Category Archives: Deep Thoughts

Deep thoughts, omphaloskepsis, and other random musings.

Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

Thanks as always to Whores and Ale, Pirate’s Cove, The Daley Gator, The Other McCain, Flappr and Bacon Time for the Rule Five links!

Programming note:  I’ll have a few things to say about this tomorrow.  Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, have a look at this:

What.  An.  Asshole.

I’m fond of the “shoe on the other foot” method of analyzing things like this.  I haven’t seen much out of the legacy media on Biden’s senile ramblings about the Irish – but imagine the reaction if Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis had uttered these exact words.

Look also at the legacy media’s lack of reaction over things like this.  Then imagine if the same charges were leveled at Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley.

You can, of course, apply this test to any number of stories featuring any number of prominent political figures – and use it in conversation, as well.  It can be something of an eye-opener to anyone who is amenable to evaluating actual data.

Rule Five Civil War Friday

I’ve talked about the possibility of a second civil war in the United States several times.  But what I haven’t gone into much (aside from taking a look at other people’s guesses) was this:  Who would win?

Here’s the tl;dr version:  In a civil war between Red and Blue, as we understand the terms in American politics today, the Reds would win.  Overwhelmingly, quickly, decisively.  Here’s why.


Look at who is having babies.  It’s not the left.  People in red states have more kids, and while that’s not a one hundred percent correlation to “people on the political right have more kids,” it’s a pretty good broad indicator.  Utah is (perhaps unsurprisingly) the state with the highest number of kids per household, with our own Alaska (a tad more surprising) coming in second.  Texas is fourth; New York, forty-second.

Why is this important?  Because a higher birthrate translates into more young men of military age.  If we are to have an armed conflict, this is the single most important demographic, as these are the people who will do the bulk of the fighting, whether in the regular military or in more-or-less organized militias.  While blue states have higher populations, the red states are more adept at sustaining those populations.  But aside from numbers, a state must have the right attitude for victory, and that’s largely cultural.


Look through the history of humanity, and you won’t see many wars fought over pronouns.  Young men – the demographic described above – are generally more motivated to fight for love of home, hearth, and country than for ‘social justice’ or other nebulous terms.  Denizens of the red states, people on the right of center, are more likely to hold attitudes that would serve well in conflict:  Self-reliance, thrift, courage, mental and physical fortitude.

The rank-and-file military would be key players.  The military leans right, except for some senior officers who are often as much politician as soldier; it’s likely, though, that most ordinary soldiers, especially combat arms soldiers, would side with the right, in many cases even taking their weapons and supplies with them.

Add to that the fact that the left, especially the radical progressive left, tends to badly overestimate the popularity of their policy positions.  The vast majority of the population does not want drag queens wiggling their crotches in front of children, or allowing twelve-year-olds to make decisions to undergo life-changing “gender-affirmation” surgeries and treatments.  The very lunacy of the progressive left will tip a lot of fence-sitters, people who would otherwise support liberal positions like same-sex marriage, into supporting the right if things come to open conflict.  And, finally, two words:  Second Amendment.  The rural/suburban right are far, far more likely to own/use/maintain proficiency with firearms.  Who has the guns can make a huge difference, and in America today, the right has almost all the guns.

Honestly, look at the progressive left’s track record.  Every time they have attempted to run a society, even on a small scale, the result has been abject failure.  Example:  Seattle’s “CHAZ” attempt, where leftist radicals seized control of several blocks of a major city.  Within days, they were out of food; within weeks, the zone had devolved to a dictatorship led by a warlord, backed by a gang of armed thugs.  This is not a formula for the kind of cohesive society that wins wars.


Examine these maps, based on the 2016 election.  The first is Trumpland; the second, the Clinton Archipelago.

The implications of these maps are enormous.

Look at this from a strategic sense.  By and large, the left is concentrated in a few small geographic areas.  For the most part, these areas are heavily urban, and dependent on the outskirts – red country – for electricity, gasoline, food and clothing, indeed most of the requirements of a modern lifestyle.  It would not be terribly difficult for a military force or even a well-organized militia to shut down imports into even a large city.  The blockage wouldn’t have to be leak-proof, but even preventing fifty percent of a major city’s food and energy imports would have that city melting down within a matter of days.

Indeed, in any hypothetical second civil war in the United States, that’s the main advantage the right would have; penned into their cities, deprived of internet, electricity, and food, the big blue cities would very rapidly destroy themselves; all the right would have to do is wait.

Now, I’m not advocating the idea of a civil war.  The likely result of this, regardless of which side wins, would be deaths in the hundreds of thousands at a minimum, more likely in the millions.  It would mean trillions in economic losses because of the infrastructure loss and the collapse of the big cities, which in all honesty remain great centers of economic activity and innovation.  It would engender hatreds and ill will that will last for generations, and may very well damage the Republic beyond repair.  America as we know it would almost certainly be no more.  This is something nobody should want and an outcome that we should take great pains to avoid.

But if it comes down to it – these are the reasons that the right would win, and quickly.  Agitators on the left, some of whom (I’m looking at you, Anderson Cooper) have been calling for “economic civil war” should take this into account.

Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

Thanks as always to The Other McCain, Pirate’s Cove, Flappr, Bacon Time and The Daley Gator for the Rule Five links!

Over at RealClearScience, wildlife biologist Zack Vucurevich recently pointed out some practical questions around the cloning of a mammoth.  While the whole article raises some interesting points, here’s the part that jumped out at me:

Why stop at mammoths? Are we going to bring back the saber-tooth cats and the short-faced bear to help manage the mammoth populations? The dire wolf? In fact, why stop at animals? The neanderthals were hunting and consuming mammoths for tens of thousands of years in northern Europe. Considering that Neanderthals and humans share 99.7% of the same genome, wouldn’t it be easy enough to bring them back, too?

There’s a nugget of fascinating speculation, eh?  Now as for mammoths, or saber-tooth cats, or short-faced bears, let’s be honest, these creatures will never be present in sufficient numbers to form a free-ranging, self-sustaining population.  Also, they will be some of the costliest biological experiments in history, far too valuable to be turned loose into the wild.

Also, the behavioral aspects are not to be underestimated.  Mammals in general invest a lot of time with their offspring, in effect teaching them how to be bears, or mammoths, or squirrels.  That won’t happen here, adding to the impossibility of forming any kind of wild population.

But what about the Neandertal?

These were people.  Not us, but people.  They almost certainly had a spoken language.  Their brains were larger than ours, but organized somewhat differently.  If we were to use the fully-sequenced Neandertal genome – which we have – to bring back one of these people, what would their status be?

My thinking is that this would be a human being, with all the rights and responsibilities that go with that.  He or she would be genetically Neandertal but with a modern human’s viewpoints, experiences, and world-view.  He or she would grow up in the world with modern technology and economy; so we would have this person who is, literally, a minority of one, part of modern society and yet separated from it in a way that no ethnic or religious minority today has ever been.

That’s the real ethical question.  If I were forced to answer the question now, “would it be ethical to clone a Neandertal,” fascinating as that would be, I would say no.  There’s a huge difference between conducting a genetic experiment on a mammoth or a bear, and conducting the same experiment on a person, whether it be a modern human or a Neandertal.

Rule Five Constitutional Friday

So there’s a thing called the National Constitution Center, and recently they assembled three teams to propose some new amendments to the Constitution.

Each team (Progressive, Conservative, and Libertarian) put together their own proposed Constitution, and while I’m not going to go over them here, they’re worth a read:




What I will go over are the proposed amendments (pdf) put up by a group consisting of members of all three teams.  So, without further ado:


No person shall be eligible to the office of President, except a person who shall have attained the age of thirty five years, and been a citizen, resident in the United States, for fourteen years.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

See what this does?  This amendment eliminates the requirement for a President to be a natural-born citizen.  No thanks.  Oh, look at that second paragraph; each of proposed amendments contain this ratification language, so henceforth I won’t include it.


Congress may by law provide for a veto, by majority votes in each of the Houses of Congress, of actions taken by the executive  department, except actions adjudicating the applicability of a statute or regulation to a person. A failure by Congress to act pursuant to such a law shall not affect any judicial determination as to whether any law, or any actions of the executive department, are valid or enforceable. 

I’m ambivalent about this one.  I do like that it reinforces Congress’ role as a fully co-equal branch of government, which has been slowly slipping away since about 1860.  I don’t like that it would be used by a Congress of one party to simply toss brickbats at a President of another party who is carrying out the legitimate functions of the Executive Branch.  Consider if Congress had this power during the last two years of the Trump Presidency, for instance.


The following amendment shall supersede Article I, § 3, para. 6, Article I, § 3, para. 7, and Article II, § 4 of the present Constitution:

§ 1. The President and Vice President, the judges of the supreme and inferior courts, and all civil officers of the United States shall be subject to impeachment for serious criminal acts, or for serious abuse of the public trust. Impeachments may occur up to six months, and convictions may occur up to one year, of the person leaving office.

Note:  This isn’t the entire amendment.  It’s pretty long and I didn’t want to copy/pasta the whole thing.  So go read!  I am, again, ambivalent, although I can see some advantages.  It seems as though it would make the impeachment process a bit harder, setting the bar for impeachment and conviction at three-fifths of the House and Senate, respectively.  Since the House weaponized the impeachment process in 2019 and 2020, I’m kind of in favor of making it harder.



The following amendment shall supersede Article V of the present Constitution:

§ 1. The Congress, by three-fifths vote of both Houses may, or on the application of the Legislatures of a majority of the several States or by States representing two thirds of the population according to the latest national census shall, propose amendments to this  Constitution, which shall be valid as part of this Constitution if ratified, within seven years of being submitted, by the legislatures or ratifying conventions of two thirds of the several States, or of States representing three fourths of the population according to the latest national census, in accordance with the constitutional processes of each State.

§ 2. Upon the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States or of States representing three fourths of the population according to the latest national census, there shall be a general convention authorized to propose revisions to the Constitution, to be conducted in accordance with procedures enacted by Congress, which revisions shall be valid as part of this Constitution if ratified in like manner as amendments.

Look at that last part:  Upon the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States or of States representing three fourths of the population according to the latest national census

No.  Not with our ever-more-populated urban areas already dominating national politics.  This is setting it up so that California, Illinois, New York and a few other blue states would effectively be able to piss in the Constitution as they please – at least, unless the current numbers drain on those blue states continues.

Go, then, and read the proposals in their entirety.  I’m not very sanguine about any of these, and honestly they’re all hot air anyway; none of them are going anywhere.  But it makes for interesting reading, and maybe fodder for the unlikely event that part of the country breaks off and goes their own way.

Animal’s Hump Day News

Happy Hump Day!

2023.  Did ya ever think?

Sunday morning, Mrs. Animal and I were musing about this new year of 2023 and how much the world has changed in our lifetimes.  I’m of the last cohort of Baby Boomers (b. 1961) and Mrs. A is from the first cohort of GenX (b. 1966).  And, yes, in our time the Information Revolution has swept the world.  If you had taken aside eighteen-year-old me in 1979 and told me the following:

New Years Eve 1979

“Listen, kid.  When you are sixty, every American home will have at least one computer in it, and it will be connected to a global network that will allow you to socialize, pay your bills, play games, work, and find information on almost anything.  The world will be at your fingertips.  Oh, and you’ll be able to shop, too, and have your purchases delivered to your door – sometimes, depending on where you live, on the same day.  But wait!  There’s more!  Everyone will also carry a small device on their person, which will not only allow you to make calls the way your home phone does, but also to send messages by text and conduct all of the same things that computer does.”

I would have laughed in your face.  But if you had also told me the following:

“Oh, and the country will have as President a senile incompetent, with a cackling imbecile as Vice President.  The Imperial government will be using the Constitution as asswipe, and there have been multiple rounds of riots and ‘occupations’ of portions of major cities that could only be classed as insurrections.  Oh, and most of our major cities have become crime-ridden shitholes that are effectively unlivable to civilized people.”

Well, that part wouldn’t have come as much of a surprise.  1979 was, after all, during the Carter years.

And so…

On To the Links!

Get woke, go broke applies to comic books, too.

There’s a reason we call them SouthWorst.

Speaking of the worst…

Exercise is now a sign of white supremacy. 

Your tax dollars at work.  What an obscene fucking waste.

Why did you stop going to the movies?  Well, I’ll only speak for Mrs. Animal and myself, but when you have to drive 40 miles to get to a theater, it takes something pretty great to make the effort worthwhile – and there just hasn’t been anything that great for a while.

His motivation is still in question.

Colonel Schlichter’s 2023 predictions.

Dogs can smell when people are stressed.  If you’ve ever had a dog, this comes as no surprise.

The correct answer is “who gives a shit.”

Joe Biden Should Be Terrified About What’s Coming in 2023. Here’s Why.  My prediction:  Nothing.  Will.  Happen.

Diversity of skin tone, but no diversity of opinion – that is not allowed.

This Week’s Idiots:

If that cheap partisan hack Krugman (Repeat Offender Alert) says inflation may be breaking, we’re well and truly fucked.

MSNBC’s Hayes Brown (Repeat Offender Alert) is an idiot.  And he’s an idiot twice this week!

The LA Times’ John Blumenthal is an idiot.

The Nation’s Jeet Heer (Repeat Offender Alert) is an idiot.

California keeps passing stupid laws.

MSNBC’s Jordan Rubin is an idiot.

This Week’s Cultural Edification:

While Frank Zappa had a long and varied career, being as he was one of the most innovative and talented musicians of a generation, some of his best work was done in the early Seventies when he had the gifted backing of Flo and Eddie (Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan).  Some of the best of their combined work was on the 1971 album Just Another Band from LA.

It took me a while to pick just one song from this great album.  Finally I decided on Call Any Vegetable (language warning)!  This tune shows off not only Flo and Eddie’s hilarious vocals, but also Zappa’s genius guitar work and the fantastic backup band.  Here it is, then; enjoy.

Animal’s Daily Demographics News

Before we start, check out my latest over at Glibertarians.  This wraps up my current series; next week, a new and slightly more optimistic series begins.

Now then, watch this; it is a tad over an hour long, but worth every minute.

Talk about not terribly optimistic.

I can’t add anything, really, to the points Nicholas Eberstadt makes in this interview.  I have, in past posts, discussed the ongoing decline in population growth in the developed world, which will soon lead to a population decline, but in this interview we see a great discussion of many, many more likely results of this decline, and how to address the failure of modern nations to reproduce.

It’s worth watching.  Find some time in your schedule to watch the whole thing through.

Rule Five Alaska Independence Friday

Note:  Cross-posted over from Glibertarians.

The Great Land

One of the most appealing things about Alaska, at least for Mrs. Animal and me, is the big wide streak of “leave us the hell alone” present among the denizens of the region.  In fact, Alaska is one of the fifty states that could, arguably, make a pretty good show of going it alone, although we’d be largely dependent on an extraction economy.

When we moved up here and were going through the voter registration process, I noted the presence of an “Alaska Independence Party.”  I was intrigued, so I investigated it – I was, of course, presuming that their primary goal would be securing Alaska’s independence from the United States.  Well, that’s not quite what they’re after.  In fact, it’s not really clear what they are after.


Here’s the history of the party from their web site – as you’ll see, they haven’t been around all that long, and haven’t achieved much of a record of electoral successes – in fact, they’ve never elected anyone to any office, as far as I can find out.  Although they did surprisingly well in 1990, for some reason.

According to the Alaska Divisions of Elections they only have the history as below … We have been in existence since the 70s and have run candidates before the state declared the AIP a “political party.”

    1984 – Recognized Political Party per emergency regulation 6 AAC 25.150, effective 6/14/84.

    1986 – Vogler / Rowe (Governor / Lt. Governor candidates) received 5.5% of votes cast for Governor, retaining Recognized Political Party status.

    1990 – Hickel / Coghill (Governor / Lt. Governor candidates) received 38.8% of votes cast for Governor, retaining Recognized Political Party status.

    1994 – Coghill / Ward (Governor / Lt. Governor candidates) received 13.0% of votes cast for Governor, retaining Recognized Political Party status.

    1998 – Sullivan (Governor candidate with no Lt. Governor running mate) received only 1.92% of the votes for Governor, but there is a sufficient number of voters registered under the party name to retain Recognized Political Party status.

    2002 – Wright / Denardo received less then (sic) 1% but there is a sufficient number of voters registered under the party name to retain Recognized Political Party status.

    2006 – Wright / Welton received less then (sic) 1% but there is a sufficient number of voters registered under the party name to retain Recognized Political Party status.

So, in recent years, the party has held on to the level of voters registered to retain Recognized Political Party status by the skin of their teeth.  Probably not the best recommendation for the beast to which top hitch your wagon.  It’s worth noting, though, that the party did elect one Governor – Wally Hickel, who served from 1990 to 1994.  Since then, their performance has been underwhelming.

As of the most recent count, the Alaska Independence Party has about 19,000 members, making them the third-largest party in the state.  That is, however, out of 383,000 registered voters, giving them not quite five percent of the electorate.  That’s a pretty distant third.

But wait – what is it that the Alaska Independence Party wants to do?

The Platform

For the best summary of what these folks actually want, you can go read their proposed Alaska Constitution here (pdf). Following are some key excerpts, with my comments.


The sole purpose of a republican form of government is to protect the Life, Liberty and Property of the people. This Constitution is dedicated to the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence of these United States of America. The Natural Law, from whom God is the Author, is the basis of all just law, and may never be violated.

Look at the bolded words above – my emphasis.  Now this, on the face of it, looks to me like a problem.  Sure, I’m a big fan of natural law, don’t get me wrong; our rights derive from our status as moral agents, and are ours by virtue of our humanity.  But naming (which one?) God as the author – what if you don’t accept the existence of any God?  Are you then ineligible for public office, in their eyes?  The rest of the Constitution doesn’t say that, but this seems to be to leave it open, although the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits any religious test for public office.  Maybe it’s me being persnickety, but I just don’t see what they are gaining by adding those six words.  The United States, while culturally is broadly Judeo-Christian, has a secular government, and it should remain that way.

Further on, Article I states:

This Constitution recognizes the hierarchy of law, in that within the family of laws there are those that possess authority over others, in such order:

  1. Natural Law
  2. Constitutional Law
  3. Statutory Law
  4. Common Law
  5. Case Law

OK, then.  I get it.  And I even agree, to a point.  But if we’re making that statement, that Natural Law precedes and has authority over all other laws, then where are we codifying the individual rights protected by that law?  How can Natural Law supersede any other laws when we don’t know what that Natural Law states?  Because I suspect that there will be a wide variety of opinions on that topic.

The proposed Constitution goes on to advocate a raft of other changes to the existing state government, including re-organizing Alaska’s Boroughs into twenty Counties, each with an elected sheriff – not sure how popular that idea is going to be, as we seem to be doing very well without them at the moment.  The proposed Constitution also slams the Federal Government in a few specific areas:

The State of Alaska declares that ownership of property by the United States, in violation of Article I, Section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution of the United States, is unlawful.

Good luck with that.

The State of Alaska declares that the alleged Amendment 14, the alleged Amendment 16 and the alleged Amendment 17 of the Constitution of the United States, were fraudulently ratified, according to the guidelines of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, and are therefore null and void.

Not sure what the deal is with the 14th Amendment, except perhaps doing away with “anchor-baby” citizenship – that goal could probably be done with statute, but it would have to be done at the Federal Level.  I’d dearly love to see the 1th and 17th Amendments go away, but states can’t just claim that those amendments were fraudulently ratified and refuse to acknowledge them.  No court in the country will agree with that, and the Supreme Court sure as well won’t.  The only way those two amendments will be overturned is with another amendment.

Anyway.  Read the whole thing.  You’ll certainly find a few other problems.

But wait – this party is called the Alaska Independence Party.  That’s what caught my attention in the first place.  What do they have to say about Alaskan Independence?

Alaskan Independence

Well, here are their goals:

The Alaskan Independence Party’s goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

  • Remain a Territory.
  • Become a separate and Independent Nation.
  • Accept Commonwealth status.
  • Become a State.

The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party’s founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.

 I really like this part:  … under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.

But the vote?  We just aren’t going to have that.  It’s not on the list of options available to us.  Alaska is a state.  We have one Representative in the House and two Senators.  We have a Governor.  We are the 49th State.  In this case there are no do-overs.

The folks running the Alaska Independence Party seem to be basing all their hopes for the Great Land on somehow obtaining a mulligan on statehood.

In Conclusion

What the folks behind the Alaska Independence Party don’t seem to get is this:  Politics is the art of the possible.  Most of the agenda laid out in their goals and the proposed constitution just ain’t gonna happen.  It’s just not realistic.  In some cases that’s a shame, in others, well, it’s probably just as well.  While that’s not uncommon among would-be third parties (hello, Libertarian Party) it’s one of the primary reasons they retain “other party” status.  And, for the time being, the Alaska Independence Party will probably remain on the fringe.

Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

Thanks as always to The Other McCain, Pirate’s Cove, Bacon Time, and The Daley Gator for the Rule Five links!

I don’t have too much to say on this wintry Alaska Boxing Day, except this:  Merry (belated) Christmas to you all, and may your 2023 be happy, healthy, and profitable.  It’s been a… different sort of year, but I’m reminded as I look out the window that, no matter what happens in the world of Man, Alaska is always there, patiently waiting just outside the office door.  There’s something outside your door, too; keep that in mind as we roll into 2023, with all the weirdnesses and headaches that will no doubt come along.  Take an even strain!

Come back tomorrow for the resumption of regular posts.

Rule Five New Amendment Friday

I initially put this up about two years ago, and given the goat screw our recent mid-terms turned out to be, and give the ever-accelerating downhill slide of the Imperial government, I thought I’d trot it out for comment again.  So, here you go; have at it in the comments.


I’d like to propose a few constitutional amendments, to hopefully help to unscrew the jug-fuck the Imperial government has become.  I’ve done this before, but much like Barack Obama on same-sex marriage, my views have ‘evolved’ some.

Bear in mind that I have absolutely no illusion that these will ever come to fruition; this is purely a pie-in-the-sky wish-list of things I would implement were I Dictator For A Day.

So, without further ado, here they are.

Amendment 28 – Term and Service Limits


The President is limited to one six-year term.  Senators are limited to one six-year term.  Representatives are limited to three two-year terms.  Following the allowed terms, all such persons are forever prohibited from holding elected, appointed or hired office at the Federal level, nor shall any such persons receive any benefits or pensions once leaving office, except in the event of a service-connected permanent injury or disability.


No more ‘political class,’ obviously.  No more lifetime pols suckling at the Imperial teat for life.  A true citizen legislature: you spend some time in office, then go back and live in the mess you made.

Amendment 29 – Qualification of Voters


The franchise is limited to those citizens of the United States who have attained the age of eighteen on the day of the election, who possess a government-issued photo ID and present the ID at the polling station, and who have filed a tax return on the year previous to the election showing a net payment of taxes at the Federal level.  All votes shall be cast in person at a designated polling station.  Ballot harvesting and mail-in voting, excepting requested absentee ballots, are prohibited.


No skin in the game?  You don’t vote.  Add a healthy dose of election integrity to that; the 29th Amendment wouldn’t make cheating impossible, but it would make it a lot harder.

Amendment 30 – Constitutional Tribunal


A fourth branch of government is established, the Constitutional Tribunal, consisting of three Tribunes from each State:  One elected by the eligible voters of the State, one appointed by the State legislature, and one selected at random from the rolls of eligible voters.  The purpose of the Tribunes are to determine the Constitutionality of all new laws and regulations, as defined in Amendment 31.


In our current system, career pols freely pass laws that cannot and should not pass Constitutional muster.  Unfortunately, someone with “standing” has to challenge those laws to get them tossed out, and the people who passed those laws face no consequences.  So let’s have a new branch of government who does nothing else but determine the Constitutionality of new laws and regulations, and let’s have the selection of the members be split among various groups with differing priorities.  Which leads us to…

Amendment 31 – Constitutional Challenge of Laws/Regulations


All new laws and regulations from any source are considered to be potentially unconstitutional and shall not take effect until approved by a 2/3 vote of the Constitutional Tribunal.  In the event of a law or regulation being determined to be prohibited by the Constitution, any elected officials who sponsored or co-sponsored the legislation, or any appointed or hired officials who authored the regulation, shall be immediately removed from office and henceforth prohibited from any elected, appointed or hired office at the Federal level.


As noted above:  Consequences.  Pass a law or write a regulation that you haven’t absolutely determined is in concord with the Constitution?  No soup for you!  You are out on your ass and proscribed from ever holding such a position of authority again.  I did not include, but am willing to consider, including any President who knowingly signs an unconstitutional bill into law.

So.  Thoughts?