[image: thenationalpatriot.com]

Governing Principles

How we govern ourselves seems like such a small task in a universe that is filled with so much power, energy, and wonder that are beyond our feeble abilities to assimilate. Taking responsibility for how we treat each other pales into insignificance by comparison. Still, it seems as if we nevertheless are trying our best to defeat our purpose to merely coexist among the majesty and the wonders that we can observe and comprehend. We can do a lot better. We must do better if we want to avoid becoming both the cause and the effect to an extinction that is irreversibly final.

Open discussions of ideas about how to make “mid course” corrections are at the core of our task of governimg. They are more than the fundamental right of all those who reside in a free society; they are absolutely necessary to illuminate gaps, and to find divergences, and shortfalls that exist between our principles that embody our normative concepts of what we can and ought to be, and the positive reality of what exists in today’s societies where we all live. The wider these divergences between reality and our notions of fairness, the more likely that dissension will follow and grow. And the longer dissension festers, the more likely that turmoil will turn into violence, and violence will turn into anarchy and collapse. If history shows us anything, it is this: We dare not simply profess to a set of beliefs and principles, and then to go about our lives as if they will be honored by men and women of good will for all of time subject only to the interpretations of those appointed as judges to interpret those concepts while appealing to etymological skills they do not possess. The issues of the day are too deep, too divisive, and too much in need of corrective action to let events continue to run such a wayward course unabated.

The basic question that I am positing is this: Does our Constitution (or the reader’s) contain the wisdom of the ages, to be interpreted for all time in the same manner and in accordance with the prevailing notions of what ought to be that were generally held at the time it was written? Alternatively, are there other more compelling notions of fundamental fairness on which we can rely that transcend the words of the Constitution? If so, can we state them with clarity and simplicity so that all of us can know instantly when a practice today diverges from them? I argue that we can.

Language, itself, is a changing component. Words and usages change with time. Legal training does not confer upon lawyers the concomitant wisdom to assess these changes any better than anyone else. Change does invite biases to enter the process stemming from religious beliefs or from political ideologies—good intentions to the contrary notwithstanding. The propensity to create and insert immovable masses of antiquated ideas into the governing process is apparent in many pronouncements made today by otherwise intelligent beings. An example: Is the debate forum the best way to reach an accord about issues that are beyond the expertise of the debaters? Stated even more broadly, does the validity of scientific issues belong in the arena of debate among nonscientists? I think not.

The qualifications of those who are elected as legislators need to be examined and evaluated. Are religious zealots with very narrow beliefs and limited analytic abilities qualified to analyze, evaluate, and vote responsibly on issues that concern us all? I think not.

Issues that come before legislators concerning the economic welfare of hundreds of millions of citizens need to be as independent from personal and political biases as possible. Wayward decisions can and do have a negative impact on the many, and an excessively abundant impact on the few. Are these outcomes desirable? I think not.

Elections can be and are rigged by a variety of methods. Among these are gerrymandering voting districts, unleashing massive advertising funds into the frays in support of biased candidates, making voting nearly impossible for many, outrageous advertising, and others. Are these methods of skewing outcomes desirable? I think not.

I believe we can find a unifying set of principles against which we can compare, contrast, and evaluate virtually any given practice (program, rule, or law), so that we can reduce the probability of disastrous outcomes, whether they are intended or not. They arise from our founding document. Here they are:

Does this proposal—first and foremost—advance or do harm to the principles of:

1. creating equality among the population?
2. enhancing the lives of the population?
3. promoting freedom among the population?
4. assuring more opportunities among the population?

We need to debate each of these potential outcomes—and only these—as vigorously and as exhaustively as we can. We can argue from principles, from analogy, from history, and from relevancy to the world that we live in today and are likely to live in tomorrow. We need to make all such debates open to public viewing. Those that pass all four principles by majority votes move on to hearings from experts where they are then given rankings by relevancy, urgency, costs, and feasibility. All bills that contain costs must be evaluated by the Congressional Budget Office or a similar body with equal credentials in making informed decisions. No bill can become law that does not have a cost analysis and show the source of the supporting funds. Once a bill becomes law, legislators cannot vote to “defund” any such law. Issues of war and peace and extraordinary emergencies could have lower requirements. Judicial reviews need to first consider conformance to the founding principles, and then the impact of the the Constitution and the historical record.

These procedural changes are all intended to inject fairness and justice as the fundamental concerns behind establishing laws. Concurrently, they are intended to reduce the potential for outrageously corrupt laws that reflect only bias, payoffs, and dishonesty—all at the expense of those subject to the laws. They are not put forward as the infallible solution to all issues for all time, rather they are the start of a new conversation about how we govern that can lead to more acceptance, less dissension, and more justice. Our survival could be at stake.

Your constructive comments are welcomed.