You might have noticed a few changes.
I originally planned integrating more ideas all at the same time like a complex machine. But ...
In light of our current crises, I worked out a way to first offer this streamlined plan. It's planned out to dovetail with future ideas later on and to get people used to various concepts such as ‘mandatory debates’. For example, veterans should also be able to elect their own representative who can mandate debates. But it might be best for the plan above to ‘stand alone’, and some of us can work together hash out ‘Campaign 2’ with greater deliberation at the same time.
After people here had a chance to ‘kick the tires’, those who are more ‘action-oriented’ can spread the word about this one plan.
Just warning you — I'm not going to be taken seriously as a person. If someone in talk-radio compares me with ‘Dr. Strangelove’, please just laugh because I will. Once in a blue moon I posted some stupid things [to my eternal regret]. And I'm no role model either. So hey, please just think of me as a ‘sick twisted freak’ who sometimes swerves into good ideas.
I hope people make suggestions about how to spread the word on this thread. I once foolishly discouraged a guy from offering ‘business cards’ to FR activists. Hindsight - it was a great idea. Business cards don't have to be about a business. Each line of a card can briefly jog the memory or briefly summarize a point. Or a web address.
How the state legislators can help is posted further down in ‘Phase Two’.
Tainting Court Opinions and Judges
This is the ‘short’ summary and more specifics are further down. So this is the ‘plain language’ version.
First off, the activist-judges will have plenty to fear from this idea. Enough marks [I recommend three] means that they get tainted personally. A tainted judge is not merely removed, impeached, stripped of pensions and perks. Any time their names are mentioned in future text books, they should be preceded with: “that tainted gavel-jockey, [add name].”
I recommend numerous other penalties as well down further.
But we shouldn’t alarm our heroic legal scholars along with the ‘bad guys’. If a judge is simply basing his or her court opinions on ‘tradition’ [aka ‘precedent’], then there shouldn’t be anything for him or her to worry about. [As will be explained further down.]
In fact, as the tainting process evolves, a lot of needless confusion will come to a blessed end. It will help new scholars because they won’t need to grapple with the convoluted interpretations of judicial activists that don’t always ‘pass the giggle test’.
Court precedents keep leading to silly contradictions of illogic or legal expectations that are either unenforceable or fiscally absurd or even too strange to take seriously. And as that mountain has grown, so have most people grown increasingly intimidated and unable to know what is legal and what is not.
It became so bad [as one example] some states even had to run ad campaigns to assure parents that spanking children is actually legal. Many families have suffered terrible disfunction and horrible outcomes due to improper child rearing as a direct result of how confusing the legal system has become, in large part because it is trying to ‘reshape’ natural law. Any ‘reshaping’ is supposed to be through constitutional legislation.
Through tainting opinions, fewer precedents will need to be studied. And as for the more venerable scholars, they would simply need to check online to find out if a precedent had been rendered invalid lately.