Sweetness in the Dark (39 page)

“We have enough tasks at hand, liberating California and Hawaii from the invaders as well as returning order to the Northeast. To continue this political fight is foolhardy. I can assure you that failure at these proceedings means failure for our people. Anarchy is close at hand and only this body can push it back.”

The general walked off the stage and hit the door. There was no applause this time as the delegates sat in silence. The general’s remarks had hit home and reminded them of the risks involved in not completing their task.

Paul knew that a C-130 awaited Ed to take him back to Seattle. The war to return the former United States territory to friendly hands awaited.
It is my duty to finalize things here
, he thought.

The Missouri governor took the lectern. “Would Dr. Kendall and Dr. Lundquist please come up here and lay out their plan once again. I think I can speak for the majority of delegates present that it is time your compromise be considered in earnest.”

As Paul and Lars walked up to the raised stage, the seated delegates all began talking amongst themselves. They were aware of the danger that now existed. The new country may already be devolving into multiple entities. A once-powerful unified country was at risk of being Balkanized into a gaggle of squabbling small, weak countries.

It was with an air of doom that the two economists took over the Convention. But things had changed since they last had made their pitch. Texas and its two most strident supporting states were gone. The former Texas allies had witnessed a play for power in an attempt to beat the others to the gold hoard.

“Dr. Kendall, we have heard your plan before, so if you don’t mind, lay out the compromise positions you and Dr. Lundquist reached,” the chairman offered.

Paul realized that Professor Bush, the third member of the compromise, had been dropped from the discussion. Being a Texan, Paul knew that wasn’t a surprise.

“Mr. Chairman,” Paul began. “Dr. Lundquist and I have outlined the changes from my previous plan and those are being handed out to you now.” He turned on the overhead projector and placed an acetate copy on the glass.

Lars jumped in. “We’ll take turns explaining things as we go through them.” Dr. Lundquist proceeded to explain the new constitution.

The Articles describing the House of Representatives were first. Lars pointed out that the only difference from the old Constitution was that any Representative was limited to being elected to three two-year terms, for a total of six years service. All other aspects would remain the same.

Paul then put the changes concerning the Senate on the overhead. The delegates turned the page in their handout. Many low whistles were heard as they quickly realized the major changes planned.

“As you can see, we will return the Senate to representing the power interests of each state. As written in the original U.S. Constitution, each Senator had been appointed by his State Legislature. This was later changed to a popular vote. The Senate will now be returned to a more state-power orientation, but with a twist,” Paul explained.

The twist was the advent of computers, which the Founding Fathers lacked. Soon the country would be back to a computer-based economy. Already critical areas in society were receiving new machines to replace those burnt out by the EMP. With a return to an orderly society, computers would once again rule citizen’s lives, but hardened this time from any future CME.

The proposed plan stated that the Senators would be appointed on staggered terms by each State Legislature. But when the economy was fully computerized, then each voter would receive a smart card. Whenever a citizen paid taxes, the amount paid would be recorded onto the memory chip. When a Senatorial election was held, each citizen’s vote total would amount to the dollar amount on the memory chip.

The Senate would represent the monied interest of the nation, or at least the tax-paying monied interest. The more taxes one paid, the more votes that citizen would have.

“You mean the rich would get to vote in their ‘boys’?” Rebecca said.

Paul looked over to see Rebecca now standing with an incredulous face, ready to explode.
She was still here and couldn’t stay quiet long
, he thought.

“Ms. Richards. The rich already make sure their ‘boys’ are elected to the Senate, and to the House, and to the White House. We’re proposing that we at least legitimatize it for the Senate in the future,” Paul answered. “I will point out that under the previous Constitution, the ‘rich’, as you refer to them, often didn’t pay anywhere near the amount of taxes you believe. And when we get to our tax structural changes, you will see that the rich won’t have the loopholes and write-offs they have been accustomed to.”

“I can’t wait,” Rebecca responded. The sarcasm was evident as she spoke.

Lars continued and explained that Senators would be limited to one six-year term. He then dove into the biggest change they were proposing.

“We have been raised in the belief of three competing branches of government. That has become gospel to our citizens. But the Founding Fathers envisioned that the House would be the final arbitrator. Because of that belief, provisions were put into the Constitution that allowed the House to overrule any other branch of the government,” Lars continued.

Paul took over. “Unfortunately, things quickly went awry and over time got worse. The first was John Marshall, asserting a place for the Supreme Court that was not envisioned by the Founders. As we have seen, the Court progressively became more active in writing laws rather than enforcing the laws. That is about to end.”

The delegates showed their understanding of the seriousness of this issue with a round of applause. The governors had all dealt with out-of-control courts issuing edicts affecting their states.

“We will have a new third branch of the government,” Paul said. The groans from everyone showed their disgust at more government. Noticing the response, he held up his arms as a sign he understood their fears. “Let me explain. The third branch of government will mirror the House. It will contain the same number of members and be selected in the same districts.”

“Then why have them?” a delegate from North Carolina yelled.

“Because this group, which we’ve named the ‘National Council’, will take advantage of the Information Age. The Founders were limited to a Representative Republic form of government by the distances and time lag of their era. But we can now have a more citizen-orientated government,” Paul explained.

He continued to outline the National Council. It would be made up of any eligible voter who chose to be involved with the political system. Based upon each grade school in the country, individuals would meet regularly to discuss current issues. From each group, one individual would be picked by random selection to represent the grade school group at the high school level.

From the high school level of involved citizen members, one member would be selected, again randomly, to a House District group. And finally, one member would be picked by lottery to represent the district at the national level.

Lars took over. “It takes its substance from National Review founder Bill Buckley’s comment on politics. To paraphrase Mr. Buckley: ‘I would sooner trust the running of our government to the first 500 people listed in the phone book than to the people that get elected.”

“This offers a fair chance to the common man or woman to be involved in their government at the highest level. No money is required and no paybacks are necessary once in office. And again, the office would be limited to one six-year term,” Paul added.

“But anyone could end up in the highest seat of power. We could randomly pick some extremist wacko,” a Georgia delegate admonished.

“Yes, we could. And by the same measure, we could pick the next Thomas Jefferson, but one that didn’t have the money it takes to grease the wheels to office. With four hundred and thirty-five members, a couple of dingbats will be an annoyance to the vast majority of decent members. And we have an impeachment provision that the full Council can exercise to remove anyone they deem unworkable,” Lars answered.

“But you said that the Supreme Court would be cut down to size. Where is that happening with this new body?” the Georgia delegate asked.

Paul put a new overhead up. It laid out the other big change being proposed. As the delegates turned their pages to the new information, the gasp of shock filled the hall.

“That’s right. We will no longer elect the President by popular vote. Or by Electoral College, if you want to be technical,” Paul said. “I’ll quote another famous American, ‘Any system of government that is determined by an election every four years of demagogues is doomed to failure’. Well, we were headed to that failure when the sun intervened.”

“But we need a national figure that represents the country. Are you proposing we reintroduce royalty?” a delegate mouthed off.

“No, we won’t be having a king or queen,” Lars fired back. “But we did look at others to find a solution to our problem. And we think we’ve found it with the Swiss.”

Before anyone could raise an objection to anything foreign, Paul offered. “With the age of television, the task of offering a free exchange of ideas in electing a President vaporized. Even in Jefferson’s time, elections were mean-spirited. The printed press at the time put out such viscous stories that its amazing Congress didn’t address this issue decades ago.”

“But we intend to fix that now. Once we have a House, a Senate and a Council fully established, each body would vote three members to the Presidential Cabinet. The Cabinet would then select one member to act as President. The other members would fill the role of Cabinet positions we have traditionally understood,” Lars said.

He went on to explain that the nine Cabinet members would consist of the President and Vice President and the following; The State Department would be relabeled the Foreign Department and would still deal with foreign affairs. A new State Department would be responsible for affairs between the national government and the more independent States. The Attorney General and the Treasury Secretary would be similar in roles as the present departments as would the Defense Department. The Interior Department would become a catch-all bureau for all things internal in the country; National Parks, National Forests, Wildlife Refugees, and internal transportation would all fall under Interior. The old Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, Education and Housing would all disappear. Parts of those departments still funded under a much reduced national budget would be in one remaining Interior Department.

Rounding out the nine Cabinet positions would be a Health Department. It would be responsible for only the micro-parasites of the nation. With the severe cutback in income, the national government would be out of the welfare business. All public assistance would be a state-by-state issue.

“You mean we’re going to let people starve, don’t you?” Rebecca was back demanding. Paul looked over at the visible agitation of the Iowa and Nebraska delegations.

“That would be up to the states. It was never the Founders intention that the national government be an end-all to everyone’s needs. They envisioned a land of independent states making independent policies,” Paul answered. He knew he had to provide a basic class in Federalism to this woman’s limited education. “Each state could experiment with different ideas; some failing and some succeeding. And a people free to move from one to another.”

“Yes, I would remind Ms. Richards that voting with your feet is one of the most immediate confirmations that a governing body can have. New York State, before ‘the Pulse’, had found that out. Its population had lost millions in the two decades prior to P-Day. All from bad decisions by their legislature,” Lars lectured. “And places like Texas and Florida were winning the race for voters by having policies that people supported more than New York.”

“So, we’re all going to be fighting for people. How absurd. That’s no way to run a country,” Rebecca said.

“That’s called freedom. ‘Free to choose’ is the phrase that comes to mind. At present we have thirty states and provinces, so we’ll have thirty little experiments all vying for the best system to govern people. And the people get to vote any time they choose for the system they want,” Lars said.

“But to return to our changes to the Presidency. The Swiss have managed their affairs by a similar system of selecting their leader from a council. And they’ve been successfully doing so longer than we have. Our method eliminates the money from the Presidency,” Paul said.

The Arkansas delegate added. “Yeah, isn’t it amazing how our former Governor, making about $35,000 a year, wins the White House and eight years later he’s a multi-millionaire.”

Many in the Convention Hall chuckled at the reference.
Many rich men had become President but all of them had left the Presidency wealthy
, Paul thought.

Paul continued to explain that by selecting the Cabinet members from the three bodies, it could be possible that a typical everyday voter could be selected to lead the nation. The so called elites would be bypassed.

Again, anyone in the Cabinet was limited to a maximum of six years, with each Cabinet position lasting two years. They could be reelected twice if the full Cabinet so desired. To assure continuity, the Cabinet membership would be staggered so new members would be taking a seat every two years.

In addition, the Supreme Court would be appointed the same way. Nine members from the three bodies would be nominated to sit on the highest court. But unlike the old days, these members would be limited to one six-year term. Also, like the Cabinet, the terms would be staggered, Paul explained.

“So non-lawyers could be appointed to the Court. Sounds dangerous,” the Georgia delegate said.

“We’ve seen the damage that lawyers have caused our system. If we truly believe in self-government, then anyone selected should have the ability to weigh the issues of our times in a thoughtful way. It might help the whole if those making the laws understood that the final arbitrators are not lawyers. It might make laws easier to understand,” Paul said.