile, and everyone in the 90th percentile to the 100th percentile is considered in the same demographic)) of the target who was killed (after adjusting for what percent of that district fits that demographic) with respect to the null hypothesis of "it could have been anyone doing the things that lead up to the altercation that may have triggered my reaction", then (after conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 have all been satisfied) the federal government is required to prosecute everyone in the district that got a non-penalty satisfying condition 4 and killed someone in the target demographic satisfied by 5 for terrorism (or whatever law Congress has that consists of murder coordinated against some disorganized group of people), with the coordination standard being met by condition 5. The jury for the trials shall be taken from the nearest state or territory of the United States that does not have a Stand Your Ground law applicable within it, with the jury being able to take the case virtually from the courthouse within the area they come from with the defendant remaining in a courthouse in the district where the offense occurred. The jury shall have any evidence transferred over to it for its examination before it comes to a conclusion and after the defense has had a chance to bring its evidence and inspect the prosecutor's evidence. In this case alone is it legal to have juries selected in this way.
Section 16: Example of ranked choice voting within open party ticket proportional voting
Suppose a party won one seat as its proportion of a rule-making body that is as close as possible to its proportion of the vote, and Alice, Bob, Charles and David were its only voters (presumably in a really small state).
Alice's ballot looks like:
"Alice _1_
Bob _2_
Charles _3_"
Bob's ballot looks like:
"Alice _3_
Bob _1_
Charles _2_"
Charles's ballot looks like:
"Alice _3_
Bob _2_
Charles _1_"
David's ballot looks like:
"Alice _1_
Bob _2_
Charles _3_"
In the initial step of the algorithm: candidates={Alice: 2, Bob: 1, Charles: 1}
Check if len(candidates)<=seats: 3 <=1 is False
Next step: candidates={Alice: 2}
Check if len(candidates)<=seats: 1<=1 is True
Therefore Alice fills the seat.
Both Bob and Charles were removed at the same time because both of them were "the least voted for candidate". Alice still only had two votes at the final step because the current person with a #1 attached to the name on Bob's ballot was Charles, and the person with a #1 attached on Charles's ballot was Bob (the #1 would have moved to Alice had there been another iteration needed (if there were additional voters and additional candidates). If this party were eligible for 2 seats, then the same two people would be eliminated, but the chamber would still have to consider it as though the party were still exercising the open seat's vote (intra-party voting on how their open seats vote (unless the rule is that open seats of a party go directly to the member of the party who got the most votes)), in this case meaning that Alice gets two votes in the chamber. If a party were unable to get any seats due to a tie that had more candidates get the same number of #1 votes as the number of seats it was eligible for (with all lower #1-vote candidates already eliminated in previous rounds), then the party would thus get no members in the chamber, meaning that no one could be said to be able to make a decision as to how to exercise them. Alternatively, the code in Section 17 can be used by being run through a Python interpreter (the code given allows for ties between candidates while giving each party its fair share of the seats as required).
Section 17: Example code for Open Party Ticket Proportional Representation with Ranked Choice Voting
#Preconditions:
#"Vote_files.txt" has a list of all the filenames separated by newlines where votes are stored as:
"""
{Police Party, Teacher Party, Infrastructure Party, Healthcare Party\n
AA _<num>_, BA _<num>_, CA _<num>_, DA _<num>_\n
AB _<num>_, BB _<num>_, CB _<num>_, DB _<num>_\n
...
"""
#Where the first line in the record is extended to as many party names as are running before the first #newline, and the two-letter names starting with
#A in the format above are replaced with the names of the candidates running under the first party #label, and the two-letter names starting with
#B in the format above are replaced with the names of the candidates running under the second party #label and so on.
#The number of lines of candidate names is extended to as many seats as there are available for all #parties.
#None of the names may contain newlines nor underscores nor commas, but additional information about a #candidate (that does not itself contain newlines nor underscores nor commas) can be placed after the #second underscore after the name and before the comma after the name.
g_count=0
def simplify(arg, index):
global g_count
thing=arg.strip()
count=0
while count<index:
r=thing.find(",")
t=thing.find("\n")
if r==-1 and t==-1:
break
elif r==-1:
count+=1
thing=thing[t+1:]
elif t==-1:
count+=1
thing=thing[r+1:]
elif r<t:
count+=1
thing=thing[r+1:]
else:
count+=1
thing=thing[t+1:]
if count==index:
r=thing.find(",")
t=thing.find("\n")
if r==-1:
count+=1
thing=thing[:t]
elif t==-1:
count+=1
thing=thing[:r]
elif r<t:
count+=1
thing=thing[:r]
else:
count+=1
thing=thing[:t]
result=""
for c in thing:
if c>='A' and c<='Z':
result+=""+chr(ord(c)-ord('A')+ord('a'))
elif c>='a' and c<='z':
result+=""+c
return result
def eval_ballot(arg):
global g_count
party=""
result={}
ballotl=arg.split("\n")
ballot=[]
for i in ballotl:
ballot.append(i.split(","))
count=1
while party=="" and count<len(ballot):
for i in range(len(ballot[count])):
if ballot[count][i].find("_1")>0 or ballot[count][i].find("_2")>0 or ballot[count][i].find("_3")>0 or ballot[count][i].find("_4")>0 or ballot[count][i].find("_5")>0 or ballot[count][i].find("_6")>0 or ballot[count][i].find("_7")>0 or ballot[count][i].find("_8")>0 or ballot[count][i].find("_9")>0:
party=i
break
count+=1
for i in range(1, len(ballot)):
cname=""
usSeen=False
#print(i, len(ballot), party)
#print(len(ballot[i]))
try:
for j in ballot[i][party]:
if (j=="_"):
usSeen=True
elif usSeen:
pass
else:
cname+=""+j
cname=cname.strip()
try:
r=ballot[i][party].find("_")
t=r+1+ballot[i][party][r+1:].find("_")
result[cname]=int(ballot[i][party][r+1:t])
except:
pass
except:
pass
party=simplify(arg, party)
return party, result
parties={}
ballots=[]
fp=open("Vote_files.txt")
stuff=fp.read().split("\n")
fp.close()
for filename in stuff:
try:
fp=open(filename.strip())
addbal=fp.read().split("}")
fp.close()
for bal in addbal:
try:
res1, res2=eval_ballot(bal)
try:
r=parties[res1]
parties[res1].append(res2)
except:
parties[res1]=[res2]
except:
continue
except:
continue
def rem_l_can(arg):
lc=""
seenNum=False
lnum=1E+19
for can in arg:
if arg[can]<lnum or not seenNum:
lnum=arg[can]
seenNum=True
lc=can
del arg[lc]
return arg
votes=0
for party in parties:
if len(party)==0:
continue
votes+=len(parties[party])
print("What is the number of seats?")
seats=0
while seats<=0:
try:
seats=int(input())
if seats<=0:
print("Put in a number")
except:
print("Put in a number")
seats_given=[int(seats*len(parties[party])/votes) if len(party)!=0 else 0 for party in parties]
high=seats*2
low=1
med=(high+low)/2
count=-1
while count<10 and sum(seats_given)!=seats:
if sum(seats_given)<seats:
if count!=-1:
low=med
med=(med+high)/2.0
else:
count+=1
seats_given=[int(med*len(parties[party])/votes) if len(party)!=0 else 0 for party in parties]
else:
if count!=-1:
high=med
med=(low+med)/2.0
count+=1
seats_given=[int(med*len(parties[party])/votes) if len(party)!=0 else 0 for party in parties]
print(seats_given)
real_seats={}
for party in parties:
if len(party)==0:
continue
real_seats[party]=int(med*len(parties[party])/votes)
print(real_seats)
def getCandidates(parties, real_seats, votes):
result={}
for party in parties:
if len(party)==0:
continue
candidates={}
for vote in parties[party]:
for candidate in vote:
if vote[candidate]==1:
try:
r=candidates[candidate]
candidates[candidate]=r+1
except:
candidates[candidate]=1
break #only 1 #1 vote
if (len(candidates)<=real_seats[party]):
#print("The following take their seats as part of the "+str(party)+":")
#print(candidates)
result[party]=candidates
else:
while len(candidates)>real_seats[party]:
candidates=rem_l_can(candidates)
for c in candidates:
candidates[c]=0
for vote in parties[party]:
counted=False
for c in vote:
try:
if not counted and vote[c]==1:
r=candidates[c]
candidates[c]=r+1
counted=True
except: #This vote needs to have all its ranks reduced by 1
break
if not counted:
for c in vote:
vote[c]=vote[c]-1
for c in vote:
try:
if not counted and vote[c]==1:
r=candidates[c]
candidates[c]=r+1
counted=True
except:
break #will be reduced by 1 in the next #iteration (unless a solution is found before then)
#print("The following take their seats as part of the "+str(party)+":")
#print(candidates)
result[party]=candidates
return result
def actual_used(members):
result=0
for p in members:
result+=len(members[p])
return result
answer=getCandidates(parties, real_seats, votes)
for party in parties:
if len(party)==0:
continue
print("The members from the "+party+" are: ", answer[party])
Section 18: Division of power between local government and federal government in areas that are not under a state's jurisdiction, but have a local government as chosen by a state in step 1 of Section 10 that overlaps area with the property of the federal government, this section only applying to those overlaps.
The local government is not allowed to destroy any building created by the federal government nor can it eliminate the means of accessing any building created by the federal government.
The federal government can prohibit the use of the local government's police power within certain areas, but it cannot prohibit other employees of the local government from using the space not wholly contained within buildings built by the federal government and used by the federal government's employees, and those other employees of the local government could be authorized by the local government to carry weapons for the sole purpose of stopping murders or robberies that are imminently occurring or have just occurred in the immediate area surrounding that employee during the course of the employee doing some task wholly unrelated to police work (such as constructing infrastructure or providing medical care).
The local government is allowed to build mixed-use buildings (the uses mixed between grocery stores (but not selling alcohol, tobacco, firearms, gambling or lewd content), repair shops, and housing (wherein the private persons owning each unit can change the use between one of those 3 without any payment of fees nor consultation with neighbors nor consultation with government agents (nor those with government-style powers))) directly around the edges and above any building built by the federal government provided it is done such that the building is entirely stable were the federal government's building still there (and as long as enough ground-level entrances and exits are usable enough to efficiently evacuate the building from normal capacity).
The federal government can mandate that the local government use the current best engineering practices as far as the sanitation, structural strength, and long-term durability of the structure when building its buildings.
The federal government may not mandate the local government to take any action excluding the actions that Congress can require of them under the 14th amendment.
The federal government may not destroy any building built by the local government and which is currently in use by the local government's employees in providing a public service (or have been used in that manner at some point in the last 5 days) or which are being used as the meeting room of its elected members (or have been used as the meeting room in the last 31 days).
The local government may not stop the officers of the federal government.
Section 19: Division of power between local government and state government in areas that are not under the jurisdiction of the state choosing to have a local government as per step 1 of section 10, but have a local government as chosen by a state in step 1 of Section 10 that overlaps area with the property of the a different state government not choosing it, this section only applying to those overlaps.
The local government is not allowed to destroy any building created by the state government nor can it eliminate the means of accessing any building created by the state government.
The local government is allowed to build mixed-use buildings (the uses mixed between grocery stores (but not selling alcohol, tobacco, firearms, gambling or lewd content), repair shops, and housing (wherein the private persons owning each unit can change the use between one of those 3 without any payment of fees nor consultation with neighbors nor consultation with government agents (nor those with government-style powers))) directly around the edges and above any building built by the state government provided it is done such that the building is entirely stable were the state government's building still there (and as long as enough ground-level entrances and exits are usable enough to efficiently evacuate the building from normal capacity).
The state government can mandate that the local government use the current best engineering practices as far as the sanitation, structural strength, and long-term durability of the structure when building its buildings.
The state government may not mandate the local government to take any action excluding the actions that protect the residents from arbitrary or capricious policing actions (or, as a matter of policy, that might not reach that standard generally but which includes actions that a random sample of 12 people from the state having at least 3 people say "that sounds unreasonable" (after having the description of the conduct that would result in the enforcement action described to them) for the purpose of the state government banning the local government from taking enforcement action using that policy there (the local government can contest this assertion by taking a random sample of 120 people from the state, asking them the same question with the description of the action by a person that results in police action against them, and having less than 30 people say "that sounds unreasonable")).
The state government may not destroy any building built by the local government and which is currently in use by the local government's employees in providing a public service (or have been used in that manner at some point in the last 31 days) or which are being used as the meeting room of its elected members (or have been used as the meeting room in the last 90 days).
The local government may not stop the officers of the state government ("stop" in this sense meaning the same thing as it did in the colloquial understanding of the "Stop and Frisk" policy of New York City many years ago (i.e. the physical (not court-based) actions that literally happen on the street)).
Section 20: Refinement of 8th amendment protections
The Supreme Court’s decisions that mandatory death penalties for violations of particular laws and decisions that imposing a death penalty on mentally ill patients for the heinous crimes committed would violate the 8th amendment are overturned (as in, states cannot be prohibited from doing those things under the Supreme Court’s former logic).
The new reasons that an appeals court can use for overturning a death penalty are fourfold: (1) the defendant brings up evidence clearing the defendant’s name (or evidence that the state prevented the defendant from getting a private investigator to find such evidence), (2) the judicial system of the state is too racist and the defendant is of a race that is thus more targeted (this can be shown if the statistical significance of the difference between the number of people of each race who have been imprisoned or killed by the state over the last 10 years (weighting each defendant thus based on the number of days spent in prison with those who were killed (including those killed by court-martialable officers of that government) being considered by the equation to have spent 30 years in prison) is more than 6 sigmas away from the number of people living in that state of each race as per the census at the time of the current defendant’s trial), (3) the state legislators who brought forward the legislation imposing a death penalty (either as a possible or mandatory punishment) did not have many of them bring forward their advocacy for the death penalty (for crimes including the particular crime the defendant committed) as a reason to elect them as a big issue in their re-election campaigns, or (4) the defendant can show that many people in a random sample of people living in the state would have (were they in the same circumstances as the defendant) not known how to avoid breaking a law with their responses (e.g. you would not be able to impose the death penalty on someone solving a textbook case of the trolley problem (provided that person did not tie anyone to the trolley tracks), you would not be able to impose the death penalty on a parent who kills the person who killed or raped their child, and you would not be able to impose the death penalty on a husband who rapes his wife (if the law defining rape allows such an instance to exist)).
The reasons (besides other reasons given in law) why an appeals court could overturn a punishment that is not a fine or imprisonment is if the punishment is such as to put the defendant in excruciating pain for what would be perceived by the defendant as “a long time” (examples of how this perception issue would play out are given in the Netflix series “Black Mirror”).
The reasons why an appeals court could cut short a penalty of imprisonment (with other reasons given by other laws outside of this section) are: {the defendant has found evidence clearing the defendant’s name (or evidence that the state has prevented the defendant from having a private investigator search for that information), the defendant can prove that the statistical significance of the number of people of each race currently in prison under that government’s authority vs the number of people of each race in the state overall is different by more than 8 sigmas (where the defendant is of a race that is that much more statistically likely to be imprisoned in that area) (sigma being a standard deviation from what would be expected of the null hypothesis (that the state in question is not racist)) (with each person in prison weighted according to the amount of time spent in prison under that government to this point), or a random sample of people in the state who are not lawyers or working in government jobs do not know how to avoid breaking the law the defendant was tried for (examples of such a law that someone would be released from prison under by an appeals court could be: a law written in Klingon, a law written in a similar manner to the policies of Kafka International Airport (as per the satirical news site The Onion’s video on it from March 24th, 2009)), the defendant was deprived of food, the defendant was deprived of water, the defendant was deprived of medical care of debilitating conditions that the defendant did not deliberately inflict on the defendant out of spite for that government, the defendant was deprived of sanitation (except where the prisoner deliberately makes things unsanitary out of spite for that government), the defendant was not protected from other prisoners harming the defendant physically (either on multiple occaisions or where it seemed that the guards seemed favorable towards harmful prisoners), the defendant was tortured while in prison (such as the use of whips, waterboarding or similar)}.
In the case of an appeals court removing a defendant from prison on account of torture, the defendant can push for criminal and civil cases against particular guards at the prison (who may not be indemnified by anyone, the particular guards found guilty/liable must pay the penalties out of their own pockets, not getting reimbursed from insurance or the government they work under, or anyone else).
In the case of an appeals court removing a defendant from prison on account of food, water or medical care, the defendant (or the defendant’s family if the defendant dies from this) can push for normal civil penalties taken from the general fund of the government that the defendant was imprisoned under as if that government were any other private person (in this case it would be whatever penalties a parent could expect to face from depriving a child of the same amount of food/water/medical care (in the equivalent to what economic payout would be after converting values from non-economic penalties)), payable to the defendant.
Note: For the purpose of this section “race” refers only to the color of a person’s skin (when not wearing makeup or artificial skin color changes (except where permanent genetic changes and permanent cybernetic enhancements change their skin color)) when a picture is taken of that person under a consistent lighting scheme where each “race” forms a set of points inside of a cube drawn in the Red-Green-Blue (the amount of each color being limited to integers between 0 and 255 to describe things consistent with how humans see them) scheme where the length of the cube is a sequential range of integers in a proper subset of [0, 255] of the amount of red, the width of the cube is the sequential range of integers of the amount of green, the height of the cube is the sequential range of integers of the amount of blue. One of those cubes is labeled “black” (where pictures of people largely considered “black” in modern media fall into that cube, and where no one who is largely considered “white” in modern media falls into that cube (the arbitrary cutoff point between shades being whatever could be considered “reasonable”)), and another of those cubes is labeled “white” (the reverse of the other parenthetical), and other cubes of that color space form the other races (each other cube being as large as possible without impinging on the “black” or “white” cubes, the existence of the other cubes not needing to be predicated on the existence of a human with that color of skin). It should generally be assumed that people’s answers given in the census as to what race those people are are accurate (unless a census worker sees that person in the 2030 or later census, in which case the census worker must record the race that person belongs to and note it for that person to be used instead of that person’s answer (the census worker should generally avoid telling someone this)). Until the year 2030 is reached (with the census taking into account the new method of classifying race), the race categories could be derived from a suitable sample of common visual media with references to the race of the person pictured and how skin tones would generally fit into whatever categories of race the 2020 census used that were as general and easy to verify as possible.
Note: as far as governments imposing imprisonment are required to feed their prisoners goes, there are three important considerations: (1) force feeding a prisoner is torture (with all the personal criminal and civil liabilities against the guards that comes with that), (2) the prison faces culpability for the death of a prisoner who refuses to eat the food if either: {there existed less than 3 truly distinct options for eating where reasonably similar fractions of prisoners chose each option, less than 3 of the food options had the qualities of a reasonable person saying the food is not “oily,” less than 3 of the food options had the qualities of being considered “healthy” and not “greasy” by a reasonable person, the food options have been associated with the normal symptoms of food poisoning among the prisoners}, (3) having most of the food options cause some form of food poisoning is torture (where the penalties from (2) and (3) are associated equally among the non-prisoner cooks and whomever buys the food for the prison and who decides the budget of the prison’s expenses).
The only method by which a prisoner may be compelled to work in a line of business that generates a profit for anyone (or any company, or is involved in making things that are sold on a market) is to be paid for it, of which the payment may not be less than minimum wage in the area. In any event where the prisoner gets paid, the prisoner must have a bank account at the bank of the prisoner’s choice where the money is stored, and have the ability to use that to purchase a means of internet communication after being given the prices of all methods that are normally available on the free market for anyone to get internet access, and thereafter use that connection to communicate with family and use the bank account to pay for the expenses of the family (payments made by the prisoner can be rejected on account of a high probability (according to the warden) that the payment will aid the members of a criminal organization) or for items for the prisoner that have been checked by the warden before being purchased as not being likely to aid the escape of the prisoner, or for making investments in any business that is selling things on the free market (with the ability to make profits due to that investment, which are then stored as income). Until a prisoner is released, the prisoner is not able to be forced to pay for anything resulting from contracts made before entering prison or for liability to any government (as in, prisoners are not taxed on the income they make while prisoners until after they are released (and then being taxed according to the rate at which the money was earned over the previous year (and tax free on the money earned in the years in prison before then)), and do not have to pay fines that exceed the prisoner’s net worth (or available assets strongly related to the prisoner that could be seized) the prisoner had as of the time of initial imprisonment). The occasion where a prisoner would not be entitled to minimum wage while working would be if the work was designed merely as an exercise to keep the prisoner busy (like digging holes to dig holes), or perform a public good function (like fighting fires).
Section 21: Determining minimum wage
During all local government elections in the United States, the ballot for the most important (and mutually exclusive with respect to what land is under the jurisdiction of which local government) local government in an area shall include a spot labeled “the minimum wage of everyone under the jurisdiction of this local government shall be $__.__/hour”, where each voter can put a 4 digit number in that space (two in front of the decimal place and two digits after the decimal place, and having a zero as the leftmost digit is valid). These values are then sorted, with all values below 7.25 being dropped. The initial median of these numbers is found, and all numbers more than $3 greater than this median are dropped. The secondary median of these numbers is found, and all numbers more than $2 greater than this median are dropped. The final median of these numbers is then established as the minimum wage in the area under the jurisdiction of that local government as of the next January 1st after the election.
The only way that someone is not entitled to minimum wage is if the person is unemployed, or if the person is given a salary that lasts longer than 1 year with a termination clause that provides extra funds and includes any other benefits that Congress has passed a law (which may be clarified by an agency) to require employers to give their salaried employees, and includes the benefits the state government has determined that salaried employees must be given. The other reason that a person is not entitled to minimum wage would be if that person works effectively as though running the person’s own company, and not in any way as the employee of someone else.
Section 22: Sunset of most non-proportional state legislative elections
Any state which lacks a co-equal (if there is more than 1 state legislative chamber) proportionally elected (with the ability of voters to favor particular candidates within their favorite parties (so as to disable a top-down party power structure)) chamber of their state legislature as of 9 years and 9 months from October 1st of the even year in which the U.S. House of Representatives has its first day of a proportional election shall have this section take effect on that state permanently (without the ability of that state to change the structure of the legislature (thus also superseding the aforementioned powers to change how the legislature gets elected or the number of its membership (though for the purpose of Division H of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment, the state legislature may (instead of passing an amendment via 2/3rds of the lower chamber and a referendum of the people to remove the upper chamber) have the lower chamber first have an amendment to make its Speaker become Prime Minister, then pass an resolution by 1/2 consent to have a referendum of the people on whether the state may declare bankruptcy)).
Subsection 1: Lower chamber
The state has a lower chamber with a number of seats equal to 3*ceil(pow(population of state, 1/3)/3). These seats are elected via the 4th method described in section 6 (then using the first method as the “one of the above”). The elections happen through the month of October of every even year.
This chamber has the sole power in the state government to determine where the money the state government receives is spent, provided that they only spend money the state government currently has, and only on programs that were created by law passed by both chambers while such laws have not sunset, and they are personally legally responsible for paying the state’s debts (as in they would have to spend their own personal assets if they did not pass a resolution to pay the state’s debts (unless they are using the bankruptcy provision in Division H of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment), and similarly they cannot reduce the salaries of judges). The lower house is considered to remain in session regardless of where the members go, with the funding resolutions (and any resolution or bill requiring majority consent being made the same way) being made via whatever documents members representing 1/2+1 of the seats are certified as signing as such (and similarly bills that require higher majorities to pass needing the members representing that many seats signing the document as such).
The lower chamber also has the sole power to (for legislation with a day on which it sunsets) alter the day on which a piece of legislation is stated to end (provided that the current end date (as revised by any previous use of this power) is after the day they are using this power) to be 30 days after the current day that they pass such a resolution. In order to use this power, members representing 2/3rds of the seats must be present as a quorum.
The lower chamber can meet virtually by having their members use secure technology to certify their votes or signatures on identical copies of documents.
Subsection 2: Upper chamber
The upper chamber has a number of seats equal to 3*ceil(pow(population of state, 1/4)/10). Two-thirds of these seats are chosen by ranked choice voting in districts with 2 candidates per district (the top two according to the ranked choice algorithm if both seats are up for re-election at once) where next to each candidate on the ballot is also a check box for whether that candidate is approved for a 4 year term (where if a candidate gets a seat and more than 50% approval, that candidate gets a 6 year term, or else if the approval is between 30% and 50%, the candidate gets a 4 year term, or else just gets a 2 year term); these districts are determined by first placing one point (representing one of the districts uniquely by whomever is closer to this point in the state than any other point is in this district) in the geographic center of the state, then the remaining points are placed in sequence as far from the other points as possible according to the sum of the square roots of the distances to each point placed previously (while keeping the point in the state, obviously), then take the point representing the district with the fewest people and slowly update it by moving it towards the point representing an adjacent district that has more people in it than any other adjacent district (switch which point is being updated as soon as a different district is the least populous, repeat this algorithm until the most populous district is no more than 1.1 times the population of the least populous district, or until 20 days of continuous computation on a modern computer have shown that this algorithm does not work for this state (at which point either the state legislature or the state Supreme Court (if the legislature doesn’t act timely) may make a deterministic algorithm that will create convex districts (potentially with wholly contained enclaves) where the population in the most populous district is no more than 1.1 times the population in the least populous district that can be shown to work the same way on some arbitrary population distributions (and could be demonstrated to work that same way for a theoretical census map for a different country))); the members chosen for more than 2 year terms may continue their membership after census redistricting (thus temporarily expanding the number of seats in the upper chamber as each newly created district elects 2 members). The last one-third of this upper chamber is chosen with the following statewide method on the same ballot: each voter places a unique integer next to the name of each candidate on the ballot for one of these positions (negative integers are allowed, but putting the same number next to two candidates makes both numbers next to them be counted as 0s) and can check a box next to any candidates’ names on whether to approve a candidate for a 4 year term (for candidates who get seats: more than 50% approval gets a 6 year term, between 30% and 50% gets a 4 year term, and otherwise gets a 2 year term); the votes for a candidate are counted as the sum of 0s for the votes where a 0 is counted on their name plus the summation of 1/(non-zero integer placed next to name) for the votes where a non-zero integer is placed next to a name, and thus the most voted for candidates fill those seats in the upper chamber.
The upper chamber has the unilateral powers to, by a document signed by 1/2+1 of their members, remove any person appointed to a position in the last 60 days; and by 2/3rds signing the document remove a person appointed to a position prior to 60 days before the last signature. Within 10 days after making such a removal order, the upper chamber may make a document with 1/2 +1 of their membership signing it to either disqualify that person from that position or from any position in the state government (the disqualification ending after the end of the last of the signatories’ terms).
In order for the upper chamber to remove someone holding an elected position in the state government, 2/3rds consent of the upper chamber and members representing 1/2 consent of the lower chamber must sign the document.
In votes on normal legislation, each of the upper chamber members elected statewide has the right to two speaking and standing continuous filibusters right before such legislation may be voted on. For all other members, they may speak only once per (number of members of the upper chamber) days and only until 2/5ths of the full membership objects to them speaking on the measure up for consideration, and after that may only speak with the consent of half the membership present.
Subsection 3: Both chambers
The members of one chamber are not the members of the other chamber.
Each chamber is considered as in session whenever they have 1/2+1 of the membership present (the lower chamber has that as “the members representing 1/2+1 of the seats” since many will have multiple seats), but in order to pass anything they must have the requisite majority of their full membership that such a bill or resolution requires to consent to it (thus the people voting “present” or who are absent are indistinguishable from “no” votes).
The ballot for each state legislative election includes “the salaries of members of the state legislature are $________” where the yearly compensation of each legislator going forward is the maximum of {the amount of money each legislator received on average in the previous year (minus any per diem granted in the state constitution), the median of the salary granted by voters in the election}+(any per diem granted by the state constitution).
A law that solely removes a current law or extends a program of the state government or changes the membership structure of an executive body in the state government (excluding elected officials in the executive) or which takes on debt (provided it is within limitations specific to taking on debt in the state constitution) or sells the assets of the state government is passed immediately when it is passed by both chambers (not subject to executive veto).
A law that does anything else in the state government is passed by 1/2 consent in each chamber and thereafter subject to limitations imposed by the state constitution (such as needing to not go awry of civil liberties and civil rights granted to individuals by the state constitution, constitutional protections for their judicial system and elected officials, some states giving governors veto powers, etc). Examples of laws they can pass in this way: make uniform taxation codes similar to what exists in the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment, create a government program.
By two-thirds consent of each chamber, they may have a referendum of the people attached to the next legislative election ballot to amend the state constitution if a majority of voters in the state pass it. This amendment can’t alter the structure created by this section as outside of the state constitution.
Division H: State Government Bankruptcy
Section 1
If a state government has a Prime Minister as per Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment and has no upper chamber of the legislature, the Prime Minister may declare the state bankrupt with the consent of a federal bankruptcy court which has given the Prime Minister a slate of economists (holding widely accepted credentials in economics with even divisions between those upholding different evidence-based schools of thought in how economics works (provided that all of them uphold the principle that debt for debt’s sake or spending for the sake of spending is bad (as in Keynesian economists will not necessarily be welcome))) the Prime Minister has stated approval for. Payments on debts are temporarily suspended while the economists are in charge, with the money saved moving to social programs (including directly purchasing (i.e. owned by the state government and operated by people hired by the state government under free market-based competitive salaries) the things necessary to build stuff people need in as automated a fashion as possible) the economists can prove will have the highest impact on reducing the cost of living in the state (and not go into tax cuts except to bring the average level of income and profits tax for high earners and corporations (for profits and income made in the state) equal to or greater than 1.5X the national ratio of tax revenue for all states to GDP for all states (with total tax revenue no lower than (the GDP of the state)*(the average ratio of tax revenue to GDP of every other state government))). These economists shall then fill all of the seats of the legislature of that state except for the Prime Minister’s seat(s), with the Prime Minister maintaining that title and having the power to veto any bill the economists bring forward unless brought forward by all of the economists or all but one of the economists. The economists shall bring forward a state constitutional amendment restructuring the state government that the economists believe will avoid the problems that caused the state to go bankrupt (which shall include getting rid of pension plans), which shall be voted on by the people of the state in what would have been the next state legislative election based on the calendar in the previous state constitution (or a minimum of two years from when the economists took their seats). If the amendment is approved by the voters, then the debts of the state are discharged by a uniform percentage on each note of debt (as if the amount of each note of the debt was the principle amount actually received by the state times (1+x)^years where x is the annualized percentage of interest the Federal government paid on debt in the same period minus the continuous definite integral of (the function of instantaneous amounts the state government has paid at a time to the creditor times (1+x)^(fractional years from payment date to current date)) evaluated from the start of the loan period to the current date (to a minimum of $0 debt remaining on a note)) the state is subject to such that payments on debt are equal to 1/10th of tax revenue plus 1/10th of profit from state owned enterprises (revenue minus payments made that are strictly for creating the goods and services it brings to market profitably (as in, payments to things and people outside of what can be shown in that purpose are counted as part of the profit of the enterprise)) plus all of the fees and fines the state government assesses against anyone and can be paid off at that level of payment in 8 years (dynamically changing (both upward (to a maximum of $1 required in payment per $1 of the amount of effective debt) and downward) as the revenue from those sources changes from natural fluctuations in the free market over 8 years). It is perfectly acceptable for the state government to change fines and fees during that period of time such that less liabilities are imposed against private persons, but other legislatively mandated de facto reductions in tax revenue brought in or profit made in state enterprises are prohibited; in this manner, it would be illegal for the state to sell a state-owned enterprise that was making a profit (or legislatively impose inefficiencies on it that prevent it from making a profit (administrative changes to pursue other investments that may make money many years later but do not currently make money can be used, but the part of the loan (times its (1+x)^(years) interest) that is not being paid because that money is going to something like that now requires that that money be paid back later, and can only be done if the bankruptcy court approves that expenditure (if the bankruptcy court does not approve the expenditure, it can still be done as long as that expenditure is not counted as an expenditure, but is counted as a part of the state-owned enterprise's profit (as far as 1/10th of its total profit needing to go to pay that debt)))), and it would be illegal for the state to reduce taxes (except to the extent that the rules get simplified into more uniform equations wherein the highest earning people and most profitable corporations pay 1.5X or higher the average ratio of tax revenue to GDP of every other state with the overall tax revenue no lower than the ratio between tax revenue to GDP of all other states) nor would it be legal to simply refuse to enforce taxes. (The equation for a state's liability to any creditor is equal to the contingent definition of a private person's liability stated earlier (that had been contingent upon Congress having certain kinds of bankruptcy rules available for the debtor to use)). Congress is not able to change these state bankruptcy rules for states in this amendment (except insofar as offering advice (binding or non-binding) to the bankruptcy courts for determining how to rule on each issue this amendment has the bankruptcy court rule on). After the amendment is approved, 1/4th of the economists will have their seats pass back to people elected with open party ticket proportional voting every two years thereafter (thus after 4 years from the amendment being passed, a majority (or slightly more depending on how many seats the Prime Minister had) of seats would have been elected normally, and after 6 years 3/4ths (plus whatever seats the Prime Minister had) would be elected normally, and after 8 years all seats would be elected normally), with the Prime Minister’s seat(s) immediately being up for re-election (and presumably losing the title as all the members of the legislature vote on the title of Prime Minister (including the remaining economists)). If the amendment is not approved by the people of the state, then the original bankruptcy court shall send in a new batch of economists without the consent of the Prime Minister (or any other limitation so long as they all have strong credentials in economics (and that at least a majority of the economists become different people (however, if the current batch has made real progress on reducing the cost of living in the state and have avoided any policy that would reduce freedom of speech or the press, and have stopped local governments from implementing policies to reduce freedom of speech or the press at a speed that pre-empts legal challenges (e.g. passing a law to specifically remove reporters from the custody of local police prior to the reporters getting their lawyers to sue for their release, passing a law to get rid of police officers who ask people to put away their cameras, etc), then the minimum number of economists in the legislature the bankruptcy court must replace with new economists drops to 2 with a maximum of 1/3rd of the economists being able to be replaced))), who will then re-start the process of coming up with the necessary structural amendment to the state constitution (and passing the laws required for the functioning of the state government as normal) while the debt repayments remain suspended.
While this section is being used by a bankrupt state, the different departments, offices and assets of the state government can be considered as continuing to operate in limbo with bills passed by the legislature that include a department’s name having the effect on such a department that is equivalent to a state constitutional amendment (other than rules on voting procedures, for which their bills are considered normal laws)).
Section 2
When a court overturns or effectively undermines a state law passed by a direct ballot initiative (generally used as part of a strategy by voters to get around uncooperative politicians), the Supreme Court must assume that those assigned by the state government to defend the law in question were speaking in bad faith with respect to a conspiracy by politicians to undermine the ability of voters to undermine politicians (no further action required on the Supreme Court's part outside of this section). Thus, the Supreme Court can use its resources to find out what arguments there exist to defend the law in question, and require those officially on the side of getting rid of that law passed by direct ballot initiative to appear and defend the use of a court to get rid of that law in light of the evidence on the side of the direct ballot initiative. This procedure can be used for overturning state court decisions (i.e. the state courts overturning the direct will of the people of the state), even if those decisions were based on an interpretation of the state constitution. This forms part of the federal government's guarantee to every state of a republican form of government (except as exempted in section 1 above with respect to temporarily resolving problems (via replacing politicians with economists) which send a state into bankruptcy (which has several steps during which the voice of the people is respected in referendums on the structural changes which precede the declaration of bankruptcy and follow after coming up with a plan for solving bankruptcy)).
Section 3
A state government may not tax the payment given to its creditors (nor may the local governments subject to it) for the debts against either (or make its creditors subject to hurdles (administrative or otherwise) for receiving the same payments that would be similar in any way to a tax on the payments).
Division I: Verification that the Python code in the Omnibus Constitutional amendment was typed correctly and miscellaneous clarification
Section 1: Referring to Section 17 of Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment
In Section 17 of Division G, the line numbers can be paired with the number of tabs and total number of characters (excluding newlines) they are written with as: [(0, 0, 15), (1, 0, 98), (2, 0, 3), (3, 0, 70), (4, 0, 48), (5, 0, 48), (6, 0, 3), (7, 0, 3), (8, 0, 152), (9, 0, 146), (10, 0, 117), (11, 0, 109), (12, 0, 275), (13, 0, 9), (14, 0, 25), (15, 1, 15), (16, 1, 18), (17, 1, 8), (18, 1, 19), (19, 2, 19), (20, 2, 20), (21, 2, 21), (22, 3, 8), (23, 2, 13), (24, 3, 11), (25, 3, 20), (26, 2, 13), (27, 3, 11), (28, 3, 20), (29, 2, 11), (30, 3, 11), (31, 3, 20), (32, 2, 7), (33, 3, 11), (34, 3, 20), (35, 1, 17), (36, 2, 19), (37, 2, 20), (38, 2, 11), (39, 3, 11), (40, 3, 18), (41, 2, 13), (42, 3, 11), (43, 3, 18), (44, 2, 11), (45, 3, 11), (46, 3, 18), (47, 2, 7), (48, 3, 11), (49, 3, 18), (50, 1, 10), (51, 1, 16), (52, 2, 23), (53, 3, 43), (54, 2, 25), (55, 3, 15), (56, 1, 14), (57, 0, 21), (58, 1, 15), (59, 1, 9), (60, 1, 10), (61, 1, 24), (62, 1, 10), (63, 1, 18), (64, 2, 29), (65, 1, 8), (66, 1, 39), (67, 2, 37), (68, 3, 300), (69, 4, 11), (70, 4, 9), (71, 2, 10), (72, 1, 32), (73, 2, 10), (74, 2, 14), (75, 2, 31), (76, 2, 24), (77, 2, 6), (78, 3, 29), (79, 4, 16), (80, 5, 16), (81, 4, 16), (82, 5, 9), (83, 4, 9), (84, 5, 16), (85, 3, 22), (86, 3, 7), (87, 4, 32), (88, 4, 42), (89, 4, 46), (90, 3, 10), (91, 4, 8), (92, 2, 9), (93, 3, 7), (94, 1, 27), (95, 1, 22), (96, 0, 0), (97, 0, 10), (98, 0, 10), (99, 0, 25), (100, 0, 27), (101, 0, 10), (102, 0, 22), (103, 1, 5), (104, 2, 27), (105, 2, 29), (106, 2, 12), (107, 2, 20), (108, 3, 7), (109, 4, 31), (110, 4, 8), (111, 5, 20), (112, 5, 31), (113, 4, 11), (114, 5, 25), (115, 3, 10), (116, 4, 12), (117, 1, 8), (118, 2, 10), (119, 0, 19), (120, 1, 6), (121, 1, 14), (122, 1, 11), (123, 1, 16), (124, 2, 34), (125, 3, 16), (126, 3, 15), (127, 3, 9), (128, 1, 12), (129, 1, 11), (130, 0, 7), (131, 0, 21), (132, 1, 18), (133, 2, 10), (134, 1, 27), (135, 0, 37), (136, 0, 7), (137, 0, 15), (138, 1, 5), (139, 2, 20), (140, 2, 14), (141, 3, 27), (142, 1, 8), (143, 2, 26), (144, 0, 0), (145, 0, 95), (146, 0, 0), (147, 0, 12), (148, 0, 5), (149, 0, 16), (150, 0, 8), (151, 0, 43), (152, 1, 27), (153, 2, 15), (154, 3, 10), (155, 3, 21), (156, 2, 7), (157, 3, 11), (158, 2, 95), (159, 1, 6), (160, 2, 15), (161, 3, 11), (162, 3, 20), (163, 2, 10), (164, 2, 95), (165, 0, 18), (166, 0, 13), (167, 0, 21), (168, 1, 18), (169, 2, 10), (170, 1, 53), (171, 0, 17), (172, 0, 46), (173, 1, 10), (174, 1, 22), (175, 2, 19), (176, 3, 11), (177, 2, 15), (178, 2, 29), (179, 3, 25), (180, 4, 26), (181, 5, 9), (182, 6, 29), (183, 6, 31), (184, 5, 12), (185, 6, 29), (186, 5, 26), (187, 2, 42), (188, 3, 74), (189, 3, 21), (190, 3, 27), (191, 2, 7), (192, 3, 43), (193, 4, 36), (194, 4, 24), (195, 5, 20), (196, 4, 31), (197, 5, 18), (198, 5, 19), (199, 6, 10), (200, 7, 37), (201, 8, 23), (202, 8, 25), (203, 8, 20), (204, 6, 65), (205, 7, 12), (206, 5, 20), (207, 6, 20), (208, 7, 24), (209, 6, 20), (210, 7, 11), (211, 8, 38), (212, 9, 24), (213, 9, 26), (214, 9, 21), (215, 7, 14), (216, 8, 99), (217, 3, 74), (218, 3, 21), (219, 3, 27), (220, 1, 14), (221, 0, 25), (222, 1, 9), (223, 1, 18), (224, 2, 25), (225, 1, 14), (226, 0, 48), (227, 0, 21), (228, 1, 18), (229, 2, 10), (230, 1, 62), (231, 0, 0)]
A party is ineligible to stand for election under that voting system if (after all English characters are made lowercase and all non-english or non-alphabetic characters are removed) the party's name is indistinguishable from the name of a party that has already shown that it has support in the jurisdiction where they will stand for election (in a way that allows it to get on the ballot).
The counting of votes in each iteration within a party can be parallelized (using an O(log(n))-time reduction as the number of processors increases (not including communication time)), as can the initial count of votes for each party to determine how many seats each party gets, and the separate instances of the body of the final for loop based on party name can be parallelized independently of each other party. Though the switches from one for loop to the next (and in recounting after removing one candidate from one party after counting up #1 votes vs the next recounting based on that result) are necessarily sequential following the same path of computations as the program.
In the version of open-party-ticket proportional representation that has a minimum amount of support necessary to take a seat, the number provided at the end of the program next to a name provides the determination whether the person actually gets the seat.
The algorithm can be easily used for the ranked choice Section 9 voting system in Division G by simply having all the candidates be considered to be elected under the same party (called the "Candidates" (does not use the word "party" in its name) to avoid making the voters think that all the members stand for the same ideals).
A person is ineligible to stand for election under a party label if that person's name is indistinguishable from another person's name on the ballot (all candidates must use names for which they are uniquely recognized in that area they are elected on behalf of before the petition with their name on it is submitted). For this purpose, someone on a petition that arrived with the requisite number of signatures before a different petition with someone of the same name for the same election time and jurisdiction has preference to keep his/her own name on the ballot, unless the second person of the same name has more than 50% more name recognition in that jurisdiction (determined by a random sample of (somewhere between 1000 and 5000 (the number must be chosen before the people performing the study have asked more than 10 random people, defaulting to the first 1000 people they asked if they did not make a hard choice on the number)) people being given a picture of both candidates and asked "Which of these people is named " with the name in question after that quote and only having the ability for those interviewed to choose one person (thus giving that chosen person more name recognition)), in which case the first person gets dropped from the ballot (must have the person dropped notified of this with a well-published statement with both people's pictures and slogans) and the second person gets on the ballot.
Section 2: Referring to Section 5 of division B of the Omnibus Constitutional amendment
In Step 1 of Section 5 of Division B (through to right before the words "Section 6"), the line numbers (starting with the line with “#a python program that can be loaded into a file to do everything”) can be paired with the number of tabs and total number of characters (excluding newlines) they are written with as: [(0, 0, 65), (1, 0, 80), (2, 0, 33), (3, 0, 93), (4, 0, 27), (5, 0, 68), (6, 0, 55), (7, 0, 106), (8, 0, 9), (9, 0, 18), (10, 0, 59), (11, 0, 22), (12, 0, 29), (13, 0, 550), (14, 0, 12), (15, 0, 12), (16, 0, 199), (17, 0, 32), (18, 0, 12), (19, 0, 98), (20, 0, 51), (21, 0, 32), (22, 0, 12), (23, 0, 98), (24, 0, 53), (25, 0, 34), (26, 0, 12), (27, 0, 100), (28, 0, 37), (29, 0, 68), (30, 0, 81), (31, 1, 25), (32, 2, 21), (33, 1, 70), (34, 1, 18), (35, 2, 14), (36, 1, 63), (37, 1, 25), (38, 2, 14), (39, 1, 8), (40, 1, 25), (41, 1, 44), (42, 2, 10), (43, 2, 64), (44, 2, 19), (45, 3, 15), (46, 2, 64), (47, 2, 19), (48, 3, 15), (49, 2, 30), (50, 3, 27), (51, 2, 7), (52, 3, 27), (53, 1, 18), (54, 2, 15), (55, 1, 6), (56, 2, 15), (57, 0, 272), (58, 0, 528), (59, 1, 18), (60, 1, 50), (61, 1, 28), (62, 1, 113), (63, 1, 128), (64, 1, 159), (65, 1, 59), (66, 1, 35), (67, 1, 15), (68, 2, 14), (69, 1, 17), (70, 1, 8), (71, 1, 25), (72, 1, 21), (73, 1, 130), (74, 2, 10), (75, 0, 120), (76, 2, 48), (77, 2, 21), (78, 2, 21), (79, 2, 21), (80, 2, 60), (81, 2, 36), (82, 2, 16), (83, 3, 15), (84, 2, 106), (85, 2, 48), (86, 2, 21), (87, 2, 21), (88, 2, 21), (89, 2, 60), (90, 2, 36), (91, 2, 16), (92, 3, 15), (93, 2, 33), (94, 3, 22), (95, 2, 7), (96, 3, 23), (97, 2, 26), (98, 1, 21), (99, 2, 25), (100, 3, 24), (101, 3, 17), (102, 3, 17), (103, 3, 17), (104, 2, 39), (105, 2, 39), (106, 2, 41), (107, 2, 175), (108, 1, 6), (109, 2, 21), (110, 3, 53), (111, 2, 7), (112, 3, 53), (113, 0, 0), (114, 0, 216), (115, 0, 63), (116, 0, 90), (117, 0, 90), (118, 0, 92), (119, 0, 30), (120, 0, 30), (121, 0, 30), (122, 0, 146), (123, 0, 41), (124, 0, 167), (125, 0, 24), (126, 0, 85), (127, 0, 9), (128, 0, 112), (129, 1, 33), (130, 1, 71), (131, 0, 548), (132, 0, 13), (133, 0, 8), (134, 0, 148), (135, 0, 67), (136, 0, 16), (137, 1, 15), (138, 1, 85), (139, 2, 17), (140, 2, 7), (141, 3, 28), (142, 3, 18), (143, 2, 10), (144, 3, 17), (145, 3, 22), (146, 1, 7), (147, 2, 21), (148, 0, 25), (149, 0, 12), (150, 0, 59), (151, 0, 138), (152, 0, 14), (153, 0, 16), (154, 1, 15), (155, 1, 85), (156, 2, 17), (157, 2, 7), (158, 3, 28), (159, 3, 18), (160, 2, 10), (161, 3, 17), (162, 3, 22), (163, 1, 7), (164, 2, 21), (165, 0, 25), (166, 0, 12), (167, 0, 61), (168, 0, 141), (169, 0, 14), (170, 0, 16), (171, 1, 268), (172, 1, 85), (173, 2, 17), (174, 2, 7), (175, 3, 30), (176, 3, 20), (177, 2, 10), (178, 3, 17), (179, 3, 22), (180, 1, 7), (181, 2, 21), (182, 0, 27), (183, 0, 12), (184, 0, 7), (185, 0, 58), (186, 1, 17), (187, 2, 61), (188, 1, 64), (189, 1, 17), (190, 1, 11), (191, 2, 22), (192, 1, 53), (193, 1, 14), (194, 1, 11), (195, 2, 21), (196, 1, 14), (197, 1, 8), (198, 1, 21), (199, 1, 93), (200, 2, 10), (201, 2, 54), (202, 2, 67), (203, 2, 67), (204, 2, 36), (205, 2, 15), (206, 2, 12), (207, 3, 22), (208, 2, 54), (209, 2, 97), (210, 2, 47), (211, 2, 21), (212, 2, 21), (213, 2, 21), (214, 2, 15), (215, 2, 12), (216, 3, 22), (217, 2, 27), (218, 3, 15), (219, 3, 38), (220, 4, 22), (221, 2, 7), (222, 3, 16), (223, 1, 12), (224, 2, 25), (225, 3, 24), (226, 3, 17), (227, 3, 17), (228, 3, 17), (229, 2, 260), (230, 2, 176), (231, 1, 6), (232, 2, 15), (233, 3, 51), (234, 2, 7), (235, 3, 51), (236, 2, 2), (237, 2, 2), (238, 0, 152), (239, 0, 67), (240, 0, 83), (241, 0, 94), (242, 0, 96), (243, 0, 0)]
The commented lines that appear to contain python code are preceded by rules of when to uncomment that code and when to comment out the lines that those rules (written as comments themselves) are written on.
Section 3: Referring to all python code in the Omnibus Constitutional amendment.
In all sections with python code:
Comments that get to the end of the line and have words on the next line that logically follow them as if part of the same sentence all appear on the same line.
In both of the above list-of-3-tuple lists, the first element of the 3-tuple is the index that starts from 0 as the first line of the code.
All double quote marks used in Python segments are the same mark, specifically they are the ASCII 34 character.
All single quote marks used in Python segments are the same ASCII 39 mark.
All numbers used in Python are written without internal commas or separation characters except for the decimal point (ASCII 46 mark).
Section 4: The only limits on political speech
The naming of political parties in proportional elections must follow the following 4 conventions (as described with examples):
(1) The name must be unique from the names of the other parties in the same ballot even after running both names through the simplify(party_name, len(party_name)) function.
(2) The name (unless in a proportional election where less than 7 people will get seats from the ballot in a given area) cannot have any of the following sequences of characters appear within the party name as simplified in (1): {republican, republic, democracy, democratic, union, unity, patriot, together, everyone, alllivesmatter, prolife, prochoice, freedom, liberty, safety, america} (as in party_name.find(word_in_set) must return -1). (The exception for 6 seats or fewer being elected at once is to allow the Republican and Democratic Parties to continue to dominate the Senate, since each election in one state at one time will only choose 5 people to be Senators (who must act together to cast one vote in the Senate (unless that one vote is moved to be exercised by a referendum)).)
(3) The name of the party must represent a specific policy that the candidates on the ballot for that party agree on how to pursue. Alternatively, it must represent the specific area of expertise that candidates of that party share.
(4) A candidate's name on the ballot must be unique from any other candidate's name on the ballot (resolved as in Section 1).
Examples of the first part of (3) are: the National Security Party, consisting of people who advocate for more military spending; the Infrastructure Party, consisting of candidates who advocate for more spending on infrastructure; the civil rights party, consisting of candidates advocating for more spending on public defenders and/or on taking action against discriminatory practices; the Communist Party, consisting of candidates advocating for government ownership of factories; the Gun Rights Party, consisting of candidates advocating for the ability of private individuals to keep and bear arms (such as Matt from the DemolitionRanch YouTube channel); the anti-abortion party, consisting of religious teachers advocating against abortion; the immigration party, consisting of candidates advocating for more immigration; the Fraternity Party, consisting of candidates advocating for additional rights and immunities for fraternities on college campuses; the Party Party, consisting of candidates advocating for the right to party; the nothing party, consisting of candidates that can't agree on a particular policy to advocate for; the nothing two party, consisting of candidates that can't agree on a particular policy to advocate for and who named their party after the nothing party's candidates got the nothing party name.
Examples of the second part of (3) are: the Space Party, consisting of candidates who have jobs (or have had jobs in any capacity) involving space education (like Scott Manley or Neil DeGrasse Tyson) or in building spacecraft (Mark Rober, Elon Musk); the National Security Party, consisting of candidates who have been members of the military or acted in civilian positions for the federal government in directly deciding on actions within other countries that could involve lethal force; the Pro-abortion party, consisting of doctors who have performed abortions; the Infrastructure Party, consisting of construction workers and civil engineers; the teachers party, consisting of former or current teachers; the police party, consisting of (former, at least as far as taking up an elected legislative job) police officers or people who directly decided on actions that may have involved lethal force or long-term restraints on another person on U.S. soil; the power party, consisting of electricians and people who build or design electricity generation systems and physics teachers; the healthcare workers party, consisting of people who helped patients recover from injuries and illnesses while being in the same room as them.
All controversies over whether a given candidate belongs in a party based on its name must be brought within 31 days after the petition of the party trying to be on the ballot presents their petition for inclusion with the proper number of signatures (the legal action can be brought as of the first time the plaintiff learns of the existence of the petition); or legal action must be brought before 110 days before the first day of the election is to take place (whichever of the two is later); the courts must resolve the case prior to 30 days before the first day the election is to take place, with the Supreme Court (and any relevant appellate courts) being able to decide the case at any time after it is brought with a summary judgment after learning about the first hour's worth of arguments from both sides in the original court (getting 1 hour's worth of arguments must have happened within 40 days of the case being brought), and no appeals possible within 30 days of the election being about to happen (nor any appeals during or after the election (though that does not preclude a separate case on someone being on a party's list before another election several years later, even if the case was decided in one way previously)).
The only remedy legal action on these matters can get is to remove a candidate from a party (no additional candidates may be added to a party list after the petition has been made available for signatures to be placed on it); or to enjoin the inclusion of a party on the ballot until the candidates on that party's petition change the name of the party to a name that represents either the area of expertise of all of themselves or represents the policy they all advocate for.
The only other political speech that can be limited are in the nine below bullet points:
* Bribery (limits on political speech as a means to stop bribery can include coerced speech to provide financial disclosures by candidates necessary to stop bribery (and to stop the breaking of campaign contribution limits meant to be proxies for punishment of bribery), and disclosures of contributions by organizations on behalf of candidates to allow voters to decide as to whether they feel a candidate has the public's interest in mind by how they vote).
* Advocating violence against a particular person currently in the United States at the time the speaker intends to be heard.
* Advocating violence against a group of people in the United States outside the context of advocating that the federal government or a state or local government perform the violence (i.e. someone could advocate for cruel and unusual punishment against a group of people by government, or advocate for ex post facto laws, or advocate for a declaration of war against a group in the United States (in other words, advocating for action by a government is protected political speech, regardless of whether such action would be legitimate were it to actually happen)).
* A member of a government advocating for action that is violent against other members of the same government, or advocates positive action that undermines the obligations of that government they are a member of to a higher level of government (i.e. a state governor advocating succession, or advocating the arrests of federal officials, or the invasion of federally-controlled buildings could have laws used against him or her (However, telling state officials "Do not respond to federal officials when they ask a question, nor lift a finger to do as they say" is protected political speech except for refusal to provide information that is readily available (since that would be taking a positive action to obstruct the right of higher levels of government to collect information about lower levels of government (a right necessary as part of making sure the lower level of government has not taken some other positive action to break its rules)))). Advocating violence within a government must be resolved by the procedures in the charter of that government (statements made within elected bodies (that do not refer to a higher level of government) of more than 20 people that take action via majority votes must be adjudicated by votes of 2/3rds of their members for expelling such a member (or other penalty that is not just reducing their pay (which can be done according to general rules by a 1/2 vote (though the general rule being used must a part of a body of rules that is consistently followed by the chamber)))). Advocating positive action against the obligations of that government to a higher level of government must be adjudicated by the higher level of government concerned. Advocating violence against a different government of the same level (the levels being: 1, local; 2, state; 3 federal (highest level)) must be adjudicated by the next highest level of government most directly associated with the government of the member who advocated violence.
* Speech by members of the executive of a government (in parliamentary systems, it is the person chosen as Prime Minister/Speaker/Manager/Mayor from that chamber and anyone that person has the power to unilaterally remove from office, and the chain of command that person can use to accomplish visible changes in the area which voted in the elected body) that violates specific provisions of the charter (such as a constitution) of that government, or violates the obligations of that government to the charter of a higher level of government, or is a person who has lethal force available to him or a chain of command with lethal force available in it to himself where speech violates the laws of that level of government or a higher level of government (as opposed to needing to find a specific provision within a local government charter, state constitution, or the U.S. constitution banning the material of that speech).
* Speech by members of the federal government's executive branch members that specifically violate the integrity of information not published (as in, release classified information), nor covered by Freedom of Information Acts, nor covered by whistle-blower laws (which include, at minimum, information showing that military action that the public was already informed about was taken under false pretenses, that the action of government agents corresponded to an attempt to covertly remove/restrict/harm political opponents from being able to compete with someone higher in the chain of command who got elected, or that money was covertly spent on "corporate welfare" (or “grift”) contrary to producing the publicly stated desired results of a program). Those working in a private capacity on behalf of the federal government's executive who speak to release classified information (that doesn't fall under Freedom of Information Acts or whistle-blower laws) must be shown by prosecutors to actually have been making commercial speech as far as an adversary being likely to have been willing to pay a high price for the information (as in, they are not allowed to punish this private person if the private person can show it was political speech (as a positive defense which could be included in a negative defense strategy (Otherwise known as the “I didn’t do it, but even if I did, it would not have been illegal” strategy)); and that testimony in this area (to determine this as political speech or commercial speech) can't be objected to on "speculation" grounds).
* Speech by government officials revealing the identities of witnesses protected either by witness protection programs or whistle-blower laws.
* Speech compelled of social media companies as specifically laid out here: that social media companies are required to tell people living in an area with a local election of a government satisfying Section 11 of Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment that the local election is occurring, and that YouTube specifically is required to maintain the records required of it by paragraph 3 of Division D of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment, and that online platforms specified by paragraph 4 of Division D of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment must satisfy the conditions for protecting the speech of others on their platform (particularly vis-a-vis others asking the platform to take down content on account of alleged copyright violations) therein that paragraph.
* Speech compelled on news companies to tell people that they must decide budgetary items in a referendum (by having an article on their front page) specifically by division C of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment and only compelled to have the stories during the 30 days during which voting is happening on the passage of a funding bill as per the voters having decided to move voting power in the Senate over to national referendums as per other sections of that division.
An example of speech that could be prosecuted under the fifth bullet point exemption to political speech protections would be a police officer arresting someone and failing to tell that person his Miranda rights (the police officer being the one whose political speech of refusing to say those words is not protected) as per the fifth amendment (inferred rights under the 9th and 10th amendment do not get the same privilege). Another example would be a refusal to swear the oath of an office when taking it up. Yet another is someone holding a state or local government position and advocating succession from the United States (except in local governments covered by treaties with the United States saying the same, or expressly within the area covered by Step 2.3 of Section 10 of Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment). The President saying "Congress should not exist" or "the Supreme Court should not exist" are examples of Sedition (following the exemption in the fifth bullet to protected political speech), and the President telling a crowd to remove Congress or remove a court are examples of treason (following the exemption in the fourth bullet (alternatively, if the crowd is government officials or the statements are to act nonviolently, then it is still treason following the exemption in the fifth bullet as per the fact that the President is a member of the executive branch)). A common person saying "Congress should be abolished" or "<person's name who is in the federal government> should be removed from office" are protected political speech as long as they don't refer to violence being used (members of government have to say their displeasure in the form of a statement like "we should pass an amendment to eliminate Congress as an institution" or "vote <some names> out", or "<person's name in government at the same level of government as the person speaking or higher> should <statement drawn from set A>" (set A= {be impeached and convicted, resign, be fired, be expelled, not be re-elected, have a recall election against him or her, be stripped of a pension, be stripped of honors bestowed pursuant to laws, have laws made to reduce his or her authority}) in order to guarantee that they are not referring to violent action (as far as avoiding a Henry II statement like "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" (by virtue of that statement being in the grey area that, depending on context, may violate the second bullet point for anyone, but is guaranteed to violate the fourth bullet point for members of government (when replacing "priest" with the title of some position in that government or a higher level of government)))).
Note: Commercial speech (has less protections on it relative to extremely well-protected political speech under the first amendment, but still has protections relative to courts scrutinizing legislation that doesn't serve the public good (an example of a law that can be thrown out under this standard out of hand is one that produces any disincentive against someone saying something where that person can prove that what they said is true (Note: there are many ways of creating media that are not telling people to believe one thing or another directly (such as artwork) whereas most speech protections are designed around making sure that arguments (particularly those that can be expressed with words) about how government or society ought to function are readily able to be heard))) includes speech made due to payment to specifically say something in one of five categories: (1) that is either demonstrably false, or (2) where the speaker knows it to likely be misleading (such as a rhetorical question like “we don’t know that to be safe, do we?” (unless referring to a specific law or contract granting someone power where “that” refers to the power granted, in which case the speech has the higher level of protection associated with political speech as opposed to the lower level of protection associated with commercial speech)), or (3) where the speaker doesn't understand what the speaker himself said (or the speaker herself said), or (4) the speaker is advocating people to pay for a good or service (directly or indirectly), or (5) the speaker is advocating people to avoid a commercial item (wherein the speaker (or groups that have often or have recently paid the speaker) might have a financial interest in getting people to go for a different item). Note further that the next lowest level of protection on speech protected by the courts is on information that forms the basis of intellectual property (as limited in scope on how speech that violates another person’s intellectual property can be used as a basis for penalizing that person by the Fair Use doctrine, the public domain, and Division D of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment). The protections on speech relative to the speaker being penalized in a non-monetary and non-criminal code way within what could be viewed as a private club (or speaking to disrupt some government proceeding (or public school class)) for speech that could be viewed as disruptive are then less than protections on people speaking in a way that might form the basis of someone’s lawsuit on behalf of their intellectual property rights (a non-monetary, non-criminal code penalty would be something like being required to leave the area being used as a private club, provided that the private club has ownership of the area in question; disrupting a government proceeding might have a stronger penalty associated with it, but the specific actions would have to be weighed against the legitimate state interest in determining the penalty (suppression of speech that is considered as a basis of a political party’s platform (or as evidence for their talking points) cannot itself be considered a legitimate state interest, and imposing a penalty for being disruptive to a proceeding by using that speech requires the courts to show more scrutiny against the existence of that penalty relative to the actual importance of the proceeding disrupted (an example of disruptive speech that could have stronger penalties associated with it would be a court reporter talking over a judge’s question in a court case))). A work of fiction (divorced from the real world) would be political speech except where a character is expressly referring to an actual person’s action in the real world in a way that falls under category 1 or 2 of commercial speech above, or where there’s a reference to a brand in the real world that could be recognized by a reasonable person as an advertisement (category 4 above), or where the work of fiction defies someone’s intellectual property rights (or where intellectual property rights violations are the complaint against the work).
The only restrictions on commercial speech that are written directly as enforceable law in the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment are: (1) the references in Division B and initial clarifications to requiring someone advertising their property at a lower price in order to force down their assessed price for the purpose of taxation to sell their property to the first buyer who offers that price, and to rent the property to the first would be tenant who offers the advertised rental price (the rental price always being used for calculating the assessed price instead of total list price wherever a rental price exists, unless the advertised list price is higher than the assessed price due to a rental); (2) the reference in Division B to certain kinds of Government bonds that were not sold in fair auctions and thus must be marketed as having the interest be taxable; (3) (this is retroactive) that whenever a person is stated by a company to “buy” or “purchase” or have something “bought” (or using a word that when translated to a different commonly used language and back is found to be equivalent to those words) that that thing as intended by the original transaction must truly belong to the buyer forever without the buyer needing to pay a single cent more than the stated price (excluding if what is being sold is land-based property where some recurring costs in order to use the property could be reasonably understood (like property taxes, water utilities, electrical utilities, a non-increasing home owner’s association fee, etc)) unless they voluntarily return the item for a refund or the company is somehow able to get some government to use eminent domain to get that thing out of the hands of the buyer (for a price that is necessarily more than the price it was purchased for, as evidenced by the intensity of the actions to get it back from the buyer). This right of a buyer to truly own something cannot be waived except for the buyer waiving the right to resell or allow someone else (other than the main beneficiary of their last will and testament, or understood first person who receives survivorship benefits) to use the item bought or waiving the right to copy the thing sold (note: these possible waivers do not exist for land-based property); (4) (not retroactive for games that have become unplayable prior to this passage going into effect (or which were made 10 years prior to this going into effect), but applicable in all other games) For purchases of online multiplayer games that use moderation and bans of players who are otherwise making the game unruly, those players who are banned must have available to them in the game purchased a single-player version of the game (or one that will work on a simple local-area network that anyone could set up at home to play with friends in the same building) that appears nearly identical in the visual effects and manner in which it is played; such a single player version (or version that can relatively easily (presumably by anyone who knows a bit of coding and hardware design) be played on a LAN in one building) must be created for any game which is likely to go offline in the future (and thus no longer playable in the former manner, or where it is updated in a manner that fundamentally changes the manner of gameplay and visuals (or just makes either become worse) with respect to what was actually desired to be bought, where accepting those updates would be a precondition to playing the game in the absence of the provisions in this paragraph) (it doesn’t have to be developed immediately, but must exist by (10 years after the game is designed, or before the game is not playable as purchased, whichever is earlier), or 10 years after this provision goes into effect, whichever is later (if the single-player or LAN version is not developed in that time, then the purchasers must be refunded for their purchases, or else all the company executives involved in the release of the game from the time it was first sold must be arrested for fraud and serve 1 year in prison minimum (to a maximum of the normal penalty for fraud at that scale (no lower than 1 year)))). This paragraph reverses the decision by Peloton to make their treadmills non-operable for purchasers who later end their subscriptions, and similarly for other companies purporting to sell items (or using the word “purchase” or “buy”, or similar as stated above) (for things bought that are not online games, the remedy is not monetary, but is instead simply “reversing” the decision of a company that would otherwise violate someone’s rights of ownership). Neither a site's terms of service nor privacy policy nor any other contract (other than an English contract no longer than 100 words in 18 point font starting with the words "I sell" or "I relinquish" or "I rent") entered into by the user may cause the user to be denied their rights of ownership of anything being "bought" or "purchased" (or using any similar term).
Section 5: Expansion of the meaning of “due process” as stated in the 5th amendment with respect to arrangements made to prevent people who are allegedly not intellectually capable of managing their affairs from managing their affairs (an example of this is what is known as a “conservatorship”):
In order for someone (let’s call this person the “conservator”) to receive control over another person’s finances (let’s call this person the “charge”) under an arrangement where a state government has otherwise created rules that the conservator has satisfied to take such control (in the event that this control is not granted via a criminal case against the person where the conservator is acting on behalf of a police force in that state), the conservator must satisfy additional criteria.
The initial payments out of the funds of the charge that the conservator may make after being given that kind of control under state rules may only be for such contracts that the charge made prior to the time at which it was alleged by the conservator that the charge was incapable of managing their affairs according to a constant rate of payments precisely consistent with the amount the charge was paying, or less. The other kind of payment out of the charge’s funds may be for medical interventions necessary to save the charge’s life or medical interventions necessary for the medical well-being of the charge as per an independent doctor’s assessment.
The criteria to meet in order to make any further payments out of the charge’s funds (as in, no lawyers (nor the conservator) may be paid out of this fund until and unless these criteria are met) is to get a jury of the charge’s peers (12 people randomly chosen from the state and district where the charge resides) to, after hearing the statements of the charge and conservator, rule unanimously that the charge does not have anywhere near the intellectual capacity to handle the charge’s affairs and that the current conservator is the best match for protecting the charge (if the jury rules that someone else is the best match for running the conservatorship, then that person can apply though the state’s laws to become the conservator instead, having joint control over the charge with the current conservator until the conservatorship is fully moved to that person instead (at that point the arrangement is allowed to do everything state law otherwise allows by the two acting jointly (or by the one other person chosen by the jury as the best conservator if that person’s application as sole conservator pursuant to this section is accepted under state law)); if the jury rules in any manner that would suggest that it is not obvious the charge does not have the intellectual capacity to manage affairs, then affairs become fully under the control of the charge (ending the arrangement altogether)). After the initial decision that the charge is unable to manage affairs, another jury must be convened 6 months from then to hear testimony from the charge and conservator where the jury can rule either to keep the arrangement going or to give control back to the charge (ruling to give control to the charge means no further juries need to be brought on the arrangement, which ends immediately). For these jury hearings, no lawyers may be hired by either the charge or the conservator, the legal advice given to the jury (presumably by the judge making sure the process of jury selection is sufficiently random and making sure the court doesn’t become unruly) must be either explaining this section or be something like: “based on the reactions the charge is giving to what the conservator is saying, does this charge seem to have major emotional issues (like trigger words or stories that cause this charge to yell at the conservator) or some inability to think through questions (like not being able to work through a math problem expressed in words that might occur in a financial decision), and does the charge seem to have come up with someone else who can act as conservator?”
In any case, the normal limits under state law still apply to these arrangements, and the conservator may avoid needing to have these juries convened provided that the conservator has made no attempt to access the charge’s funds or expend the charge’s other assets (other than strictly for providing for the medical interventions and continuing payments on the charge’s former contracts (that existed before being stated to have the difficulties that require a conservator) necessary as stated earlier (note: the ambulance ride or taxi ride to the hospital is not a medical intervention, and a live-in healthcare worker is not a medical intervention (putting an intravenous tube under a doctor’s supervision could be part of a medical intervention; using a defibrillator is a medical intervention (i.e. the phrase “medical intervention” must be taken as literally as possible)))).
This section is retroactive in the sense that if a charge of a conservatorship that existed as of when this section went into effect can, at that jury trial required under this section, show the charge continuously had the intellectual capacity to carry out the charge’s affairs as of a certain point in the past to now in the present, which requires that the conservator return any money or assets to the charge that were taken under the conservatorship (except for the money paid for aforementioned medical interventions and the persistence of the charge’s contracts that existed before the conservatorship) between that time in the past and the present. The jury is the group that must unanimously decide that start date.
Section 6: Protection of foreign workers
Visas allowing citizens or subjects of foreign nations or refugees to stay in the United States for a period of time in order to work will continue to stay in effect after their end dates (or other conditions on the visa that would cause the visa to expire) as long as the following 3 conditions are met by the person:
1. On net, the amount the person has paid in fines or taxes is greater than the total amount of money that person has received from the federal, state and local governments (excluding the money paid by a government to do work on their behalf for a competitive salary).
2. The person has either not committed a crime or the only crimes the person has committed fall into the following categories: {(failure to pay a fine where the person has paid enough money in fines and taxes in a period of 60 days that their leftover income in the same period is less than the cost of living in that area (leftovers include the funds spent on anything not a fine or tax)), (traffic law violations where no one was injured), (violations of per-room occupancy limit laws), (providing helpful goods or services for a price in violation of laws designed to limit economic activity through mandatory fees or memberships (such as a membership in a trade group being required to perform that trade) or licenses or anti-competition agreements or similar), (violations of immigration law authorization for someone with that kind of visa (laws that are otherwise in this category but are expressly removed from this set of laws are laws that prevent someone from moving a person into or out of the United States, and Section 6 of Division I of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment)), (violation of a law requiring the purchase of something (excluding laws against theft or crimes very similar to theft, since theft is a sufficient condition for expulsion of a visa holder)), (violation of a law where, in a random sample of 12 people who are not lawyers in that area, more than 4 say "no" when asked, "Did you know about the existence of the law that says"+str(words in law)+" before being asked about it by a question like this? Yes or no?")}. A way to look at the laws in this class is that it is not a sufficient condition for expulsion that a foreign worker was speeding (provided he or she didn't crash into someone) or parked in a "no parking" zone, nor is it a sufficient condition for expulsion that a foreign worker is too poor to pay a fine, nor is it a sufficient condition for expulsion that a foreign worker is an entrepreneur in an unfriendly business environment (as in providing something that at least one private person or company is already legally allowed to provide), nor is it a sufficient condition for expulsion that a foreign worker breaks a law that few people actually know about, nor is it a sufficient condition for expulsion that a foreign worker on a visa that disallows getting an education goes ahead and gets an education, nor is it a sufficient condition for expulsion that a foreign worker lives on a bunk bed rented from a friend in an efficiency apartment.
3. (This condition is evaluated as of 40 days after the ratification of the Omnibus Constitutional amendment, so as not to refer to prior membership or aid.) The person does not join a gang or cult, nor provide resources or labor for either (the definition of cult can only be determined ad hoc by a jury consisting of people who do not accept the existence of any merit to the idea known as "live your truth" (or believes the idea is harmful to those who hold the idea) and believes in the existence of objective truth). (This may not be construed to require the Supreme Court to re-evaluate the idea of freedom of association of U.S. citizens that they have determined could theoretically be derived from words somewhere else in the Constitution).
Section 7: Limits on the committees of Senators (especially where a committee of Senators is granted power over non-Senators (such as could be the result of some negotiation between the House and Senate for the continuation of their authority long after the people in many states have made things such that Senators can no longer vote or speak on laws (by moving the power of votes in the whole chamber over to referendums of the people)))
All Senators (excluding the Senators that are a part of a delegation all voted for at one time from one state that are not the most voted for member of that delegation from the party with the most seats in the same delegation (and excluding anyone who is not the most voted for member of any party of those parties that are tied in that delegation for having the most seats in the delegation)) are members of the committee for choosing the Senate majority leader (the second-most voted for person in that election being Senate Minority Leader) and, of course, there is one vote for the Vice President.
No committee with power over non-Senators (such as a law granting a committee powers to compel testimony or subpoena documents for matters under its purview) may have more members than 1/6th of the number of members in the committee that chooses the Senate Majority Leader.
No Senator may have more than 3 committee assignments more than the Senator with the fewest committee assignments (especially with respect to Senators not on the committee for choosing the Majority Leader); a Senator is not considered as having a committee assignment who refuses the assignment given (a Senator who qualifies for the committee for choosing the Majority Leader is automatically on that committee such that that person cannot refuse to be on that committee) or is later no longer part of that committee. (as in, if there is a Senator with only one committee assignment, there must not be a Senator with 5 committee assignments; if there is a Senator with no committee assignment (one of the Senators not on the committee for choosing the Majority Leader), there must not be a Senator with 4 committee assignments). If a Senator has more committee assignments than that Senator is allowed to have as per this paragraph, that Senator must immediately put the names of each of the committees that Senator is a part of into a hat (one slip of paper per committee), and pull out a number of slips of paper equal to (number of committees that Senator is a part of) minus (3 plus (number of committee assignments that the Senator with the least number of committee assignments has)), and the names of the committees drawn out of the hat are the committees that Senator falls out of.
The Senate Ethics Committee (only having the power to investigate allegations of impropriety of Senators as per Senate rules (and is used in other below paragraphs regarding expulsion of Senators not on the committee for choosing the Majority Leader)) is the exception to general committee structure, and shall have 1/2 of its members chosen by the Senate Majority Leader, and an equal number chosen by the Senate Minority Leader with an up-and-down vote on all the appointments happening at once in the committee for choosing Majority Leader. If the committee for choosing the Majority Leader votes down this even number of people selected for the Senate Ethics Committee (where half of these appointments being voted down all at once are made by the Minority Leader), then the current Majority Leader and Minority Leader lose those titles, and require an immediate re-vote on who the Majority Leader and Minority Leader are in that committee (where the previous Majority Leader and Minority Leader are temporarily disqualified from taking up those positions for the purpose of that one vote). The Senate Ethics committee does not have a vote for the Vice President (the only committee like that). Being appointed to the Senate Ethics committee still takes away one possible committee appointment vis-a-vis the Senator with the least number of appointments.
(The Senate Ethics Committee is exempted from this paragraph) In any committee that would have one Senator or more (to 10 Senators) that is not the committee for choosing the Majority Leader (or any other body of members that would have one to 10 U.S. Senators (regardless of whether or not that body is a part of the U.S. government (as in, the same precondition for the Vice President to have one vote in that body of members))), (a) the Majority Leader shall have the power to appoint half (rounded up) of the qualified Senators that would be on that body, with the Minority Leader choosing the remaining Senators that would be on that body. In any such body (not the committee for choosing the Majority Leader) that would have more than 10 Senators (also would have the Vice President), (b) the Majority Leader shall appoint 3 more members than are chosen by the Minority Leader. The Majority Leader may refuse to appoint Senators to a body, thus reducing the total number of Senators in that body and reducing the number of Senators the Minority Leader may appoint to that body (according to rule a if the majority leader appoints less than 7 members (id est appointing the same number of members as the Minority Leader), and otherwise according to rule b (id est appointing a number of members equal to the number the Majority Leader put on minus 3)). The Minority Leader may refuse to appoint members to such a body, thus reducing the total number of Senators in that body and reducing the number of Senators the Majority Leader may appoint to that body (if the Minority Leader thus appoints 3 or fewer, the Majority Leader may only appoint that many plus one, otherwise the Majority Leader can only appoint as many as are chosen by the Minority Leader plus 3). In committees that existed prior to that choice of Majority Leader and Minority Leader where one of those leaders decided to not appoint the full number of members of that committee (note: the lack of qualified Senators to hold positions on a committee is indistinguishable from refusal to appoint someone to a committee), the previous members of the committee who managed to remain as Senators may unanimously come up with a preference list of themselves to determine the order by which they leave that committee as new Senators get appointed (where someone who gets appointed right after January 6th of an odd year is considered a newly appointed Senator regardless of whether that Senator was on the committee previously); if the former members cannot come up with a plan for how they get replaced, then all of them are removed as soon as the first new Senators are appointed to that committee. The Majority Leader and Minority Leader can negotiate settlements such as "If this person is not on the committee, then this other person is not on the committee" prior to making appointments after January 6th of an odd year, this then allows the Minority Leader to enforce otherwise non-binding agreements on how government authority can be used by having the members the Minority Leader chose resign from the committee in order to reduce the power the majority party has over the committee when those agreements get violated. Note: for committee sizes of 12 members, the way to get the maximum amount of power for the minority leader is to appoint 3 members, thus causing the majority leader to only be able to choose 4 members.
No law may grant a committee containing members of Congress the power to appoint people (the exceptions being appointments to “chair” of such a committee, or choice of positions that only have power within the strict confines of the chambers of the Capitol (such as Majority Leader, Minority Leader, and similar)), this follows the same logic of how a law could be made to allow simple resolutions of the House to dismiss members of government, but would need to do something like have a President or choose someone who is already the head of a department and give that person general rules for appointing replacements. This falls under the continuation of the idea of separating the legislative and executive branches as much as possible, and getting more requirements of qualifications-based selections rather than politics-based selections in the executive branch.
Every Senate Committee shall have each Senator member be able to have one non-interrupted filibuster speech before every vote of that committee, excluding on votes of expulsion of a Senator (described 3 paragraphs on), and excluding on votes on the appointment of the Senate Ethics Committee (either all being approved or none being approved) in the committee for choosing the Majority Leader (and the vote on choosing a new Majority Leader and Minority Leader if the new appointments for that Senate Ethics Committee are not all approved at once).
All members of Congress shall have the same level of pay (excluding the Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader all getting 1.2 times the normal pay of members of Congress) regardless of whichever grants of honor they are given, and no member of Congress may have a pension that provides more than $90,000 per year due to service (laws providing a higher pension than that are considered reduced to that level), and each member shall have no more than $400,000 per year available for paying staff members chosen competitively for their ability to come up with legislation that meets their objectives or writing speeches or giving interviews or doing in-depth research. Each chamber of Congress may have up to $1,000,000 per year per committee (to a maximum of $26,000,000 per year per chamber) to pay for staff for that committee competitively chosen based on ability to carry out that committee's investigations/writing/interviewing (the money also covers any extra expense of that committee (such as paper, computers, printers and ink) (the travel expenses of agencies in the course of answering their questions would likely be covered by the budget of that agency)). If there are more than 26 committees in a chamber, the oldest 26 committees that still exist of that chamber get the funding, but a committee may move that funding over to be used for those expenses for a newer committee (the Senate Ethics Committee may only use up to $100,000 per year of this funding, and the Senate Committee for choosing the Majority Leader does not get one of these budgets).
The Vice President and judges (unless on provisional approval (in which case use the description of the method in section 19 of Division C of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment)) still can only be removed by Congress via the impeachment and conviction process.
A Senator who is on the committee for choosing the Majority Leader is expelled under a resolution of 2/3rds of the members of that committee for choosing the Majority Leader. For this purpose, the one-speech filibuster (the kind that has no interruptions) is only granted to the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, the Senator whose expulsion is being voted on, and one Senator the Senator whose expulsion is being voted on chooses. Since membership of the committee for choosing the Majority Leader is automatic based on the number of votes one got in their election to Senate, membership passes from someone no longer on the committee for choosing the Majority Leader to the next most voted for person (calculating votes in that person's previous result in a Senate election that happened less than 6 years previously) of that Senator's party from the same state who is not already on the committee for choosing Majority Leader (unless no such person is available, in which case the governor of that state can appoint the Senator replacing that person (even if the Speaker of that state government has become a Prime Minister)).
In order to expel a Senator who is not on the committee for choosing the Majority Leader, a new super-committee is temporarily convened by the Majority Leader (or by the Minority Leader at the request of one committee that Senator is a part of, or as per the joint resolution of two committees that Senator is a part of, or as per a resolution of the Senate Ethics Committee) consisting of all the Senator members of the Senate Ethics Committee plus all the committees that Senator is a part of (each Senator on this temporary super-committee for this purpose having one vote) who may, by a 2/3 majority vote (rounded up), expel that Senator. For this purpose, the one-speech filibuster (the kind that has no interruptions) is only granted to the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, the chair of the Senate Ethics Committee (or a hired secretary of it if they do not choose a chair), the Senator whose expulsion is being voted on, and one Senator the Senator whose expulsion is being voted on chooses.
A Senator may not resign from a committee (unless the Senator is resigning their title as "Senator") without the consent of one of the following: {the chair of that committee, or the Majority Leader, or the Minority Leader}. This is to prevent a Senator from resigning from committees in order to avoid expulsion (though it doesn't entirely prevent a Senator from refusing to join any committee in order to have the privileges of a non-committee'd Senator without the threat of expulsion, though a Senator who qualifies to be on the committee for choosing the Majority Leader cannot refuse to take up that position).
Laws providing committees with power can have other qualifications provisions like "a Senator cannot have a seat on both the Coast Guard Committee and the Road Transportation Committee" (presumably to reduce the concentration of power in any one Senator), as well as provisions limiting the number of consecutive (or cumulative) years a Senator can be on a particular committee, as well as provisions requiring a Senator to have been on one committee for a certain number of years before that Senator can be on some other committee (such that the latter committee can be ranked absolutely higher than the former committee on a cursus honorum due to those kinds of provisions).
Committees are allowed to meet via shared video live-streaming except where doing so does not provide sufficient security or where a majority wish to meet in-person, or where there seems to exist a negative correlation between productivity and using shared video live-streaming (for this purpose, do not publish the live-streams (otherwise Senators will end up being rated based on what they say instead of on the productivity of the executive branch departments and agencies they oversee)).
Section 8: Clarification of references to randomized public opinion in Section 20 of Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment
The randomly discovered public opinion that could be used to stop a death penalty from being carried out is a superset of the public opinion that could be used to cut a prison sentence short. In other words, the discovery that public opinion finds that the crime for which someone was imprisoned was too closely aligned to the policies of Kafka International Airport in the case in question is also a sufficient condition to not impose the death penalty on that person, but the reverse is not true (finding that public opinion on what someone would have done if they were in the same situation as the defendant (in a capital punishment case when the defendant committed the crime), many people would have done something in that situation that would also be a crime (this could be a feature of "over-regulation" of society as it is often referred to); this finding is sufficient to stop the death penalty, but is not sufficient to cut short a prison sentence).
Thus, it is likely that the only crimes for which someone could get out of prison early by an appellate court under the Kafka doctrine (as it will likely be known) will be crimes like obstruction of justice (depending on particular circumstances (an example would be someone pushing a police officer off a suspect on account of a belief that that suspect would be killed otherwise)), resisting arrest (particularly where the person doesn’t think that they did the original crime they would be arrested for), and crimes committed by someone who was declared dead in what could be a reasonable pursuit of getting their life back to normal (such as driving with an expired license (or no license if it was taken away on account of being dead), life insurance fraud of life insurance policies made in that person’s own name, tresspassing on property that belonged to that person while that person was still alive, illegally crossing a border on account of not being able to renew one’s passport after being dead, identity theft of the identity of the person that person was while that person was alive, harassing bankers to get access to accounts closed on account of that person being declared dead) (whether or not the declaration that someone was dead was made in error). Another example of where the Kafka doctrine would apply is in effectively requiring someone to get a license to do something where that something includes actions that would be necessary to get that license (particularly if you have to pay to get a license, and the only profitable work is work that requires a license, and you have effectively no money). Another example of where the Kafka doctrine would apply is in someone not knowing how to argue or settle a case prior to trial even after making reasonable searches through public records of that government and reaching out to that government through the standard means.
The reasons given in Section 20 of Division G for stopping a punishment do not themselves provide exoneration of someone’s criminal record (generally other rules (including rulings of courts on the meanings of terms in other amendments like the 5th amendment and 4th amendment, and rules for using new evidence in new trials) outside of Section 20 of Division G can be used to exonerate crimes from someone’s criminal record).
Section 9: The following words below this section heading may not be considered legally binding
The following words are not enforceable law (you could call it the "Postamble"):
The reasoning for the entire Omnibus Constitutional Amendment is derived from the proper understanding of economic incentives, the keys to power (as described by CGP Grey in "Rules for Rulers" on YouTube), and the maxim "when a measure becomes a metric, it ceases to be a good measure." Specifically, it comes down to the idea of the theoretical venture capitalist with limited funds but vast foresight trying to figure out what to invest in to get the highest level of return on his money; the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment will, at the equilibrium point as voters figure out which of the new parties they are going to think of as viable, make our venture capitalist decide to invest into productive assets that produce consumer goods instead of investing in the campaigns of politicians and instead of investing in lawyers. This will be because our venture capitalist will know with his foresight that a politician cannot offer him a tax exemption for something in exchange for campaign funds (given this amendment means everyone gets their taxes calculated with same way), and will know enough about how the law works without needing to hire a lawyer (once state and local governments have used their new proportional election systems to simplify their legal codes (presumably getting the ball rolling on new representatives by virtue of lower house members being flustered about the upper chamber or governor and thus deciding to proceed with a pyrrhic victory against them by giving a future (proportionally-elected) session of themselves more power, and those new members, being flustered to the same extent, decide to exercise those 2/3rds consent+referendum of people powers to turn the state into a Parliamentary democracy (or just decide to exact very slow revenge on the governor by turning the local government in the area the governor came from into a proportional parliamentary democracy (that happens to be larger than it was previously)))). The keys to power understanding comes into play by virtue of how open party ticket proportional voting largely removes closed-door party power brokers from having enough leverage in who gets chosen into office, largely by virtue of them trying to get extra voters to join their party by hiring idealists onto their petitions, but then having the voters effectively say "I only want idealists to have power" (thus usurping the power of the brokers behind the scenes). The maxim comes into play by virtue of an attempt to get state and local governments to invest in their own infrastructure, and to get them to, when a company leaves or a lot of people are out of work, take the initiative (preferably before something bad happens) to build their own corporations to provide voters the things they wanted at free market prices to maintain their voters' standards of living (this can provide certain benefits over just simply reducing regulations to make it easy for laid-off workers to build businesses to compete with their former employers (which should also be something to strive for), since a government corporation can be designed to do such unprofitable things as build things that last forever and invest far more into providing things than advertising for things, which directly increases everyone's standard of living in the long term), with the maxim coming into play by having the incentives favor these things generally, and not have them as too specific of mandates to accomplish immediately (given the well-known psychological experiments showing how people often vote against their own best interests, so those voted in on that principle need time to get used to the idea of being forced to act in the interests of their voters). The incremental multi-year long processes are to make sure that the provisions in this amendment happen on a specific timeline, and avoid the well-known historical problem in law that something that is supposed to restructure power on a broad scale "immediately" ends up causing a discovery later that things can be forcibly pushed forward in time indefinitely into the future (cough...cough...14th amendment protections...cough...cough). The CGP Grey video on rules for rulers is also useful for describing why at least minimal protections for foreign workers are needed, because their lack of voting rights incentivizes politicians to try to extract from them the means of making voters have the stuff they want, as well as preventing companies from threatening foreign workers with expulsion as part of firing an employee, and preventing politicians from stopping foreign workers from "taking seats away from citizens" at prestigious institutions, and in potentially getting the foreign workers who were previously illegal immigrants via overstaying visas to now want to act like law abiding citizens (by virtue of being allowed to stay in the United States) and not rely on gangs to keep them safe from the U.S. government.
In another embodiment, the idea of proportional elections in the Omnibus Constitutional amendment is to make sure that one person who is otherwise disinterested in politics, can look around the country, see what problems exist, and vote for the party with the solution to that problem in their name (like voting for the infrastructure party, healthcare party, and similar), or vote for the party that seems to inspire the idea of having a better future (or one that is not waiting to solve problems, though that idea would generally lead them to vote for very different parties (like a green energy party or civil rights/some other social issue party than voting based on inspiration (it is likely the Space Party would be the one voted for for inspiration))). This idea necessarily means substantially mitigating the current method of how political news is generated because it must necessarily be the case that the members of one party will be told by party leadership over and over again to not answer any question that does not pertain either to what is stated in the party platform or what can be inferred from the party name or to specific things that happened in your personal life (as a means of protecting the brand of the party (and thus avoiding an Andrew Yang-type fall from grace (wherein he lost the race for mayor of New York City specifically because he talked about a social policy that was not specifically giving people basic incomes (which was the underlying concept of his brand)))). This idea of politicians not answering certain questions is ironically both foreign and native to American politics prior to the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment, its just that politicians prior to these proportional elections must hand-wave the process of building coalitions behind certain ideas behind the backs of the non-politically active voter by answering reporter questions in certain ways that make them noticed by the members of their coalitions without getting noticed by the people who might be scared off if they knew who the coalition consists of in the background, but now via proportional elections, the process of building coalitions happens directly in front of the voters, who can now enumerate precisely the order by which different social issues and budgetary items must be preferred, rather than require politicians to be told after the election how much an issue ought to take center stage based on the percentage of the politically active “economy” (if you will) tells them that something is an issue (a process that invariably causes a market failure in the form of creating an economic incentive to lobby to get a share of society’s resources instead of putting that money towards creating goods and services that people want to buy (the former idea being the underlying cause of the Soviet Union’s collapse, and the latter being why capitalism in the U.S. has allowed most people to afford so much more than the average person could afford under the Soviet Union’s rule)).
Section 7 of Division I is all about increasing the extent to which multilateralism plays a part of governance while avoiding the possibility of the different parts of the executive branch being divided into different governments. Currently, as long as there is a President, the executive branch can be considered mostly unified in purpose, but once the House and Senate have outlasted the President’s 10 year term (cumulative with the Vice Presidential terms succeeding the President if the President leaves before that time), it is very likely that some new arrangement will be struck such as providing for certain percentages of non-PIPECCAA funding going to the most politically important departments, with either the House of Representatives (via simple majority vote resolutions) or some Senate committee making decisions on how funding going to a department gets spent in that department (as well as being able to have one group responsible for removing people from that department and choosing who in that department may hire replacements (so as to avoid any member of Congress from having the ability to directly choose anyone or provide advice on particular names of people to appoint)). An example of how this arrangement might work out would be the House of Representatives (in this example having the head of the Space Party as Speaker in a coalition) controlling NASA, the Department of Energy, the Federal Communications Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Space Force, the Air Force, and Navy (throwing in a couple other agencies plus some federal land), then the Senate having a committee controlling the Department of Transportation, another committee controlling the Army Corps of Engineers, another committee controlling the coast guard and Department of Homeland Security, another committee controlling the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other committees with information collection responsibilities that can make orders on removing people or altering budgets in departments and agencies not already covered via having several other committees agree on action, and then leaving a bunch of executive offices (particularly for preventing political manipulation) to only have members removed via the impeachment and conviction procedure (which of course would lead to needing to have a referendum of the people decide on a removal depending on the number of overall Senate votes lost to referendums there are), or (more likely) to be removed by yet another multilateral order by a resolution of the House and some number of Senate committees (potentially with super-majority requirements). The mandate that membership of Senators on all committees (other than the one for deciding on Majority Leader) be controlled by its leaders is first to make sure that elections have consequences and second to make sure that any would be Senator would know that their membership on a corporate board (or Home Owner’s Association Council) could become a liability to their standing in that company if they are still on it when the Senate Majority Leader decides that he wants to be able to vote on those boards and councils and thus bump that Senator off them (even if the company is a foreign company, and even if the Home Owner’s Association is in a foreign country) because this constitution would supersede the process by which the company would normally remove someone from the board (until that person on the committee/board/council is no longer a Senator). You could say this should reduce a conflict of interest by making Senators focus solely on their responsibilities in the chamber, but more likely this aspect will just be funny to watch (especially if a few members of the Ford Motor Company’s board win election as Senators and then watch the Senate Leaders place people there to replace them on the board who then proceed to vote to close down foreign factories). The ability of the non-newly appointed Senators on a committee to unanimously come up with a ordering of who gets replaced by new appointments (or else have every Senator on that committee be removed when new appointments start) is to allow for some negotiation that could entail a committee that has 14 maximum positions (which will naturally just have 4 members from the majority party and 3 members of the minority party appointed at a time given that that is how the Minority Leader can reduce the influence of a Majority Party there the most) have the next election of Senators result in having the 4 next Senators appointed by the Majority Leader replace only the empty seats on the committee and the 3 next Senators appointed by the Minority Leader replace only the other empty seats on the committee (thus meaning that real control can be increased by a party only by winning control in consecutive elections).
The effective racial quotas of prisoners in Section 20 of Division G are such as to encourage the adoption of policies that release more nonviolent offenders early and adopt more interventions that do not fall into the category of “imprisonment” (interventions that are also often considerably cheaper). The wide number of standard deviations of what could be referred to as a continuation of racism exist as part of the understanding that many gangs specifically try to recruit people of particular races, but with some standard that can make a few racist police officers decide that it might be worth it to arrest some bad person of their own race in order to offset the number of people in prison of races that police officer does not like (this statement mostly exists as a recognition that there are several people who do not have the ideal of justice as the main reason they take up a job).
It is very likely that San Francisco will become a parking lot/camping ground (albeit one that also happens to have buildings) as people seek places to live with low rental costs, and many may start digging tunnels (with building inspectors checking to make sure they have taken precautions to prevent collapse (being allowed in by those building these encampments by virtue of the fact that they can now rely on a court system that favors them, and that it is in their interests to make sure their cave-homes won't collapse)) to create arbitrarily large amounts of real estate (which could then be turned around and sold for a high premium). This is intentional, as it allows for the homeless in other cities to congregate around the idea that they can finally provide self-determinism and work for themselves that could pay quite well (especially if criminal records otherwise make it hard for someone to make money in other lines of work) and make the city livable for more people (even if it becomes less livable for the richer segment of society due to city services in water, sewage and electricity not keeping up (the idea being that Jakarta is technically livable as per its population numbers)), and it can, for at least a short amount of time, reduce housing prices elsewhere as the homeless in other cities are no longer competing for houses there. Once there's a critical mass of voters in San Francisco that understand economics from a different perspective of making sure people can make the businesses necessary for people to survive (as opposed to regulating that out of existence), then cycles of poverty in the (likely several miles of) underworld built below San Francisco can be mitigated as trust can be restored with the government bodies in the overworld there to make sure services can be provided where people are living (since San Francisco may otherwise pursue a backwards policy of stopping people from making grocery stores 5 miles below the surface in order to stop people from building houses 6 miles below the surface, only for people to build houses 6 miles below the surface anyways (since the San Francisco government couldn't stop them from doing so) and have to go hungry if they can't get high enough in the crust fast enough to get to a store).
The point of the references to stock buybacks being taxable except in certain circumstances is such as to make stock buybacks be a tool of public companies to prevent the value of their shares from dropping too low (thus allowing them to, in certain ways, treat their shareholders almost like creditors; it also works to make sure they are not simply buying back the shares of the friends of the CEO preferentially over other shareholders, though it is likely that current regulatory schemes stop that from happening). This mostly comes down to the fact that enough people are significantly leveraged into the stock market such that companies taking measures to stop major swings can be a good thing; however, the taxes on stock buybacks (note: it is not a tax on stock buybacks so much as it is a tax on revenue when it was generated that is not going into things that we would prefer a company to invest in: employee labor, productive assets, etc) otherwise are necessary given that companies spending profits on stock buybacks are not putting that money into building productive assets (with the understanding that previous investments into a company would have been made on account of that company having the possibility of returning profits to those investors). The scheme would mostly entail a public company looking at their stock prices that are lower in the current month than the previous month, and putting a limit order each day (lasting only until the end of the trading period) on trading platforms to immediately buy shares as soon as they drop below the low of the previous day (the limit could probably be set lower, and the order could probably be made any time during the trading period) up until the company's budget for that month for stock buybacks is exhausted. This strategy for stock buybacks is also such as to make the stock price for companies that do this actually correlate to news about the company. The company would still have to eat the tax bill (considering the money (at the point it was received) used for stock buybacks as part of the company's profits) if the company either was not otherwise making any profits in the tax period in which they were doing stock buybacks, or if the company wanted to just bring their stock value to a particular price that is higher than both the low for the previous month and low for the previous day.
(An example of a bill that could be passed into law that would be sensible in light of how the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment works (particularly in making sure that budgetary fights can be more easily decided directly by elections without a risk of government shutdowns (The other bill to pass being a bill listing out which agencies and departments are authorized to have officers that can use force on the soil on a state for the next 730 days from <date>, where “<date>” can be unilaterally revised by a resolution of the House of Representatives to the day that that resolution doing that passes, or a previous day that is later than the current date in "<date>" where the bill does not include any funding provisions (provided that Section 25 of Division C of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment applies); in other words they could make sure that authority only extends for 30 days at a time if the House wanted to exert more pressure)).) Passing this bill is something that could be done either after there is no longer a President (either if the people in different states decide not to move that state’s vote in the Senate to referendums, or if members of Congress include people with enough celebrity status to convince voters to approve it in referendums that express the votes of the whole Senate) or while a President is in office (either with a President who is okay with largely making the Presidency obsolete or with a provision stating that the meat of the bill only goes into effect when there is no President): “(for the purpose of the following, ‘tax revenue’ does not include the amounts given under PIPECCAA (which is unchanged relative to how it was originally passed) and does not include funds given for payment of debt, nor the salaries of judges, nor the salaries of members of Congress, nor the salary of the Vice President, nor the amounts given under the federal pensions system for federal workers, nor the budget of the Congressional Budget Office (maintaining it as it was in 2020), nor the budget of the Congressional Research Service (maintaining it as it was in 2020).)
Any office which, in the absence of the Presidency, does not have someone authorized to choose the person in that position if that person were to resign, is granted the power to provide a 30-day notice to the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader of who it is that will replace that person (the person chosen must have passed a background check and have the relevant technical knowledge for the position), and if the House of Representatives does not pass a resolution stating an objection to that appointment, the new person well documented in that notice shall take up that position as soon as the current person in that position (the one promulgating the notice) is no longer in that position. In the case that the person is in a department or agency under the budgetary control of a Senate Committee, the chair of that committee must be given that notice, and that committee may vote to have some other head of an executive office make a choice for their replacement.
Wherever it is the House of Representatives or a Senate committee that is given budgetary control over something below, that budgetary control necessarily includes being able to say which head of any executive department or agency may choose to replace someone in a position, provided that the person chosen passes a background check, makes the path of office, and has the relevant technical knowledge required for the position.
20% of tax revenue goes to the Social Security Administration with the unspent funds by them going into Medicare (unspent funds are then considered recursively as tax revenue in the next fiscal year), Medicaid (unspent funds are recursively considered as tax revenue in the next fiscal year) and Unemployment Insurance equally (unemployment insurance getting to keep its unspent funds in order to use them in the future for maintaining the newly unemployed while there exists unemployed/worker ratio higher than the average unemployed/worker ratio over the last 20 years by 3/100); 40% of tax revenue goes to the Agencies under the sole control of the House of Representatives (who may by resolution change where that money goes in the budgets of those agencies). 5% of tax revenue goes to the Department of Transportation as per the resolutions of the Senate Committee on the Department of Transportation (the committee consists of 12 members, none of whom are on the committees that have “Agriculture” in the name, nor “Housing” in the name, and who (after the Senate Majority Leader announces a 4 hour Mini Motorways competition 24 hours after the announcement with a particular map to get the highest number of commutes in a single play-through of that map in that time) are the ones with the highest scores in Mini Motorways on Apple Arcade of those Senators that are not on a committee with “Agriculture” or “Housing” in the name) (where it may make resolutions regarding how the budget of the Department of Transportation uses those funds for activities at the Department of Transportation). 5% of tax revenue goes to the Senate Committee on the Army Corps of Engineers (the committee consists of 12 members, who must have lived for a year next to a levee) for use in the Army Corps of engineers as per their resolutions. 5% of tax revenue goes to the Senate Committee on the Department of Housing and Urban Development (the committee consists of 12 members, with the qualifications of having lived for 10 years in a place that has at least 12,000 people with their primary residences within .5 miles of that primary residence, and at least three years (consecutively sleeping somewhere in that building every day for at least 1096 days) of living in an apartment building where 10 people were in apartments below that apartment who were earning less than the incomes of the poorest 10% of Americans) for use in the Department of Housing and Urban Development according to their resolutions. 5% of tax revenue goes to the Senate Committee on the Department of Agriculture (the committee consists of 12 members, none of whom are on a Committee with “Housing” in the name, each of whom must have lived on a farm (producing more than 1 ton of food brought to market annually (while living on the farm) for human consumption) for at least 3 years consecutively) for use in the Department of Agriculture as per their resolutions. 2.5% of tax revenue goes to the Senate Committee on the Coast Guard and Homeland Security (the committee consists of 12 members who must have all had lived for 3 years consecutively within 30 miles of a U.S. land border with another country in a house without any hired private security forces (or bodyguard) nor gated community, and who has lived in a house that has been subjected to flooding from a large-scale natural disaster (this second qualification is waived if either there are no Senators who fit this requirement or if all the Senators who fit this requirement have been placed on this committee)) for use in the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. side of the International Boundary and Water Commission as per their resolutions. 2.5% of tax revenue goes to the Senate Committee on the Department of Education (the committee consists of 12 members who must be either {qualified as teachers in at least one public school district and have taught elementary classes (or middle school classes or high school classes) in person with more than 20 students and with no teaching assistants at a public school (where none of the students pay tuition to be there, and at least 1% of students in the school were in families among the lowest 10% of poorest families in America, and at least 5% of students were in families among the poorest 50% of families in America) for 3 years consecutively}, or {must have volunteered at a public school for 60 hours in the past 3 weeks and must continue to volunteer at a public school for 20 hours per week in order to remain qualified (or else leave the committee)}) for use in the Department of Education as per their resolutions. 2.5% of tax revenue goes to the Senate Committee on the Department of Health and Human Services (the committee consists of 12 members who must either be qualified as medical doctors, registered nurses, or (if not satisfying either of those conditions) are currently volunteering at a hospital (following the directions of medical staff there, with recommendations from them stating the same) for 20 hours per week while on this committee, with at least 40 hours of experience volunteering at a hospital prior to being on this committee) for use in the Department of Health and Human Services as per their resolutions. 2.5% of tax revenue goes to the Senate Committee on the Department of Labor (consisting of 12 members, none of whom are on a committee with “Commerce” in the name, nor may a member have ever been CEO of a company or on a corporate board (excluding for political action committees that do not sell a product or service), nor ever a manager in a private company (excluding political action committees) who fired or laid off an employee) for use in the Department of Labor as per their resolutions. 2.5% of tax revenue goes to the Senate Committee on the Department of Commerce (consisting of 12 members, the members chosen in the following way: the first, third, fifth and every odd number choice by either leader must be someone who must have managed the salaries of employees at a private company and personally either fired or laid off an employee by saying the same to that employee’s face; the second, fourth, sixth and every even number choice by either leader must be someone who has at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering or Physics from an accredited university) for use in the Department of Commerce as per their resolutions. 7.5% of tax revenue goes to other currently existing agencies and departments of the federal government (not exclusively controlled by the House nor an aforementioned Senate Committee) with divisions in that funding agreed to by the House of Representatives and the eight Senate Committees which have the following properties: {the maximum number of members in the committee is 12, the name of this committee is a number from one to eight until this committee agrees on the first name for this committee (not naming it the name of another committee in the House or Senate, and its must be a name relevant to the agencies/departments under its control as per the later described persistent joint resolution), only Senators may be members of this committee, this is not an aforementioned Senate Committee, the membership of a Senator in one of these committees makes that Senator unqualified to be a member of another of these 8 committees deciding on the 7.5% of the budget as per the later described persistent joint resolution}, where the agreement on the division of funding between agencies and departments provides for which committee is authorized to control the budget within that department or agency (and if given control over multiple departments and/or agencies may move the budget between those items, and if there is a minimum amount of funding needed in a Department or agency that requires approval by the House of Representatives in order to go below that amount (or, if the internal budget of an agency is controlled by the House (and is not listed in this bill as being under the sole control of the House), there may be a minimum amount for that agency the House must give them unless the House has the consent of a particular Senate Committee of these committees), and if a position in that Department or Agency requires the consent of the House of Representatives in order to remove (and if another committee altogether has the authority to determine which executive department/agency head has the authority to appoint the replacement according to a list of qualifications)) by resolutions of itself; of these other departments and agencies where a position is in a chain of command where some persons may be authorized to use force, the House of Representatives may suspend any of those persons from their positions for 30 days (with a cool down period of 100 days (where the person in question goes back to being in that position and can only be removed by a joint resolution of the House and either the Senate Armed Services Committee (for a position with a military title) or the Senate Intelligence Committee (for a position without a military title))) where if 1/2 of these other new committees resolve that that person should be removed during that 30 days, then that person is removed. Any person in an agency or department not directly accountable to the House of Representatives alone nor one Senate Committee alone is removable via a resolution of the House of Representatives (stating within the same resolution the executive department/agency head with the authority to choose the replacement) joined by either resolutions of 1/2 of the Senate committees with any level of budgetary control (over any department or agency) where 2/3rds of each of those committees resolved in favor of it or 2/3rds of the Senate committees that have any level of budgetary control (with only majority support necessary in each). Wherever there are other constitutionally-mandated expenditures (excluding the Census, which is paid out of the Department of Commerce’s budget, of which some funds must be saved each year equal to at least 1/10th the expected cost of performing the census until the year of the census), they shall come out of the budget of the 7.5% (the several committees) with each program therein getting a cut proportional to their proportion of that 7.5% fund they are otherwise receiving.
Each agency or department under the sole budgetary control of either the House or a particular Senate committee has broad authority to spend the budget of that agency on public services that a reasonable English teacher considers as an action implied by the words in the name of the department or agency, provided that the agency or department also provides the minimum public services legislatively mandated of it (to the extent that its overall budget allows). (This amends current legislation the different agencies operate under to the exclusion of provisions that prevent the agencies from doing something that involves providing goods or services to people (for free or for a fair market or subsidized price) or purchasing goods and services for use in providing goods and services under the aforementioned broad authority.) This paragraph is not to be construed as providing a department or agency the ability to take any enforcement action against a private person (as in, someone who has no position in any government, nor a group that considers itself a government for the purpose of Section 2 of Division G of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment) or regulatory action that affects private persons; enforcement and regulatory actions can still be taken according to the legislative mandates of that department or agency (particularly where the action stops the proliferation of goods that can be proven to directly harm public health with their normal use (or that harm to the health of its users (in the same sense as bad medicine and implants) is a likely outcome for those goods, or if the good is advertised to in any way provide a health benefit but which has not been proven to provide a health benefit (or just not a health benefit corresponding to the benefit directly advertised or implicitly advertised))). (The ‘sense of bad medicine and implants’ stated above is to prevent the broad authority to include any sort of mandatory gun buyback program, or any enforcement action against private persons outside of the things people generally exclusively associate with pills, chemical spills, clinics and hospitals. Of course, many departments and agencies have already been given authority to take enforcement actions elsewhere, and that authority remains in place.) An example of how this would work would be in the Department of Housing and Urban Development buying properties, building up additional housing stock (presumably with concrete 3D printers that are owned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development), then selling those units of housing one-at-a-time to people who do not own any land-based property, and using the proceeds to build more housing to sell (or building sewers, electricity generation and transport for use in homes, and things that are generally considered part of ‘urban development’ (including in setting up commercial spaces for the newly housed to work, and in stepping on the toes of the Department of Transportation (by quickly building housing and commercial space (including the sidewalks to the commercial space) directly on parking lots and roads to spite the car traffic, and by building public transit) and the Department of Agriculture (by building vertical farms within cities of plants genetically modified to produce sufficient food of sufficiently high nutritional content to satisfy the same city))).
The funding for each of the staffs of these committees (and other expenses necessary for the efficiency of the committee as authorized by Division I of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment) come out of the currently existing Senate committees such that each of these new committees gets $500,000 per year: $1M from the Committee on appropriations, the Committee on Budget, the Joint Committee on Taxation (from the $1M given from the Senate side), the Joint Committee on Printing (from the $1M given from the Senate side); $750,000 from the Committee on Commerce, Science, Transportation, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Committee on Rules and Administration; $500,000 from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, Forestry, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Committee on Finance.” This particular bill would have to have been subject to a potential filibuster in the Senate, but has been designed to be as fair as possible in light of the fact that the Senate has a worse negotiating position given that the Senators are the ones who are about to lose their ability to alter or refuse to pass legislation at some point in the future when voters move their votes in the Senate to referendums (where this particular bill would act like a Hail Mary throw on their part to maintain some power via the budgets of agencies that are not critical to the Speaker of the House’s plan (where a Space Party speaker of the House would likely want to have the departments and agencies under its sole budgetary control be things like NASA, the Department of Energy (for the nuclear technologies for use in rockets), the FAA (to avoid them stopping spaceflights), FCC (for communication with vehicles in space), the Air Force (for bases to launch from), the Space Force, the Navy (for picking up rockets from the ocean), the EPA (to stop them from stopping space flight), and a few others that involve themselves in issues that may show up in space flight (while also allowing for some direct competition between politicians, like in how the committee on the Department of Education might try to develop a better space education program than NASA (the opposite route (following the idea of bad competition) (if an anti-Space Party member was chair of that committee) would be in things like paying teachers to convince students to not be interested in space)))). The particular hard (as in provable or disprovable) qualifications of many of these committees is such as to significantly reduce the power of the Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader by, in many cases, requiring them to choose whether they want much of the federal budget controlled by Kamala Harris (as the sole member of many committees if they fail to choose members) or whether they are willing to let Senators who are not members for the Committee for Choosing Majority Leader run the budgets of many agencies and departments (like if a brand new Senator is the top performing member of a party that only won 20% of the vote in a state, but also happens to be the child of a farmer (thus likely qualified for the Agriculture Committee) who lived in Mission, Texas (thus (provided its the one within 30 miles of Mexico) qualified for the Coast Guard/Immigration/Customs committee) and got an M.D. (thus qualified for the Health and Human Services Committee) and teaching certificate (thus, if having been a teacher at a poor enough school for long enough, would qualify for the Education Committee), has never worked as a manager (thus qualified for the Labor Committee), and is an expert at the Mini Motorways game (thus qualified for the Transportation Committee)). This also has the possibility of significantly increasing the quality of decisions made by these committees by protecting their members from needing to make weird arrangements and promises to get onto the committees, and reduce bad blood between Senators by having them just accept that someone else is more qualified than them as opposed to losing a position to someone who is just better at over promising or campaigning behind the scenes to drum up support within the Committee for Choosing Majority Leader. The requirement that members of the Coast Guard and DHS Committee have lived for 3 years without hiring private security or living in a gated community is such as to make sure they personally understand what border problems are being dealt with by the agencies accountable to them, rather than just following the advice of think-tanks.
The referendum system for moving votes in the Senate away from Senators (for votes of the whole Senate) is designed to avoid going astray of Article V of the original constitution that a state may not lose its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent (the consent in this case being provided by the people during the election finding referendums to be better for expressing their views than politicians, and the high likelihood of voting for referendums resulting in a nationalized referendum being chosen based on not being able to get 50%+1 of voters to go for state-based referendums at the point in time at which more people like referendums in general than the politicians. The other aspect of avoiding going awry of Article V is in making sure that the most important decision in the Senate every session (the choice of Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader, who in turn choose which Senators go on which committees (provided that any are qualified)) is made by a committee where each state gets exactly 2 votes (expressed by people chosen as if by a plurality vote in the state for someone who won their party primary, thus almost perfectly replicating the current dynamic in the Senate at the time that the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment passed) so that all the power can be traced back to the power that states exert equally. The particular percentages of tax revenue that are sent to each department will likely be different when the final legislation is drawn up.
The several backstops in the court system (preventing the Supreme Court from having less than 4 justices, quickly bringing the number up to 5 once there’s enough agreement among senators and house members; allowing state legislatures to make themselves proportionally elected and then to start making proportionally elected local governments, and then have state legislatures allow those local governments to choose state court judges in the absence of being able to pass state constitutional amendments to get rid of judicial elections) in the absence of a President allow for a future time in which the Supreme Court delegates the responsibilities of the federal circuit courts to relevant state appeals courts, along with delegating to them the responsibility for handling the other appealed cases that the Supreme Court determines as falling into its purview (such as in preventing abuse of the new court martial provision (examples of abuse of that provision would be to use it against someone performing CPR incorrectly (who would necessarily have also had to have been someone acting on behalf of a government or a group that considers itself a government in a capacity that authorized that person to use force, and the person who died probably because of that person was unarmed at the time as preconditions for its use))).
The provision in Division B where it says Congress can define marriage for the purpose of taxation means that the Defense of Marriage Act is used, and Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned.
Comments
Post a Comment