Shortened 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 (shortened)

Division A

 

Section 1

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.

 

Section 2

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) nor 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

 

Section 4: 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 company does not have standing to sue on account of the structure of a system in the executive branch (this overturns SEILA LAW LLC v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, restoring the decision of the Court of Appeals and striking the statement by the acting head of the CFPB as of the time the case reached the Supreme Court (the statement that the head of the CFPB would choose to act as though removable at will) since such a statement by Kathleen Kraninger would violate the law which she was supposed to have enforced, and thus falls into the exemption to political speech protections as listed in Division A of the Omnibus Constitutional Amendment for government officials in an executive branch capacity speaking out against following the relevant laws).

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 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, 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 that is not merely ceremonial 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.

 Section 5: Equal Protection Clause Clarification

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment has several functions:

1. 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.
2. To require states to follow the first 9 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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).
6. 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 (or whose property would otherwise be affected by the direct future physical action (as in excluding paperwork-based actions; an example of a physical action that a private entity should have a good probability of stopping would be issuing a fine; the lack of the issuance of a fine is not a physical action) taken by the government body or its subsidiaries) must have a high probability that they could entirely stop their property from being taken (or prevent that physical action by the government from happening)  (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). An example of the last point if it were available in the past would have been that those living in the area of New York City whose places were bought up with Eminent Domain in order to build the World Trade Center towers should have been able to stop the construction of those towers based on a fair hearing of the value to society that is created by having residential property and commercial property together in that area (that would be lost with the construction of those towers); similarly an eminent domain used to build a stadium over housing should handily be able to be stopped by those who would lose their homes given the societal value provided by residences being greater than that provided by a stadium (unless there was a broad check to analyze what uses of land can provide the maximum quality of life increases, in which case the best use can be chosen and should be able to stand on its own vs the arguments of current landowners, especially if the business that benefits the most from the new use was not involved in the building up of the current political class of the area). 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).

 Section 6: Prohibition on Court Packing

During the course of any 4 year time period beginning at noon on January 20^th of a year after a year divisible by 4, only one Justice may be appointed to the Supreme Court, and the number of seats on the Supreme Court shall increase or decrease accordingly, with the quorum requirement for a decision being 2/3rds (rounded down) of the number of justices being present with their opinions (a majority of those present being sufficient to make a decision).

In the case of there being less than 5 justices on the Supreme Court, a piece of paper saying “<name of person> <unique way to determine who that person is in absolute terms> is now a Supreme Court Justice” can be securely signed by member of the House of Representatives representing a majority of the seats of the House and by 3/5ths of all the members of the Senate, becoming immediately effective with the last signature (as long as no equivalent piece of paper has been created in the last 24 hours (this prevents simultaneously putting extra members on the Supreme Court)).

Section 7: Expanded meaning of 13th amendment 

The company which is run by someone accused of violating the 13th amendment shall be able to be run by those who were allegedly laboring involuntarily for it while the accused has been removed from the ability to operate the company (such as by being imprisoned or on trial), provided that the company is producing goods and services which are similar to what other legitimate companies are providing.

Using the threat of eviction, starvation or exile on employees of a company by those de facto overseeing them on behalf of the company makes those overseers liable for the penalties associated with people who capture and use slaves. Note: this means that a visa for an employee who is a foreign national cannot be made conditional on that person remaining employed, nor could the process of getting the visa extended be dependent on that employment (legitimate reasons for ending the visa or not extending it are: (1) that the person was engaged in producing or selling goods or services that directly harm the health of Americans when used in the normal way, (2) that the person was engaged in activities that are proven to be directly harmful to the health or property of Americans (e.g. theft, vandalism, or creating toxic fumes, etc)). This also means that if a company or companies it controls own housing that their employees live in, they are not allowed to increase the cost of rent on any of those employees (even if those people stop being employees), and can't have rents for their employees that are higher than 30% of what those employees could get if they took up a different line of employment (for a different company) that they would be qualified for in that district (i.e. if there are no other companies with available positions that the employee would be qualified for (or no companies (with available positions that the employee would be qualified for) that are not themselves controlled by one company in common) in that district, then the maximum rent that may be charged from the employees of that company in that district is $0); for this purpose, a company is allowed to provide preferential rents to the employees of that company. The starvation provision means that companies are not allowed to lobby for rules to be made (or aid politicians who have it as their goal, or make contracts that are designed) to undermine new sellers of safe food or potable water from entering the market (previous rules that have been made specifically to stop new sellers of safe food or potable water from entering the market are thus overturned).

Section 8: Limitations on Housing Debts

It is unlawful to alter a person's credit score or charge the person on account of housing (back-rent or any sort of loan used in accessing the housing (such as paying for rent with a credit card (it is now in the best interests of credit card companies to decline rent payments), or otherwise getting a mortgage (which is now a non-recourse loan), etc) which that person will never touch again after that person has made a good faith effort to return the devices enabling control of the property (keys, passcode, etc) to those the property is owed to.

Section 9: Protections for Cash

It is unlawful for cash to be taken from someone except for the reasons stated in paragraph three. This section bans the taking of cash using such measures as “civil asset forfeiture” or the use of considering the fact that someone has cash being proof of wrongdoing or future wrongdoing in and of itself. This does not undermine the ability to require paperwork to track financial crimes (for which the idea of fraud is a general term, and includes the idea of bribes).

Cash includes: U.S. dollars, gold coins, copper coins, palladium coins, silver coins, a coin consisting of one lanthanide element (excluding ytterbium, dysprosium, promethium), platinum coins, ruthenium coins, tungsten coins, iridium coins, niobium coins, tantalum coins. The coins in question to qualify for these cash protections must have greater than 99% purity (and if the coin is marked as having a higher purity, it must achieve that purity), and these coins are required to state the weight and be that weight.

The reasons why cash may be lawfully taken from someone are: to repay the fraud committed by that person of which that person was convicted (where in decisions of greater than $20, must allow the defendant to require it be tried by a jury, and the jury can determine which facts of the case may be considered by an appellate court), to recover unpaid property taxes, to recover unpaid profit taxes (which must be defined such that for any income that is equal to that profit, the percentage of profit that is taxed is greater than or equal to equivalent income tax), to recover unpaid income taxes (which must be defined such that either everyone pays the same percentage of income (with respect to the lower description of taxable income), or defined progressively to have a higher percentage tax on incomes of those with higher incomes), to recover unpaid sales taxes (which must be charged the same way (by weight or by volume or as a percentage of the price) on each thing that has a sales tax), to recover unpaid fines (where the behavior which is fined must consist of something that is generally defined the same way for everyone, and the fines can’t be used in a way that allows for the creation of monopolies, and the fines can’t be used to force people to buy things from politically favored enterprises, and the fine must satisfy the constraints imposed on such fines elsewhere in this constitution and other relevant laws).

Section 10: The ONLY limitations on political speech that exist

The only limitations on political speech that can ever exist are all within this section of Division A of the omnibus Constitutional Amendment and kinds of political speech that can be limited are described nowhere else in the Constitution nor any other law.

The hiring of organizations to come up with anti-worker-union ads and lectures specifically aimed at employees while on the premises of their workplace is not legal. The penalty for taking this action is that the company shall be fined the amount paid for the creation of the ads and anything made or anyone hired to perform the anti-union lecture specifically on the grounds of the company, and the money paid to the consulting group to create the ad or have the lecture is seized. This money is then paid to the employees of the company that were in the area where the lecture or advertisements were placed (each employee affected being paid equally). Creating anti-union ads that are not in the areas where the employees are as part of their employment and where the ads are placed well out of sight of company premises (and outside where the employees would have to be looking during the job) is perfectly protected 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) function (a function that changes all the letters in the party name to lowercase, and then removes all characters not listed in ASCII from a to z).

(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 simplify(party_name).find(word_in_set) must return -1 when implementing the test in Python).

(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.

Examples of how to name political parties: 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 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 eight 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). (i.e. a police chief or a non-ceremonial President advocating for cruel and unusual punishment against a group of people in the United States is illegal.)

* 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 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. 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)))).

 

 

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 f):

(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. 

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]))

 

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:

Two years after the House of Representatives has been elected by open party ticket proportional voting, all Senate elections thereafter shall provide voters with the normal ballot for Senator with the following questions: “Would you like to have this vote of the state be expressed by the Speaker of the House instead of by someone voted in by this state? (yes/no) Would you like to have this vote of the state be expressed by national referendums? (yes/no)” If either of those questions gets more than 50% of the vote of the state, then the most approved of option of the two goes into effect, where that vote of that state in the Senate is expressed as “no” unless either the Speaker of the House (if that goes into effect) or a national referendum of all voters (using the same system as described in Section 2 with the vote happening during the course of October of an even year), whichever was approved for expressing that vote of the state (theoretically, a state could have one of its two votes expressed by the Speaker of the House, and the other vote expressed by national referendum), votes “yes” (being absent, or voting “present” is equivalent in this case to voting “no”). The Senators elected by the state are still permitted to take up their positions and to form committees and vote on questions of whether an appointment is approved.

In the case of funding legislation being voted on in a referendum, the ballot shall be arbitrarily extended so that the voters who are approving the legislation may choose any positive real decimal number less than 1 with up to 10 significant figures for each program in that bill to be the fraction of the bill’s overall funding amount which goes to that program. The votes expressed by referendum (if the majority in the referendum vote “yes”) are then expressed as voting “no” to the underlying bill, but voting “yes” to a new funding bill with each program in the bill having its funding levels changed to the median value (or fraction of total funding) stated by the votes in the referendum. The remaining votes in the Senate not expressed by referendums must then immediately be expressed as “yes” or “no” on the resulting legislation created by the referendum without delay (if more than 50% of the votes in the Senate are expressed by referendum, then the new legislation automatically passes the Senate). Items left blank in the funding bill are considered to be whatever the funding bill originally stated (restated as a fraction of the bill’s overall funding). The fractions stated by the voter for each program are each divided by the sum of all the fractions the voter put in (or implicitly put in by leaving a spot blank), and then the vote is counted for the purpose of coming up with the budget for that bill as the median of those resulting fractions being used for the programs respectively.

 

A referendum may be made to happen quicker among the people by a petition of 1% of the voters in the previous House of Representatives election petitioning for a vote on a piece of legislation written in its entirety within that petition. Once those petition signatures have been registered in the same way as for petitioning a party’s inclusion for the ballot for the House of Representatives, then voting must commence in the Senate immediately on the legislation without delay, and if the possibility exists of it passing with the votes expressed by referendum, then a referendum commences over the next 30 days to pass the legislation.

 

Section 5

Two years after Section 4 goes into effect, the voters shall be able to vote during the House of Representatives election during the course of October in every even year on the following questions: “Does the President of the United States have the power to veto legislation? (yes/no) Is the Speaker of the House the head of government? (yes | no | the Speaker of the House has the power to control the operations of particular departments it is given control of by laws passed by a referendum specifying such things, with those not specified as such being controlled by independent commissions or by the President)” If 50% vote either “yes” or “no” on either of those, that becomes the case, with the second question being considered to choose the third option if neither “yes” nor “no” get 50% support (“yes” on the second question means that the Presidency becomes a ceremonial role (other than for using the veto power if the President is allowed to keep it, and other than for the appointment of judges and for making Treaties)).

 

Section 6

At the same time as when section 4 goes into effect, there exist 4 methods of revoking any sort of executive order or any action occurring within the executive branch without referring to the President or any member of the executive branch, which is effective immediately: 

1.     ½ of the seats in the House of Representatives and 2/3rds of the Senators (even if their votes are now otherwise expressed by the Speaker of the House or referendums) sign a document stating that the particular executive order or action within the executive branch is revoked.

2.     2/3rds of the seats in the House of Representatives and 1/2 of the Senators (even if their votes are now otherwise expressed by the Speaker of the House or referendums) sign a document stating that the particular executive order or action within the executive branch is revoked.

3.     3/5ths of the seats in the House of Representatives and 3/5ths of the Senators (even if their votes are now otherwise expressed by the Speaker of the House or referendums) sign a document stating that the particular executive order or action within the executive branch is revoked.

4.     The members of one chamber unanimously sign a document stating that the particular executive order or action within the executive branch is revoked.

 

Division D: Penalty if State Legislatures do not get elected by Proportional Representation 

Section 1

Sections 3 and later sections of this Division go into effect 10 years after this amendment is ratified to the Constitution and only affect states which do not use one of the Proportional Representation systems described in Section 2 for each elected body (you can use different election systems for each legislative body, and are required (if using a bicameral legislature) to use different election systems for the two main legislative bodies) that is used to exercise any legislative function (including any multimember elected local government body) as of 9 years and 180 days from the time this amendment is ratified. In other words, section 3 and later sections are punishments imposed on states unwilling to reform themselves in the normal method. 

The election types stated in Section 2 must occur with the same ballot shown to every person eligible to vote in the area in which the government being elected operates (district based elections are not a permitted mode of operation under Section 2, the only district based system is a small minority of a few extra seats in the upper chamber as per what is stated in the penalty for not taking the initiative to make a proportional representation system).

The way a bill gets passed by a chamber using the members elected by a system in Section 2 is by placing a number of secure signatures of members on identical copies of a bill where those members together hold the requisite majority of seats in the chamber to pass the bill. Thus a debate and committee system and chamber leadership is not required to pass bills in the chamber.

Section 2

Open Party Ticket Proportional Representation: Each voter chooses the voter's favorite candidate from the voter's favorite party (each party is shown in a column labelled at the top with each member stated on the party's original petition for inclusion down the length of the column; each party gets a separate column). The vote counts for that candidate personally, and for that party. Each party gets a proportion of the seats of the chamber equal to its proportion of votes. Each party fills its seats with its most voted for candidates, excluding those candidates who receive less than .6/(number of seats in the chamber) of the overall vote, where any excess seats a party gets goes to the most voted for member of the party (or that person's successor as per the line of succession indicated in the party's original petition for inclusion). The number of signatures required for a petition for inclusion to be accepted cannot exceed 1/(number of seats in the chamber) of the number of people who voted in the previous election for the House of Representatives in this state, and only people who can prove that they only signed one of these petitions shall have their signature counted. Only signatures that were placed within the last two years onto the petition (which shall be permanently dated with which election these candidates wish to appear in) shall be counted. The columns of the parties as they appear on the ballot shall start in decreasing order of the number of unique signatures with the most signed party appearing in the leftmost column seen first by voters.

Ranked Choice Ticket Proportional Representation: Each voter chooses the voter's favorite candidate from the voter's favorite party (each party is shown in a column labelled at the top with each member stated on the party's original petition for inclusion down the length of the column; each party gets a separate column) by placing a "1" next to the candidate's name; then the voter places unique natural numbers next to as many names of people in that party as desired. The vote counts for that candidate personally, and for that party. Each party gets a proportion of the seats of the chamber equal to its proportion of votes. Each party fills its seats with its most voted for (as "1") candidates (where you go through an algorithm with each of the votes where if the number of party members with a "1" next to the name is less than or equal to the number of seats the party has, then those candidates fill the seats; otherwise eliminate the candidate with the fewest "1" votes and proceed to change all of the votes which are not currently allocated to an eligible candidate to have all the natural numbers the voter put in be changed by having each number subtracted by 1, then recount the number of "1" votes for the eligible candidates and restart the algorithm). If the party has excess seats left over, those seats go to the most voted for member of the party. The number of signatures required for a petition for inclusion to be accepted cannot exceed 1/(number of seats in the chamber) of the number of people who voted in the previous election for the House of Representatives in this state, and only people who can prove that they only signed one of these petitions shall have their signature counted. Only signatures that were placed within the last two years onto the petition (which shall be permanently dated with which election these candidates wish to appear in) shall be counted. The columns of the parties as they appear on the ballot shall start in decreasing order of the number of unique signatures with the most signed party appearing in the leftmost column seen first by voters.

Fractional Voting Proportional Representation: Each voter chooses the voter's favorite candidate from the voter's favorite party (each party is shown in a column labelled at the top with each member stated on the party's original petition for inclusion down the length of the column; each party gets a separate column). The vote counts for that candidate personally, and for that party. The voter places a "1" next to the favorite candidate of that voter, and places a unique integer next to each candidate listed under that party label. Every number placed that is not "1" is considered to be the number 1/(number written by voter), counted as a fractional vote. Each party gets a proportion of the seats of the chamber equal to its proportion of votes (each voter is placing numbers under a single party, for which the party gets exactly 1 vote in the election). Each party fills its seats with its most voted for candidates, excluding those candidates who receive less than 0 net votes, where any excess seats a party gets goes to the most voted for member of the party (or that person's successor as per the line of succession indicated in the party's original petition for inclusion). The number of signatures required for a petition for inclusion to be accepted cannot exceed 1/(number of seats in the chamber) of the number of people who voted in the previous election for the House of Representatives in this state, and only people who can prove that they only signed one of these petitions shall have their signature counted. Only signatures that were placed within the last two years onto the petition (which shall be permanently dated with which election these candidates wish to appear in) shall be counted. The columns of the parties as they appear on the ballot shall start in decreasing order of the number of unique signatures with the most signed party appearing in the leftmost column seen first by voters.

Staggered Ranked Choice Voting: There are a stated number of "classes" of members of this body, elected to terms which are equal in length to (amount of time between elections of this body)*(number of classes of this body). Each voter chooses the voter's favorite candidate by placing a "1" next to the candidate's name; then the voter places unique natural numbers next to as many names of people as desired. The vote counts for that candidate personally. The class of that body up for election fills its seats with its most voted for (as "1") candidates (where you go through an algorithm with each of the votes where if the number of candidates with a "1" next to the name is less than or equal to the number of seats the class has, then those candidates fill the seats; otherwise eliminate the candidate with the fewest "1" votes and proceed to change all of the votes which are not currently allocated to an eligible candidate to have all the natural numbers the voter put in be changed by having each number subtracted by 1, then recount the number of "1" votes for the eligible candidates and restart the algorithm). This can have other election systems used with the other classes that alternate with this election system for different classes.

Fractional Voting: Each voter chooses the voter's favorite candidate. The vote counts for that candidate personally. The voter places a "1" next to the favorite candidate of that voter, and places a unique integer next to each candidate listed. Every number placed that is not "1" is considered to be the number 1/(abs(number written by the voter)*(number written by voter)), counted as a fractional vote. The chamber fills its seats with its most voted for candidates, excluding those candidates who receive less than 0 net votes.

Staggered Fractional Voting: There are a stated number of "classes" of members of this body, elected to terms which are equal in length to (amount of time between elections of this body)*(number of classes of this body). Each voter chooses the voter's favorite candidate. The vote counts for that candidate personally. The voter places a "1" next to the favorite candidate of that voter, and places a unique integer next to each candidate listed. Every number placed that is not "1" is considered to be the number 1/(abs(number written by the voter)*(number written by voter)), counted as a fractional vote. The chamber fills its seats with its most voted for candidates, excluding those candidates who receive less than 0 net votes. This can have other election systems used with the other classes that alternate with this election system for different classes.

Staggered Alternating Fractional Voting, Open Party Ticket Proportional Representation and Ranked Choice Ticket Proportional Representation: There are a stated number of equal-sized "classes" of members of this body, elected to terms which are equal in length to (amount of time between elections of this body)*(number of classes of this body). The first election of this body shall use Fractional Voting for that class. The next election shall use Open Party Ticket Proportional Representation for the second class. The third election shall use Ranked Choice Ticket Proportional Representation for the next class. The fourth election shall use Fractional Voting for the class (presumably up for re-election). The fifth election shall use Open Party Ticket Proportional Representation for the class (presumably up for re-election). The sixth election shall use Ranked Choice Ticket Proportional Representation for the class (presumably up for re-election), and so on in this cycle of three different election systems. The number of classes in this election system can be any natural number greater than 1 and less than 9 (if the number of classes is not a multiple of 3, then this will help to avoid the incumbency advantage due to members not being elected by the same system multiple times).

Section 3

The lower chamber of the state legislature is elected by open party ticket proportional representation (the number of seats equal to ceil(pow(population of state, 1/3)) through the month of October of every even year by any person who can prove their residency in that state, his or her age being greater than or equal to 18 years, citizenship, and that that person has not voted previously in the same election. ceil and pow are functions from the Python math library. The term of the members of this chamber is 2 years starting the earlier of either January 6th of the next year or when the election has been certified. The powers of this chamber are: by 2/3rds vote, the chamber may send an amendment to the state's constitution (provided it does not conflict with any provision of the U.S. Constitution; however, they can pass an amendment to abolish the upper chamber of the state legislature temporarily (where every two years after the amendment is ratified by the voters, the voters again get to vote on whether the upper chamber should be re-established (having its next election happen in October of the next even year); and an amendment is allowed to declare the state bankrupt with the amendment stating a list of economists approved by the nearest bankruptcy court who will be replacing the members of the lower chamber temporarily (where the voters may, every October of an even year vote on whether to have new elections for the lower chamber, which happen the next October of an even year) (the state is only allowed to suspend payments on debts while these economists control the lower chamber)) to the voters to be decided in the next election occurring in October of an even year (where the voters can vote to approve or disapprove the amendment, where 50% approval is necessary for the provision to take effect in the state constitution). The lower chamber has the power to (by absolute majority vote of its members) decide how any money received through general taxes by the state government that has not already been appropriated by previous legislation shall be spent on currently existing programs of the state government (the money must be received before these bills can be passed). The lower chamber has the power to (by absolute majority vote of its members) defund any currently existing program of the state government (excluding the salaries of positions of judges, any position in a legislative capacity of the state, any position indicated in the state constitution, any debt or similarly strong obligation of the state). The lower chamber has the power to, by majority vote, send a bill replacing all of the state's tax laws to the voters of the state to be approved or disapproved by 50% of the vote (the ballots themselves must contain the entire text of the tax law to be voted on). This chamber has the power to exercise powers granted to it under the state constitution.

The upper chamber of the state legislature is elected by Staggered Alternating Fractional Voting, Open Party Ticket Proportional Representation and Ranked Choice Ticket Proportional Representation, where the number of seats in the chamber due to that system is 3*ceil(pow(population of state, 1/4)/3), and there are 3 classes, each elected on separate Octobers of even years, and taking their seats as of the earlier of either January 6th of the next year, or when the election has been certified. There are additionally a number of seats in this upper chamber elected during October of every even year no greater in number than ceil(pow(population of state, 1/5)/3) elected by first past the post district voting in the upper chamber districts of the state that existed as of 1963 (if the number of those districts was greater than that number, those districts are revised by making the smallest district (by current population today) and the smallest district next to that district be combined into one district, repeated until the number of those districts gets to the allowed number). The fourth class thus has members with 2-year terms, while the first three classes have members with 6-year terms. The upper chamber has the power to, by majority vote, reject any appointment made in the previous 60 days (as of the time the chamber is informed of the appointment; all judicial appointments are required to be made known to the upper chamber prior to ever having the possibility of going into effect). The upper chamber has the power to, by 2/3rds vote, remove any person appointed by a person in a position in the state government. Any person removed by a majority vote is prohibited from taking up that position unless the upper chamber rescinds that decision by majority vote. Any person removed by 2/3rds vote is prohibited from taking up any position in state government except with a 2/3rds vote to rescind that previous decision. This chamber has the power to exercise powers granted to it (or whatever the name of the upper chamber of the state legislature was previously) under the state constitution.

Every October of an even year, on the ballot for the legislative positions there shall be a question stating: "the yearly salaries of the members of the legislature for the next 2 years shall be (choose one): <the same as 1 year ago>, <1% higher than 1 year ago>, <1% lower than 1 year ago>, <2% lower than 1 year ago>" Of which, the option of keeping salaries the same is chosen when less than 50% of votes choose a different option. The voters also shall have listed to them approval or disapproval of any other aspect of the legislator's compensation packages (approval by 50% must happen before those compensation changes can go into effect), and any measure that requires their approval or disapproval.

The Upper and Lower chamber of the state legislature shall be considered to be continually in session for the purpose of passing bills, regardless of whether members are physically in the chamber. The way a bill is passed in each chamber is by a secure signature of the members representing seats sufficiently numerous to meet the majority requirement (as in, must have a majority of all seats in the chamber between them) or 2/3rds requirement on identical copies of the bill to pass, thus passing automatically with those members' signatures.

Section 4

The people in the state who are operating on behalf of the state or local government who take money from someone using a manner similar to "Civil Asset Forfeiture" are highway robbers who must be sued civilly and prosecuted criminally to the fullest extent of the law, and may not be given any protections or indemnities on behalf of any organization of members of the state or local government as part of their membership. Members of state and local government are similarly liable for torturing any person.

Section 5

Local governments, in order to levy any fine or tax (excluding on noise violations, having too many parking spaces, having vacant commercial or residential property; or a property tax that does not exceed 0.2% of the property value per year (and is either a flat property tax or a progressive property tax with respect to the total value of property owned by an entity)) or impose any fee on anything, must first get such things approved in a referendum of the people of their jurisdiction which shall be with the same ballot as the state legislative election during the month of October of every even year.

Section 6

No hardware product that runs using proprietary software (that is marketed as something which is generally used as is (or as a standalone system)) may be sold (nor made available on the market in such a way that the paying customers physically hold the devices) in the state unless it satisfies the following criteria: 

It must include sufficient information to fix the device from the normal problems that occur with the device; and, if it has a battery, then the battery must be replaceable; and the device is required to have an interface (potentially available via an internet connection to it from a computer through a secure shell if the device itself doesn't have a sufficient screen for this) similar to a bash command line with the ability to natively compile and execute C code and download information using curl, and access other devices using sftp and ssh or similar open-source network interfaces, and this command line must be able to be used to access and control every aspect of the device that is affected by software, including providing the means to replace the operating system with an open-source operating system. 

A battery in a device (if it uses a battery) must be able to be replaced by any battery that has the same size and shape as the normal battery and satisfies the published constraints of what voltages it may have and the current range it must have at each possible voltage and the minimum amount of time it must be able to provide a certain amount of current at a particular voltage. The battery can be given other reasonable physical constraints such as allowed charging speeds, minimum operating temperature, maximum operating temperature, and a range of how much heat can be emitted by the battery per unit of time.

The device, if it does not have a memory system capable of lasting indefinitely, must be able to use any replacement memory storage system that satisfies the published physical constraints of the memory storage system of the device (such as how many bits of input or output it must take at once, how the pins are arranged to accept an address requested, how the control pins allow reading and writing, and the speed which the memory must have from the time an address is requested to when the input is written in or the output is written out). It must also accept a SD card or micro SD card, it must have a USB-C port, and must have whatever port is normally associated with devices sold by that company (if there exists such a port), and may have other ports. The SD ports must be able to accept and equivalently use any device satisfying the open constraints of that type of card, and must be efficiently usable via the command line. The USB-C port must treat all USB-C compliant devices the same way, and devices connected via USB-C must be efficiently usable via the command line. The device must be able to be charged via the USB-C port. The speed of the mandated ports cannot be made to operate slower than the other ports of the device unless the mandated ports are operating as quickly as the standards for them allow.

Software may not be written into these devices to specifically stop any aspect of the device from working when the main user of the device makes an alteration to the device (alternatively, software can be designed to block relevant operations (relevant to the safe use of the device with respect to the alteration in question) of the device when an alteration is made that can be shown to be unsafe, but the device must provide a set of warnings to the customer against particular alterations (for which there exists code to block operations of the device) that are unsafe at the time the device is brought to market).

The users of the devices are required to be able to reject any requests by the operating system to update the device and must be able to suppress any notifications about updates. All requests to update that are not clearly approved by the user are considered rejected.

Section 7

No position in state or local government which expresses any sort of judicial power may have an election for it. Any judicial position which continues (based on the letter of state law) to state that it is chosen by an election (or have a vote of the people in general in the process of appointment or continuing in office) de jure shall instead be filled by an appointment by the U.S. President, only removable via the process in Section 3, paragraph 2. A referendum of the people under the jurisdiction of that judicial position shall decide the salary of these judicial positions, giving a blank box next to the name of each position in question (including the name of the judge currently in that position) to put in any natural number, of which the median of the numbers is taken as the salary of that judge. The question shall be posed at the same time with the ballot for the state legislative elections. Leaving the question of salary blank shall be considered as choosing a salary equal to the position's current salary.