If you were President

[anti_drama21]

A lot of people in the world are always criticizing bush, saying he should do this and that he shouldn't do that. Answer this question for me if you can, if you were voted president tomorrow; what changes would you make. Would you pull the troops out of Iraq tomorrow or would you allow them to stay there for 3 more years. Would you released the Al Qaeda prisoners at GITMO or would you let them continue to stay there. How would you deal with the hate crimes in America that exist today, would you try and find a solution to the problem; or would you blame the entertainment industry and the media. I'm just asking these questions b/c I'm curious, so please don't be shy; be truthful.

[PatrickHenry]

First thing I would do is end the Declared State Of Emergency that America is currently being ruled by. I would forswear the use of Executive Orders, begin restoring balance to the Federal/State equation and convene a true investigation of the events of 9/11.

I would get assassinated the next day by the NWO...

[Zealot]

Quote by: anti_drama21 A lot of people in the world are always criticizing bush, saying he should do this and that he shouldn't do that. Answer this question for me if you can, if you were voted president tomorrow; what changes would you make. Would you pull the troops out of Iraq tomorrow or would you allow them to stay there for 3 more years. Would you released the Al Qaeda prisoners at GITMO or would you let them continue to stay there. How would you deal with the hate crimes in America that exist today, would you try and find a solution to the problem; or would you blame the entertainment industry and the media. I'm just asking these questions b/c I'm curious, so please don't be shy; be truthful.

Oh anti, there is so much I would do... First I would kick the UN out of America and pull our membership. Then close the borders, tight. Take each illegal immigrant and put him/her in a camp and train them to take back their own country from the corrupt government. While our boys are fighting over there, the sedition laws would be actively
enforced. I would fight the war to win. Each time a roadside bomb goes off, three prisoners die, publicly. Each time a man from another country is caught in Iraq without proper papers, he should be sent back in a body bag as long as our men are being killed.
The country where they came from would be billed and non-payment would mean the confiscation of land. Everytime a civilian was killed over there we would deport ten of them from America.

Next time someone connected with Saddam's trial is killed, Saddam goes on the rope, publicly. There's so much more, but don't you see? When we bombed Germany into submission and flattened two cities in Japan, killed millions of people they quit and we saved the lives of millions, right? Do you know that Hitler had the rockets and was after the "A" bomb? Think he would have used it?

This must be done here, we can stop the war quickly using the same tactics. Do the Japanese, Germans hate us after all those years of occupation? There you go Anti, just a few ideas.

Zealot

[Con-Flick]

I'm not sure what I would do. It seems that no matter what you do you are always going to offend some group of people. Especially in our form of govn't. It is impossible to make all 276 million Americans happy! Wiht Bush its the war with someone else its going to be something else. All we can REALLY do is keep playing the system rules of people electing the people they want to represent them. Those reps can then keep stressing the issue of their own idividual party. Thus keeping the commoner party members mind at ease knowing that someone is contantly fighting for what they want. Back to the subject at hand... I would prbably under the circumstance do what Bush did except I would "TRY" to keep the public more informed as to limit rumors and conspiracy theories, those are the things that I think really tick off the public. When the gov't keeps them in the dark people tend to resent them

[Boetie]

Questions like, "If you were president?" is a cheap shot considering it's being asked in the middle of a huge mess that Bush Jr created.

Would you lie this country into war like Bush Jr did? That is a good question because it starts with making a decision of whether to jump into the frying pan or not.

Would you lie this country into war if doing so skyrockets your ratings? That is a good question because it will determine if you are Machiavellian or not.

But to ask a question while we are waist deep in the mud is really insulting.

[Locutus]

If I were president it would be a good trick as i am an Aussie but the silly answer would be to grab all the Americans pick them up and drop them in IRAQ for a year. I would grab all the Iraqi's and chuck them in Australia, get all the Aussies and put them in IRAN and so on until everyone on planet earth got a taste of the old saying "walk a mile in my shoes" after rotating all the populations around for a few years I would send everyone home to there native lands. Then perhaps we might have some common ground with which to learne to conduct ourselves on this planet.
The real answer would probably be that i would end up doing very little different to all yor past presidents because i would end up shacked by the same advisers/pressures/neccesities as they.

Until we all get some common ground i cant imagine much in the way of short term changes.

All jokes aside though...
My hope is with my kids. I may have said this in another thread but i'll say it again.
I used to work for IBM as a consultant. One day i had to drop into work to submit my hours and as it was a day off for me I had my 2 youngest sons with me. They were about 6 and 8 at the time.
Anyway the first person I met was a workmate from Asia, she has a very Asian appearance as you would expect, I introduced my boys and continued. Next I met my manager, She is of Indian decent and has a very dark complexion. Again I introduced my boys. Anyway by the time I left they had met half a dozen or so wormates of different appearance and race. We left and got in the car. I expected the questions "Dad why was here skin like that, or dad she had funny eyes" You know what, they said gee i'd love all those computers at home, and hey your work looks like half life(the computer game) They didnt even notice the racial differences. Or if they did it was not significant to them.
I thought it was fantastic. These are our next leaders, our kids. I realised my greatest hope for change in the future is in our kids. They will be the ones looking after us all when we are sipping tea on the porch in our eighties. I will most likely never change any of your opinions on anything, nor will you make much of a change on mine.So we are all probly a lost cause :) But perhaps when all our kids rule the world there will be less predjudice. So perhaps my final option of what i would do if i was president would be to make my kids and your kids my cheif advisers.
We all saw Tom Hanks in BIG
whats that old saying "from the mouth of babes..."

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Locutus . . . So perhaps my final option of what i would do if i was president would be to make my kids and your kids my cheif advisers. We all saw Tom Hanks in BIG whats that old saying "from the mouth of babes..."

That's the most intelligent answer I've seen in a while.
You got my vote, Loc. We're going to remove the restriction on non-American President when Schwartzenegger runs, anyway.

[zynner]

Quote by: anti_drama21 if you were voted president tomorrow; what changes would you make.

First, if I were voted in as president, it would be within the context of people knowing that I am for a smaller, limited government as defined in the Constitution because that is the most just government possible. After election, I would go on television and explain that the problems of terrorism are primarily caused by the US gov'ts (and allies) bullying of other countries (especially the Middle East, but all over the world). That has got to stop if we really want to be both free and free of terrorists. We cannot expect to support dicators in other countries who kill and abuse their people and then expect nobody to react by harming us. Likewise, we cannot expect to give up freedom in the name of freedom.

Would you pull the troops out of Iraq tomorrow or would you allow them to stay there for 3 more years.

I would tell my generals and military advisors that I want to be out of Iraq and all other countries in the world as soon as possible. I would have them offer a timetable, potential problems, etc. I would expect to remove all US troops from foreign soil within one year (or sooner). It should be the role of the US military to defend the USA, not other countries.

I would push for a satellite defense against incoming missles and better border protection. With no aggression against people in other countries, there would be no rational reason why anyone would want to kill us. Someone could still attack us in some way, if they were really irrational, but so what? They can do that now. We would greatly reduce any threat to us and we would begin to regain the freedoms we have been throwing down the drain.

A side benefit of this would be that I would expect European countries, Japan, and others around the world to be forced to move further away from their socialist ideas because they would have to foot the entire bill of their own national defense. They already have stagnant economies, high unemployment rates (with extreme rates among certain racial minorities) and other fiscal and social problems. The primary reason is their insane socialist ideas, which are partly enabled by our spending to defend them.

Another benefit is that Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries would see their dictators removed from office once they no longer had the support of the US government, and people in that region would have no need to attack Americans.

Americans would be free to interact with people all around the world, including Cubans, but the US government would no longer violate its constitutional powers by proping up dictators and other bad guys, which would reduce the growing hatred and distrust other people are feeling. We would no longer support such people as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the Shah of Iran (a brutal dictator), the Saud family (so-called royal family of Saudi Arabia, a brutal dictatorship), or other equally disgusting people in Asia and other parts of the world as our government has in the past.

This would result in greater freedom for Americans, as we shed the growing police state culture we are now creating and embrace our heritage of liberty.

Would you released the Al Qaeda prisoners at GITMO or would you let them continue to stay there.

I would identify the most secure federal prison within the US and move all prisoners held offshore onto US soil. I would then make sure each was either declared a POW or charged with a specific crime. In all cases, each prisoner would have his day in court. If convicted, he would serve the approriate sentence. If not, he would be released back to his country of origin.

Further, I would prosecute any and all persons who have been involved in torture -- either engaging in it or giving commands to do so.

To make room in our overcrowded prisions, I would pardon and release any person who has been convicted of a federal crime where there has been no violence, and for which the government has no authority to pass laws, such as drug possession, firearms possession, etc.

I would encourage the states to do the same, but would acknowledge that the president has no authority to tell the states what to do.

How would you deal with the hate crimes in America that exist today, would you try and find a solution to the problem;

I would simply tell the truth: there is no such thing as a hate crime; there are only crimes. The hatred one person has to another, for whatever reason, is a thought and a motive for the crime. But the crime itself is what should be punished, not a person's thoughts.

or would you blame the entertainment industry and the media.

No. I would just put them under military dictatorship.

Just kidding!

Of course, they are not to blame for the actions some people take. As president, it wouldn't matter if I "blamed" them, anyway. I would have no power to do anything about it. But I might use the bully pulpit to challenge them to come up with better material. Of course, that has a lot to do with what will or won't sell. So, the people have to have a cultural change if the entertainment industry is to create works that are better than a lot of the crap being made today.

Also, you didn't ask, but I would also tell the American people that it is time to stop acting like children. Adults need to wake up and deal with some reality for a change.

We cannot continue to spend the future generations into financial bondage. We do need improvements in health care costs, improved education, etc. In most cases, that boils down to reducing this huge government monster that has been created and which has caused most of these problems.

The government screws with other people in other lands and then we get terrorists who are trying to get us to force our government to knock it off.

The government madates what all schools must teach and now we have uneducated people "graduating" from schools. Today, corporations are having to teach basic English and math skills to new workers because they have never learned the basics in school -- but they have learned to be good little citizens who will not question authority.

The government forces employers to offer HMO's to employees, leading to HMO's dominating the health care industry. When there is a backlash against that, they change the laws again, but continue to grow the government influence in health care. We should be learning from the failure of socialized medicine in Canada, Britain, and other places and realize that we've been moving in the wrong direction.

The government passes laws against using drugs and the result is crime in the streets against innocent people, just like during alchohol prohibition.

And also important, the government politicians shroud their actions in darkness by refusing to disclose truth.

I would launch investigations into many areas to discover the truth: Bush's claims that lead to war in Iraq; what happened on 9/11; Clinton's bombings during his impeachment; Bush Sr. and family's involvement with foreign dicators for profit; who really killed JFK; an audit of the Federal Reserve (it has never been audited, and with the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you can bet there are all sorts of things going on there that would make Enron look like a kid's game).

I would also veto any law that Congress passed that was a violation of the Constitution, would refuse to enforce any unconstitutional laws, and would appoint judges who would act the same way. I would also use one big executive order to cancel most previous executive orders, though it would take time to go through the several thousand that exist.

I would propose legislation to make all members of the government more accountable, such as making Congress read the laws they pass and document who really proposed laws and clauses within laws (we don't know, for example, who really drafted the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, but we know that nobody in Congress actually read it; we know that big drug companies ususally write the drug legislaiton, etc.).

I would start holding quarterly updates by the president to the people (in addition to the State of the Union speech), mass White House press briefings (not the bullshit sessions in the tiny room, but large Q&A in an auditorium) that would be open to several hundred journalists and would be held by me (not the press sec). I would also go on Sunday morning talk shows like congressmen do and explain to the people what is really going on.

Then, it would be time to run for re-election and see what happens. My guess: no terrorism against Americans, no more body searches at the airport, discoveries of all sorts of illegal acts by various government employees over the years, a smaller government, less influence by big business and more small business capitalism, a flourishing economy, the good old boy network blown apart, and the people enjoying real freedom for the first time in their lives.

Bottom line: it's time we started acting like adults, and time we forced our government to start acting like one, too.

~ zynner

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner First, if I were voted in as president, it would be within the context of people knowing that I am for a smaller, limited government as defined in the Constitution because that is the most just government possible. After election, I would go on television and explain that the problems of terrorism are primarily caused by the US gov'ts (and allies) bullying of other countries (especially the Middle East, but all over the world).

I too would try to run the government within its valid range, which would hopefully be determined by voluntary line-item taxation. That way, if someone doesn't want their money going to the military or building sports stadiums, it wouldn't.
I would work to scrap the idea that "free markets" must involve corporate tyranny.
Specifically, I would work to repeal NAFTA and our support for the WTO.
I would make supporting dictators like Saddam Hussein a criminal act.
And I would liek to make waging war a criminal act, even if the war had some legitimacy to it.
That way, war would be avoided as much as possible by politicians.
Soldiers give their lives--the least that war-voting politicians can do is spend a year in prison.
Clinton did get in trouble for his penis--but why didn't he get in trouble for bombing Iraq and the Iraqi sanctions?

Grandpa h.

[zynner]

Quote by: grandpa I too would try to run the government within its valid range, which would hopefully be determined by voluntary line-item taxation.

I like that idea, Grandpa (though, I prefer a government small enough to operate on indirect taxes, which would eliminate the need for a line-item system).

I would work to scrap the idea that "free markets" must involve corporate tyranny.

I think if more Democrats understood that "big business" can only exist with the help of "big government" -- that it is an incestuous relationship -- they would understand that free market capitalism is not what we have today. A true free market capitalist system would eliminate big business and all the problems associated with it. Republicans wouldn't like such a change and most Democrat politicans benefit from big business campaign bribes. But most Democrats themselves should understand how free market is not the same as big business corporate welfare (that's more fascist, certainly not capitalist).

I would make supporting dictators like Saddam Hussein a criminal act.

There's also non-dictator bad guys like Osama bin Laden (the CIA supported and trained him). The key is to simply eliminate government funds to ANY foreign person or entity. Period. The Constitution doesn't authorize it, anyway.

And I would liek to make waging war a criminal act, even if the war had some legitimacy to it.

I disagree in the case of a defensive act. We do have to be able to defend against an attack. But an offensive attack is all the US gov't ever does, and that causes all sorts of problems like terrorism.

Soldiers give their lives--the least that war-voting politicians can do is spend a year in prison.

How about a law that says the only congressmen who can vote on war or use of forces are those who have family members in the combat zone (or will be on day one)? Won't happen, but just suggesting the idea points out how the politicians will never put their own loved ones in harms way, let alone their own asses, but will point a gun at YOU and make you go do what they are too cowardly to do themselves. The biggest war supporters are the biggest cowards (Bush, Cheney, etc.) when it came to putting their own asses on the line.

Clinton did get in trouble for his penis--but why didn't he get in trouble for bombing Iraq and the Iraqi sanctions?

Clinton and Bush should both be held accountable for that, and Bush should be tried for war crimes of authorized torture under his watch.

~ zynner

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner I like that idea, Grandpa (though, I prefer a government small enough to operate on indirect taxes, which would eliminate the need for a line-item system).

I just think the government shouldn't step in and milk us of money for things we might not support
(like war, nuclear weapons, sports stadiums, etc.)
I bet social security and healthcare would get plenty of support and the military expansion would be at least somewhat curtailed. In any case, I doubt the system would fall apart under such a plan.

Quote by: zynner I think if more Democrats understood that "big business" can only exist with the help of "big government" -- that it is an incestuous relationship -- they would understand that free market capitalism is not what we have today. A true free market capitalist system would eliminate big business and all the problems associated with it.

Yes, it's a good idea to get corporations out of government.
The modern big corporation can only sell us theoretical freedoms.
Capitalism as it exists today is a system with plenty of means of coercion at its command.
That being said, I don't think businesses--big or small--should be completely free of regulation.
And, of course, I'm against double standards under any system, including the current one.
So I believe, for example, big tax evaders should be punished along with little ones.

Quote by: zynner Republicans wouldn't like such a change and most Democrat politicans benefit from big business campaign bribes. But most Democrats themselves should understand how free market is not the same as big business corporate welfare (that's more fascist, certainly not capitalist).

I agree. Though I am very skeptical that fascism can ever separate from capitalism and the government.
Dumb governments the world over walk hand in hand with dumb corporations.
That's why I applaud the Libertarians as well as the Green Party--both are very much opposed to corporate welfare.

Quote by: zynner There's also non-dictator bad guys like Osama bin Laden (the CIA supported and trained him). The key is to simply eliminate government funds to ANY foreign person or entity.

Yes, the best solution is to get the federal government out of all of these areas
it has no legitimate business. I am not against giving aid to the Tsunami relief effort, or such things, though. I think certain matters should transcend ideology. Again, this may be where line-Item taxation would come in handy.

Quote by: zynner I disagree in the case of a defensive act. We do have to be able to defend against an attack.

As antiwar as I am--yes, I can imagine a scenario where it would have some legitimacy.
But I think punishing politicians for starting war would build a fence between the government and war-happy behavior.

Quote by: zynner But an offensive attack is all the US gov't ever does, and that causes all sorts of problems like terrorism.

Not only does it cause terrorism, but it ultimately is terrorism.
And it won't make us safer.
It only wastes lives of soldiers, and hard earned tax dollars.
But that's probably the whole point.

Quote by: zynner How about a law that says the only congressmen who can vote on war or use of forces are those who have family members in the combat zone (or will be on day one)? Won't happen, but just suggesting the idea points out how the politicians will never put their own loved ones in harms way, let alone their own asses, but will point a gun at YOU and make you go do what they are too cowardly to do themselves. The biggest war supporters are the biggest cowards (Bush, Cheney, etc.) when it came to putting their own asses on the line.

I understand that idea. Maybe it would work.

Quote by: zynner Clinton and Bush should both be held accountable for that, and Bush should be tried for war crimes of authorized torture under his watch.

Human Rights Watch has been asking for this kind of stuff for years.

Grandpa h.

[phoenix_fire]

What would I do? Heh heh heh...heh heh heh-ha ha ha ha ha mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahHA! heh heh...heh

[oranged]

[quote=anti_drama21]A lot of people in the world are always criticizing bush, saying he should do this and that he shouldn't do that. Answer this question for me if you can, if you were voted president tomorrow; what changes would you make. Would you pull the troops out of Iraq tomorrow or would you allow them to stay there for 3 more years. Would you released the Al Qaeda prisoners at GITMO or would you let them continue to stay there. How would you deal with the hate crimes in America that exist today, would you try and find a solution to the problem; or would you blame the entertainment industry and the media. I'm just asking these questions b/c I'm curious, so please don't be shy; be truthful.[/QUOTE
I would immediately woithdraw troops from Iraq. I'd sell GitMo back to Castro, and everyone there would get immediate military trial. Then I would blame the mass media, and I'd start working to eliminate the free market. I would increase taxes on the rich enough so that if the free market wasn't gone, money would still be roughly even. I would greatly stricten the clean air act. I I'd take huge steps to placate the UN. I might also consider moving New Orleans some where else, or at least bracing those levies with spider silk. I send a lot of relief to The Earthquakes in southern Asia. The list goes on. I admit I have an agenda, but with out an angenda a leader gets nowhere. Sometimes, I think staying still and stable is good, but as things are now, someone has to fix things up. The presedent of America might not have quite the capabitlies, but they could do something, if only they would.

[shield772]

Well, first thing I would do is stop the billions of dollars of tax payers money from going to hurricaneat relief, it's ridiculous for the majority of the nation to pay for the minority, let private interests and state and local governaments fix it. Then I would give our troops the equipment and man power to do their job. We need OVERWHELMING FORCE in Afghanistan and Iraq, I would give Iran and North Korea 6 months to stop nuclear programs or their next. I would put forth bills to legalize and tax marijuana and protitution, I would do so much more than I can say here, but suffise to say i would not be re-elected if not assasinated, I would lead.

[phoenix_fire]

So we let people die here so we can better kill people over there? Yeah, that makes sense. Talk about your "Culture of Life".

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: Boetie Questions like, "If you were president?" is a cheap shot considering it's being asked in the middle of a huge mess that Bush Jr created..

There's a mess????
I haven't seen a mess, I have seen the most successful military action in history and a darn good President going after the people who swore they wanted all Americans dead.

[grandpa]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica There's a mess???? I haven't seen a mess, I have seen the most successful military action in history and a darn good President going after the people who swore they wanted all Americans dead.

First, staging "the most successful military action in history" implies a lot of adversity.
Initially, there wasn't much. Saddam could barely defend himself and never attacked us first.
He was a former ally who ran a country with a crippled economy. By the time we attacked, he had basically no foreign allies and folded quickly.
Then, as part of the great military strategy, we exposed Iraqis--the same people we "liberated"--to insurgents because "it's better we fight them over there than here."
It's a cute new rationale which happens to miss that the insurgency wasn't a goal of ours, or something we planned ahead for. But the insurgents are there now, and that's an adversity which we are doing a miserable job of combatting.

Grandpa h.

[Zealot]

Quote by: grandpa First, staging "the most successful military action in history" implies a lot of adversity. Initially, there wasn't much. Saddam could barely defend himself and never attacked us first. He was a former ally who ran a country with a crippled economy. By the time we attacked, he had basically no foreign allies and folded quickly. Then, as part of the great military strategy, we exposed Iraqis--the same people we "liberated"--to insurgents because "it's better we fight them over there than here." It's a cute new rationale which happens to miss that the insurgency wasn't a goal of ours, or something we planned ahead for. But the insurgents are there now, and that's an adversity which we are doing a miserable job of combatting. Grandpa h.

Would it break your heart Gramps, to say something good about America? I'll bet it would really disappoint you if Iraq became a healthy, self reliant nation, huh? We also exposed the iraqi's to freedom for the first time in their lives, could you admit that at least?

Zealot

[Clarence]

Quote by: Zealot Would it break your heart to say something good about America?

America has many wonderful characteristics. That's why some are so concerned.

Quote by: Zealot I'll bet it would really disappoint you if Iraq became a healthy, self reliant nation, huh? We also exposed the iraqi's to freedom for the first time in their lives, could you admit that at least? Zealot

Zealot, I think that Iraq will become a healthy independent nation someday. No where to go but up for them. I don't think they're free yet. They are trapped in a savage hell with no real security. Poor planning on our leaders part. Perhaps intentionally.

[Osborn F Enready]

My thoughts could well be summed up by Zynners first post in this thread.

In addition to what he said, I would also NOT continue Executive Order privlidge on the basis of Unconsitutionality, and I would adress this in my first state of the union speech, and urge a bill proposal to remove this option in entirety from ever happening again. I would also recommend that all E.O's previously issued since their inception, be seriously analyzed for Constitutional compliance, and any infringing laws be put up for judicial review, or repeal ASAP.

I would also strongly urge all Americans to seriously analyze the entire system of voting, as well as seriously scrutinize the role of their Congress and Senate, and urge more bill proposals for accountability and punishment of misrepresentation, or representation without census. I would appeal to all Americans to take on the challenge to revamp the voting system to a national Instant Runoff System, with verifiable paper ballots, to help destroy the bi-partisan monopoly that has allowed corruption to saturate American politics. I would urge in this revamping, the people seriously consider a bill proposal that all public access radio/television channels using the airwaves owned by the American public, that in condition of that use of public airwaves for personal profit, they must agree to air individually, 5 hours each, of commercial free airtime at no cost to the public, to be used for NON-SPONSORED, OPEN DEBATES, running for President in a National Presidential Election, to be paid for by each station in its own costs(stations pay for airtime, debates held at one state in the union revolving around the nation each election, and the debates would take place on public property in the capital of each state such as a Courthouse or Municipal Building, at the times so agreed by all parties and the state holding that debate for the election to facillitate the public space.) The debates would be open to all participants who meet the current requirements to run for office of the President of the United States, and who meet the requirements for at least 35 of the 50 States in the Union to be considered a valid canidate. Each state, when taking their turn for hosting the debates, would be responsible for facillitating the debate event, in entirety, from providing the space and furniture, to coordination and facillitating the needs of the press and public. These debates would be run as an open debate, with time allotments equal for each participant, unless they so desire to waive their time on a per question basis. Half time allocated would be for Canidate to Canidate questions, and half time allocated to questions submitted by a debate committee made up of 2 persons from each party represented, selected by endorsement from their respective parties.

I would also urge the proposal of two new constitutional amendments.

1) That a government watchdog group made up of an equal number of representatives from each nationally recognized politcal party, be employed by the taxpayers to monitor, and report to all national news agencies the actions and motivation for all current happenings in government affairs in all three branches. This group would be under exclusive authority of the people, in the name of the people, and would be succeptible to any actions that could be taken against a politician, for removal or investigation, by the people. However, this group would be protected from any threats, economic coercion, bodily injury or government, or media suppression by the same standards as would be a President of the United States. They would be expected to take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States, and all it embodies, at risk of imprisonment or death for faillure, or purposeful misdeeds, if found guilty in a court of law, under Constitutional Common Law.

2) That any bill proposed to be law, from any channel capable of proposing bills, must be reviewed for Constitutional compliance, and that any bill that attempts to regulate in any way, or any form, a right guaranteed by the Constitution, must require the following in order to be considered for passage.
* All states Congressman and Senators, must census the entire citizen population of their states respectively, to the best of their ability,and they must vote in accordance to the findings of that census on the passage or failure of that bill.
* In the vote for passage or failure of the bill, to law; The bill must have a supermajority vote of at least 75% to be passed to law.
* The bill, if passed to law, would be REQUIRED to have a 2 year probationary period. If at any time during this period, a petition is raised equal to 1/8th of the national population, the law will be struck as repealed, and forced back in to bill status.
* On the event of a law reaching the end of its 2 year probationary status, it would be put up for re-passage by the same process again, except this time, the opposition and the bills authors would review and debate the results of that period, pro and con, in relation to the cases put for prosecution under that law, and vote in their own judgment as opposed to the direct census ruling previously. The pre-specified supermajority vote, would still be required for adoption of the law.

This would be the brunt of platform that got me elected, and I would on camera, on national television and radio, swear to uphold the Constitution, and this pledge for realignment to the Constitution, and I would sign it, and have it notarized on camera, and have a copy displayed on my desk in the oval office in a glass case, so that each time I appeared on camera, so would my pledge, and my word to the American people, to honor the intentions of the forefathers, and the great Constitution of the United States of America.