California Payment Voucher Paper File: Fill & Download for Free

Short answer is A Resounding No.You adopt for yourself and to give a child a home.I had 4 natural children and due to a “accident of birth" wound up having a hysterectomy at age 27. About 2 hours after my son's emergency delivery At Home Which Was NOT Planned, and myself with the child were rushed 4 blocks to the hospital by my cousins who came for supper and were helping with clean up, my uterus was expelled by my body. They were already having trouble stopping the blood flow and had given me 3 pints of blood. After the expulsion of my uterus they knew the “WHY". My uterus had already detached and being the late 70′s most Ob-Gyn's had little experience beyond text book presentations.Fast forward my life to the early 1980′s I am remarried and he knew there would be no “biological" children. Mid 80′s approach. I am working in an attorneys office where one attorney does adoptions and state placement of adoptive children. My spouse and I had decided to try to adopt because of my sheer handling of hundreds of cases a year through just one agency that I can not name for obvious reasons. It was “our jobs" to vet adoptive and foster parents.One case came in 3 times in 2 years first with 2 children the last time was with 3 children. The last child was barely 3 weeks old. The trouble arose while trying to attempt to place three children together . Everyone “wanted the baby", of course. Who doesn't want a little 3 week baby they can oohhh and aahhh over and mould to their family dynamics? Everyone who is wanting to adopt, that's who.But there was resistance to the placement of the 3 year old girl who wasn't potty trained and her 4 and a half year old brother who had discipline problems. The mother apparently had a revolving door policy with the two fathers of her children and a third boyfriend. She'd break up with one then emplore the next child's father to “take her back, it will be different this time"- in reality not so much. She got on DHS/CPS’s radar. So she turned to her church for intercession but given her history it was a case of “too little, too late". The church turned to our office because one of the attorneys was a member of the church. He in turned asked the main adoption “specialist placement attorney" to take on the case. There were 8 attorneys in the office but because I worked for DHS/CPS at one point because that was what I got my degree for, to “help children and families in crisis". However, the places I worked were more “political than proactive" in their removal and placements. I was going to school to become an attorney and due to my prior education I was able to c.l.e.e.p. test on alot of pre requsites.I decided to become an independant child advocate which wasn't a “real thing" at the time. This was BEFORE C.A.S.A, Native American C.A.S.A. and other organizations I started because there was a dire NEED for someone to knock a hole in the facade of the agencies that the courts took as their “studies and findings “ as the gospel truth. I however, had “insider knowledge". Each placement the placement “family" gets a check from the placing agency. The placing agency gets reimbursement from the state (because in the beginning it is county money), the state gets reimbursement from the federal agencies, and the feds get reimbursements from “charitable agencie(s)— sometimes as many as 4 or 5. I remembered and had PROOF of my stupidvisors “requiring" me to send reimbursement vouchers for the same cases to the state, federal, and as many as 5 other private agencies for the SAME cases. As the “requesting" personnel, I got verification letters sometimes with memo “find check for $XXXX.XX amount to cover case number 1,2345. Upon clearance of the check we will mark the reimbursement file closed. Sometimes more often than not we received thousands of dollars above what was actually given to and for the family through foodstamps, AFDC payments, Sect 8 housing allocations, medicare, clothing vouchers, food vouchers through food banks and MORE. People don't realize how many agencies have their finger in the pie. I resigned because “fraud" came to mind when I saw my files.Anyway I applied to this law office as a “general office manager", and wound up typing most all of the pleadings for all 8 attorneys. The “adootion/ placement” attorney took a special interest due to my former emplyment with placing, interviewing potential housing situations, and more from working with DHS/CPS. She felt I was inherienty qualified to help navigate their waters for a better outcome. Which proved to be completely true. I did have a valuable skill set. Fast forward to the 3 children. I approached my church for help in placing the children. The attorney decided to place the baby with MY family and the judge APPROVED it because he KNEW me, my husband who adopted my children(wasn't hard to terminate my ex husband's rights due to his “criminal past", even beating me about the “head and face, placing Jane Doe in a coma thereby placing her children at risk of becoming orphans". So we got “Baby Jessica". We had her for 3 years(before I started the work, due to our situation to change the law, which WAS changed and rewritten or an addendum was enacted). Oklahoma law at the time stated “ a biological parent has the right to file for a reevaluation of the adoption of their children with an immediate revocation of all proceedings for adoption within 3 years of placement for any reason and ask for a reevaluation of the placement"- which SHE did just 24 hours before our adoption would become final. She got supervised visitation while new home studies were ordered, interviews with our friends, relatives with background checks into EVERYONE in our family who came in contact with “baby Jessica", our chuch family, employers, our finances, our mortgages, credit scores, our credit history, EVERYTHING. Even interviewing our children, my husbands soccer “kids and families (he coached two soccer teams girls under 10 & girls under 12 plus was our daughters training coach for Olympic Development)— she was suppose to be on Team USA for the 1996 Women's Soccer Team. They(her & her attorney) tried to tear our family apart internally and externally. Even trying to file a formal grievance with the Bar Association against my employer/attorney which went nowhere. They even tried filing a lawsuit against us attaching our house, freezing our bank accounts, and an attempted garnishment of our wages WITHOUT a court order giving them the rights to do so. We found out because the bank got the “Notification of Garnishment but no court order attached with a affidavit of a court order". There are 7 steps to garnishment in our state. The skipped everything. They never filed a case. They must have pulled that out of their arses trying to intimindate us. This all went against them in court.She gets visitation wit Baby Jessica one last time. Our litlle girl didn't understand about why she was having to see “that “kazy” woman, Mama. You say she give “birf” to me but I don't “unerstan” why I “haft" to see her. I “unerstan" I don't come outta your body like women at the docter office but the paper sez I am your and daddy's baby girl. Why does that make me haft to go see her?”We tried to get her to understand but she just couldn't. Then on that last visit I think bio mom knew she was losing and had lost because at the preliminary hearing on Wednesday before her last visit she knew the baby wanted to go to the bathroom. She asked the visitation facilitator if she could “take her to the bathroom one last time by herself.” We were at the courthouse full of deputies who “knew what was going on”. That WOMAN waltzed out of the couthouse with our little girl actually made it out of state. Now realize this is before the U.C.C.J.A.(UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION ACT) this ensures IF you have custody of your child in ONE place and jurisdiction ALL other states and jurisdictions MUST recognize the right of the jurisdictional court and the parents and enforce the jurisdiction and findings of the origin of the court order of the original presiding court.” She took our child to California where the courts of that state didn't even recognize the rights of other courts with in their own state!!. I wound up travelling to California and filing my papers there, winning in their courts.Perfecting the order was another thing. She was ordered to bring “Baby Jessica” back to the courthouse by 5:30p.m. she did not. It took California another 18 months to catch up with her because California turned it over to the Feds as a kidnapping. At this point she had our adopted child a little over 21 months. She got caught because her mom still lived in a little town in our state but in another county only 25 miles from our house. The feds filed a fugitive warrant and made her mother a “person of interest". Unknown to us she had epilepsy and needed medication. It turned out she was having her mother get her medication at a pharmacy here and sending it to her in California. When her mom became a person of interest they flagged her social security number. She was a nurse and her buying epilepsy medicine was a red flag moment for them. She couldn't be licensed with the severity level of the meds she had purchased. The biomom's epilepsy wasn't even presented as a portion as to why the children had been removed. We found out portions of the removal file had been “redacted as privileged medical records". To my knowledge any medical reasons for removal were given to potential adoptive parents as being relevant to the health of their potential adoptive children.After explaining all of this you need to KNOW you are willing to walk through fire for that adoption for the child NOT as a plaything for your child. A biological child that might not appreciate your endeavors later on. As I think I stated earlier, check some of my other Quora answers about adoption. I was adopted and my father was wonderful. I had a sister who was envious of me my whole life and she was adopted AFTER me. Adopt a child for the child's sake and for your family as a whole.

This is not about simplistically 40 hours, it’s about your country’s downshifting so slowly that the worker can incredibly experience time, like in a black hole, as we shift epoch-Ages at our desks, with our bodies.It’s taken me a while, probably because I enjoy work and working, to understand what is of value and what is not, what is truly occurring?We’re time traveling.That being said, I’ve had several positions where my job was to be someone who sat there, employed.Teaching WorldSecurities WorldCorporate WorldThe (New) Real WorldTeaching WorldI’d been snatched up to start a new training program, teach adults to certification in MS Office plus Desktop Support Technician and then Systems Administrator. The Idea was that classes would last 6 months and there would be three classes, morning, afternoon and evening.But two things happened, I teach everyone—Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access—and then get them registered with Certiport for the final certification test through. There’s a practice series that you go through first. Everyone goes through it. The passing score for Certiport Certification is 700; so if you score higher than 800 on the practice series we’re confident that you’re ready and a voucher (worth about $125) is issued for that person. It was a totally free class.After 6 months with about 45 professional, smart, well-studied adults, maybe 10 superstars, were ready to practice tests and get them vouchers!Practice tests they all pass.I put up my 3–5 superstars—-like the ones who knew the material as well as I did superstars—-and they fail.They fail hard.But the voucher has a twofer on it so you have a retest.I put the class on pause and I sit down and take the test myself.I pass, I understand the teaching error and reteach my students, stars and rocks, and they all pass.The classes were on M-Th, 3 hours each. I would come in 930am and leave at about 10pm. Finally, my director supervisor says she’s concerned I’ll get burned out. I’ve expressed we could adjust the program in some ways, take advantage of the IT room Attendants and have them streamline my work. Have the Attendants teach Level 1 and Level 2 of MS Office, if you pass both mini-class, you’ve earned your way into my class—-Level 3/Advanced-Certification. Plus this makes you solidly ready for my Advanced class and I’m not slogging along teaching varying skill levels.Ok, we amend and alter my schedule to now be 2pm to 10pm, which is when I had come into my previous job before that they’d bribed me away from.I’m there on Fridays. No classes. Casual day—-while the whole office is working—-looking busy. I guess. But I was only there because there were 10 other people in the office who were there M-F, 40 hours.Which is how Columbia University swiped me from them. When I explained this as we were meeting to discuss my classes and teaching—-Columbia is like: “That’s silly. You teach when you teach and you are professional enough to know what time you need for your administrative stuff. You don’t need a whole day and 8 hours on a Friday.”“Yeah, I am! If I’m not teaching or directly before or after classes why am I there? At all?”Eventually, almost 2 years in, money runs dry (the non-profit bane) so they lay off a swath of us. By then I was teaching 1 class, 3 hours a day and wandering around Manhattan—-Barnes & Noble moved! (I nearly cried that day), in Home Depot buying lamps and furniture, trying out dumpling and noodle bars, at a comic book store, generally just back and forth to my desk and then back out again several times a day. (I really liked the Panera salmon salad.)I then went to other training programs (to buff up my resume)—-for Train the Trainer, Desktop Support and Systems Administrator (valued at $1000 to $4000, apiece) and on the strength of getting students into our free program got free advanced training in their programs and/or got to Department of Labor to pay for my classes—-which I hooked my superstar/interested students up into.I was literally a waste of time and considered suggesting, let me go to Columbia and I’ll just come in to teach your classes, cut my salary in half and we’ll call it 20 hours a week.But then I got wind of their intentions to lay me off. So I sat tight, collected the severance package of cash, health care and 99 weeks of unemployment.I estimate they overpaid me by about $100k to sit there during downtime.A secret to teaching?—-and I had 100+ students—there’s not a lot of administrative paperwork once you get the first templates started.Legal WorldThe building curves!!!!!!!I was so excited to be working in a curved building. Would I be in the offices that curved? How does a building curve on the inside?Don’t laugh, these are my inside thoughts of squealing excitement.Years before Teaching, I was a Securities Litigation Paralegal, specializing in Sarbanes Oxley Securities Acts from the 1930s, which essentially are the regulation for how securities are transacted in the United States. What made me unique and in demand was that I was one of six people at that time with this specialty in NYC who were free-floating consultants.I was bouncing between 3 consulting firms because in Legal World you work on a case/project for a chunk of time: 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, etc.. Generally because of the nature of law firm billing to a client it’s a signed deal on your time. You sign agreements for the time periods and unless something goes wrong, the money has already been paid for you to be somewhere 6 months so it’s a tight guarantee.Now you want to get onto a case/project because one, it’s generally overpaid.Instead of maybe the equivalent of $25-$40 an hour, they need a Sarbanes Oxley person for that 6 months and then they can relax on the other paralegals being Generalists. Sarbanes Oxley will get $50 an hour because they can pay a Generalist $25 an hour. But a Generalist might be on for 9 months, whereas the SB will be on for 6 months. But it’s $52k guaranteed and the Generalist might not make 9 months because they’ll be whittling down the end of a case/project by month 7.The SB risk though is you might get locked into 6 months at Firm A, offered 9 months at Firm B, but due to confidentiality/NDAs, which include not working for another firm, lose out because the consulting company you’re with has a penalty if you leave Month 5 to join the 9 Month gig.It’s a juggling act.Or the inverse happens, you’re sidelined for a month as negotiations for the timeframe of a case are occurring.Some times though, if you’re good and maintain multiple agency relationships (not being able to tell an agency that you can’t do a case because you’re locked into another agency—-it’s like having 3 mistresses—-or they’ll sideline you, even if they like you.)Which of course totally means that you can end up sitting somewhere waiting for a case to end, intentionally looking idle, for the firm to call the Agency A and let you go because Agency B told you that a spot is yours on a solid 1-year project in 3 weeks.Firm A, through Agency A, has got to let you go! But it has to be their idea!Got it? That’s Paralegal Consulting 202.I’m at the curved building doing a favor for Agency A who needs a Senior Paralegal on a case that includes 8 firms throughout the country.Agency B calls and says they have a project, open-ended (the motherload!) in a few weeks.Agency A, the curved building, is from 9am to 5pm, midtown. I live in Queens but it’s an easy ride on the F train to the job. It’s a group of us in several huge conference rooms and within a few days of understanding what we're doing, I understand that we’re like Pit Stop # 4 for the processed court documents, paperwork, etc as I am at Law Firm # 4 in this octopus-case.Nice and simple. I’m the Senior so I get to move around some but basically, it’s a huge legal organizational job and then essentially put the product in the room for delivery to Law Firm # 5 in this legal paper conveyor belt.Agency B, calls, frantic. The deal is sealed! But the law firm is one of the huge ones—-there are like 20 or so that are huge here in NYC—-but one of the things that made them huge was a 24-hour work cycle. This firm wants its team in place from 12 midnight to 8am—-the golden hours because it’s time and a half the normal rate, catered dinner and choice of car service to work or home, whether you feel unsafe on the trains or tired from work, PLUS as the Senior you get a little bump in pay, choice to overtime AND cars both ways.I’m squealing again! Inside. Like a man.But I can’t say to Agency B, “Oh, I’m at Agency A, seemingly indefinitely, in this mad paper shuffle, I can’t commit to the motherload.”So I accept the assignment.Now I start out to work at 8am, get to Firm #4 by 9, work until 5pm, go home and sleep until the car comes from—-wait for it—-Firm# 5 at 11 pm to get me there by 12 midnight so I can get off at 8am, walk a few blocks to be to work by 9 am at the curved building.I was working down the avenue for the next firm who was sending my Firm # 4 paperwork to Firm #5, to process overnight, to move on to Firm # 6.Legally, because Firm # 4 essentially wanted legal paper shufflers, they never got around to having us sign NDAs. Firm # 5 is checking Firm # 4’s work but the overnight shift, because we/I have a team, was where I would send out sometimes 50 checked boxes of work to the in-house and overnight printers to make copies for Firms #6,7,8. Firm # 5 really can’t strengthen an NDA—-because of the outside printers. So they don’t bother.I get the third call.Agency # 3 wants to know can I take on a longterm assignment for……..you got it—— Firm #3?What saves me is that I got Firm #4 working so efficiently that they realized they didn’t need 20 of us, maybe only 10. They explain this to us and I explain it to Agency # 1 who promise they’ll get me something more solid, as I’m one of the laid offs.Because I was contact point 1, I didn’t have to do much in the curved building. It took a couple of hours to pack everything and then 20 paralegals would conspire how to wander around NYC and make it look like bathroom breaks, lunch breaks, smoke breaks. One young lady famously went on an acting audition and booked it! We bought a cake, celebrated it but couldn’t explain to the rest of the floor why there’s a party in the conference room. I’m sure parties in the conference room informed them after months that perhaps they didn’t need 20 people. lolAt the 12–8am job, I lead 4 people and we had a schedule through the days of on your day, you got to go to an office as soon as you came in, where there was a wonderful couch, and go to sleep for 4–6 hours. The Sleep Person had to then be up and shiny and bright to receive the shipments that the other four had put together, sent to the printers and were back for the 8am shift. The remainder 4 then got to take a snooze break or wander around break, in the middle of the night, from whatever time the work left—-say 3am until it came back by 6–7am.We watched movies, were on the internet, ordered massive dinners on the firm, I did a lot of writing (I’m a night owl so often I would be up the whole shift), I almost had a late night hook up. Almost. He was a bartender and I was that close—-that close!!!!! Alas……….The legal world is like being in a Roman Arena. When that gate opens you had better be ready to rumble. Full-on adrenaline.But about 50–75% of the time you’re sharpening your blade/organizing stuff or waiting for when the gate will rise.Corporate WorldOne job, reconciling embezzled funds back to the vendor company lasted for over 2 years. I was presented with $2.4 million in invoices to reconcile about 3 months into sitting there. The challenge was that it covered many nooks and crannies of their computer system—Employee, Vendor, Project Manager, HR, Hours, Paycheck Total Charged Hours, Vendor Payment—-think of all of those as separate boxes within a computer-virtual warehouse. My task was to pull Bob Jones, the Techs records when working with Acme Inc and reconcile that what happened in the listed 200 hours maybe only took 100 hours. Then which Project Manager he was working for and how they pocketed the other 100 hours.The VP’s challenge was that she had to verify my final invoice presentation because she was in charge of directly cutting a reimbursement check back to Acme Inc.. A 200-hour job might have billed for $50,000 but because of the embezzling, in actuality, only $25k worth of work occurred. I would reconcile reality—-mainly by confirming that Bob was across town through the Dispatching, Invoicing and Paycheck to Vendor system, so he couldn’t have completed more than 100 hours at Acme Inc..Complex, yes.Because of all of these machinations and the fact that I was an outside consulting, in the 3 months of sitting there, I’d mastered the entire computer system. Or more importantly, I understood it. It also helped that I was in charge of testing the tri-state areas entire employee complement in the system. I spent a lot of time in that system and more importantly I was given full clearance and access.The VP, in California, and me, in NYC, started swapping our files back and forth after we met once and then she would call me diligently 230pm NYC time, to confirm what I’d sent her my (that morning) for her to review/approve.Clicking along, knowing that there was an overage of northwards of $3 million she was trying to diligently and accurately get Acme Inc repaid so that they wouldn’t sue. Week by week, month by month, $40k, $35k, $41k, $36k—-they pushed me to hammer out at least $40k a week. All the while I’m training the tri-state area plus doing other sundry duties.Finally the NY VP, in a vindictive move against the California VP for her co-opting me, technically his only staff/department, says the $5 billion dollar company can no longer afford my $80k salary. I shrug and say ok. Tell the agency and I’ve got a new placement an hour later.California VP goes batshit on NYC VP and he ends up being one of three VPs she cans over the next few months, he went before Christmas.My other answer details this insanity all out.Can you describe a time that your company only discovered that you were irreplaceable after they fired you? How did you feel? What did they do?The flip of the pancake is, germane to this question, I would start the invoices about noon. It took about 30 minutes to bang out and reconcile time to tech to money, once you knew the system. I’d email them to the VP in California and then go to lunch. I’d be back for her call at 230 pm.That whole thing—-30 minutes, tops a week. I’d done the math that I would’ve been done in a week if I’d reconciled them all——in a week. Instead, when the VP fired me, they still had another $1 million or more outstanding…..and no one else in the company who knew how to do them as fast as I did.The (New) Real WorldWhat I’ve Learned From ThisI’ve learned that lots of work that I thought was intimidating or complex were really about time management. Those companies standardize based upon another standardization of time.I’ve also learned the Montgomery Scott rule: Always promise you can do something in 2.5x the amount of time you know it takes to do so you look like a genius.Also:Everyone is acting upon a prescription that they were given, not necessarily that they invented or designed.Most managers are not designers or strategists. They’re people/bureaucracy/paper managers.I’ve learned when managing to listen to the people who do stuff; watch them do it and trust them. Often managers want to put their “stamp” on work by fulfilling some other criteria(Teacher World: the supervisor excitedly called me into her cubicle to explain that She (the non-profit), Microsoft and SUNY had a fabulous idea. What if they turned on the webcams in my super-duper 80″ screen and projected it to 34 other SUNY campuses/classrooms?I could be teaching several thousand students a week! She thought that the number of students gave me a chubby. It doesn’t.Managers/Directors always make the mistake of assuming they know what motivates a person in the work they do. You have to observe and ask them.I ask her where are they going to get big enough envelopes?She’s like for what?I’m like, for the 34 other paychecks because what she’s proposing, Auntie Oprah calls that syndication. To do that you would have to give me 34 more paychecks because it does two things:massively multiples my output andwithin 1 semester of teaching a recorded/repeatable curriculum, makes me obsolete. (This comes from my own experience of detesting teaching Access Queries a dozen times. I bought a trainer on a DVD, would press play when it was Query time, for the class to watch and practice with and go get a Pepsi for 20 minutes.)She blanches. I nod politely.But it was a fantastic idea. I explain that aside from the financial issue I’m under contract to another company. And that’s what I do now, with my company, The Omni Group, Inc..)The (New) Real World IIHere’s what I believe though. We’ve gone through the Agrarian, Manufacturing, Technological epochs in the past 100+ years. We’re now going through the Knowledge one. However, each lasted a shorter and shorter amount of time-based upon technology.Agrarian, hundreds of years.Manufacturing, less than 100.Technological, less than 40.Knowledge, from say, 1990 to now, cresting into 30, maybe another 20, simply because the Technological Age is underlapping throughout other societies that are grasping and mastering it in order to hopscotch faster to the Knowledge Age.Simply put, if you’re in India or Africa or hinterland China, you no longer have to invent Technology, learn it, master it and then move to the next epoch. Now you get a cell phone or tablet or laptop or go to classes online and the Technological Age is crunched for you into maybe a few years of learning and practice as you learn and practice it on the Knowledge Age platform.This is why foreign countries around the world are moving so fast. Right now someone will read this from a land that is not as technologically advanced as the NYC one I sit in.Think of it as they are 1985.I’m in 2019.It’s not going to take them 34 years to catch up to me though. Because they have windows into the future—-cellphones/computers—-that allow them to download and follow the steps for how I got from 1985 here in NYC to 2019. They can then accelerate themselves past all errors and fix bugs in probably a quarter to a tenth of the time.Overlapping Ages cause massive accelerations—Agrarian to Manufacturing—-the Industrial Age which shifts the course of the planet from farms and wagons to metal and creation/cooperation on a massive-worldwide technological scale. Manufacturing then buttresses into Technological and that again, abandons one Age’s mainstay—-factories—-as it accelerates multiple domains—-population doubling since the 1950s; refrigeration standards mean better food (trouncing the Agrarian Age farmers because a large industrial/Manufacturing institution simply does more for more people better).Now Technology, able to multi-task or better yet, have multi-faced inputs of people, attention, tech, has evolved into the Knowledge Age/The Internet, which is bigger and more impactful than I think people can even grasp because it is so different than human experience has ever had before. It’s stil Technology—-systems, people, data dependent—-but the next Age will be our personal evolution to control, manage, profit from the infusion of the Technological Age and The Knowledge Age.Just as all preceding Ages have died, infused, influenced themselves and the mid-Age after it and the new Age on the cusp.40 Hours Is Dead Like Prince(I reference Prince here because the zenith of his struggle with owning his musical work was he talked about workers' rights and creation. That when we sign on with a company to distribute us, the legality is becoming so entrapping that the eventual ownership of creativity, of artistry, and even as we can transfer data in the Knowledge Age by attaching it to human cells—you do know we’re years beyond downloading data onto human cells, transporting a person across nations and downloading the information out of their body back to a computer, right?—-who owns your very body when you work for a company in those 40 hours?If you sign an NDA, you can’t talk.If you sign a non-compete, you can’t create.What if during this downtime, you’re doodling along and have some sort of JK Rowling breakthru—-typing up the next Harry Pooper on the company PC, the company time, the company premises—-who owns Harry Pooper?Relating to 40 hours is that in Agrarian and Manufacturing you had to sit there and watch seeds grow or you were part of a factory system when someone handed off to me and I then handed off to someone else after I did my gidget to the gadget, and they handed the gadget off to you. That’s no longer how gadgets are created.My Supervisor diddy about beaming my classes to ostensibly, easily 3500 students around the state, was 10 years ago. I beam now to 500,000+ with my TV Show and another 1–2 million within a month’s time with the half dozen other platforms my blogs, books, TV show, and videos go out on. Which is why I turned her down. All I had to do from then until now was just figure out platforms and monetization.The Legal World and the Corporate World again were talking to me in a Manufacturing Age language—-hand to me, I hand to you, you hand to Bob, Bob hands to Susan and we all sit and wait for someone to hand something to us to “do our jobs”.That no longer exists. In the Legal World, I was literally at two points in the System, separated by several blocks and different buildings, checking my own work. In Corporate World I understood the technology to the point where I could suss out the Knowledge/Information so fast that it would have been counter-intuitive to reveal to a paying company just how fast I could do it. A week's work lasted me 18 months speaking their Manufacturing-Technology “language”.40 hours is stuck 2 Ages ago, which is why the more versed you are in the connector Age—Technology, the better you are at controlling and manipulating Knowledge/Information.When you and I have had that downtime within a 40-hour construct we are personally experiencing the slowing down of our countries consciousness and advancement, our own stagnation. Reverse Time Travel.What’s Next?: But more importantly, what is the next epoch/Age?Entrepreneurial/Body/Bio-Eugenics epoch/Age.What I did after my Teacher World supervisor made her suggestion was I looked at what was the future of teaching. Yes, she was expressing it and it has only expanded in the past decade to where 1 teacher is beamed to thousands of students. The challenge has been monetization along with a capitalist concept of fair scale payment because teaching has largely been subsidized or free for thousands of years.By free, I mean, while you may not be able to afford Harvard out of pocket, you can buy the books, you can get the notes. Expensive schools are not the expense of knowledge, they are the cost of being essentially baptized by the institution as passing/knowledgable. You are condoning, sanctioned as being provenanced, the way a piece of furniture has a provenance or a painting does.Provenancethe beginning of something's existence; something's origin. "they try to understand the whole universe, its provenance and fate"a record of ownership of a work of art or an antique used as a guide to authenticity or quality. "the manuscript has a distinguished provenance"(Which further goes into why Middle Class and lower classes don't completely understand the stamping of education. They generally think it’s the book info shoved into one’s head that is the absolute value. No, the provenance is the ability/the degree/the proof to be able to say and prove you’re “one of those educated people” who speak multiple epoch/Age languages.)I work more hours now but the 60+ hours a week are a different equivalency because there is a different profiting structure and outreach. It starts out within the Entrepreneurial outlook as first More Time to Output.Then with Technology, Knowledge, Entrepreneurial (know-how, business sense, risk) the Output (videos, writing, blogs, books, etc.) starts reaping back to compensate for time and expands time.Right now my 60 hours a week, 3000 hours a year, converts to 125 years of royalties and licensing and legacy.When we make that shift from how we perceive 40 hours, then we, as humans, I think will shift even more dramatically.Just a thought………lol#KylePhoenix#TheKylePhoenixShow

OK, very interesting. My overall opinion is negative, but I respect that you’ve clearly put a lot of thought into this, and even (e.g., Articles 5 & 8) made an effort to provide some bilateral movement here, rather than a straight run to the left.This will be long, because I’m going to try to go clause by clause.I’m going to ignore the preamble, because while I somewhat disagree with its tone, it ultimately wouldn’t appear in the Constitution anyway (only in the congressional resolution proposing the amendments).I’m also not going to comment on the “appropriate legislation” clauses—they’re standard boilerplate (though it’s smart to include them).One final preliminary note: I’m going to continue to use the term “Article” and the numbering provided in the comment, for clarity. But practically-speaking, these would be Amendments 28–37, as the term “Article” is reserved (in constitutional context) for the seven articles of the 1788 Constitution.Article 1, Section 1Financial transactions to which an elected representative, appointed government official, legally-empowered public employee, or applicant or candidate for any such office or position; or the spouse, immediate family member, or any confederate of such a person; is party shall be held as a distinct class of Speech, and shall be subject to limitation and regulation as the law shall direct.I’m opposed on principle, because I think political speech including donations to a campaign is at the very core of freedom of speech. But since there’s not much more that can be said about that, I’ll pass by it and continue on.The other problem here is that it is overbroad by a substantial degree.First, it is not restricted to only federal officials, or even to federal and State officials. As-written, it would apply even to lowly city councilors like myself. This may not seem like a huge issue, but we’ll get into why it is when we get to the other Sections.Second, it is not restricted to only campaign-related financial transactions, but to all financial transactions. I think the intent here was to do away with First Amendment objections to campaign finance regulations, but the effect is to also do away with all other constitutional restrictions on the regulation of commercial transactions as long as a party to such transactions fits within one of the enumerated classes.This means, for instance, that there could be a different minimum wage for companies owned by public officials than for other companies, or that public officials could be compelled to donate X% of their net profits to charity, or any other unfair regulation you could imagine. When drafting laws, you need to consider what you will hit, not only what you aim at—the law is much more often a nuclear grenade launcher than a sniper rifle.Third, the list of affected classes is staggeringly broad. The official, their spouse, or their immediate family… OK, broader than I’d go, but not outlandish.But “any confederate”?So, I run for office (a choice which no one but me gets to exercise control over), and as a result, the financial dealings of my friends, relatives, business associates, etc. all become subject to special legal rules?How would you like to find out one day that you’re in violation of federal campaign finance law because your goddaughter filed papers to run for School Board without telling you? Or, even assuming that an exemption were created for unwitting violations, how would you like to get a letter in the mail saying that you’re now subject to all manner of new restrictions because of her decision?Article 1, Sections 2 thru 4 (taken together, as they are more naturally subclauses of a single section)All information concerning any and all financial transactions made or agreed to be made between any person or entity and any person whose financial dealings are subject to Section 1 of this Article; shall be public record.Again, staggeringly broad—this would mean that political foes could find out, for instance, whether a candidate or official had hired a divorce attorney (or any other attorney), whether he ever had a Playboy subscription, whether she ever went to a Botox clinic, and so forth.Moreover, it would require even small vendors (e.g., convenience stores) to keep track of any transactions with a candidate or official. Heck, if I (again, city council) were to hire a neighborhood kid to mow my lawn, then the fact that I paid him $10 and a movie ticket voucher would be public record.No information concerning transactions subject to this Article shall ever be withheld from any U.S. citizen seeking access to it. Nor shall any such information under any circumstances be classified, redacted, abridged, or destroyed. Loss or partial loss of such information through carelessness or negligence shall be a felony, and shall be punishable as the law shall direct.A perpetual record-keeping requirement is an unfunded mandate of the greatest magnitude—it would literally bankrupt many municipalities, and even some States.Furthermore, this confirms that even transactions classically subject to legal “privilege” would be mandatory disclosures—attorney’s fees, therapist bills, visits to a doctor specializing in some embarrassing condition, confidential settlements…Additionally, as-worded this would appear to mandate no-cost access to this data, and would bar any limitation based on misuse or abuse of the system. So I could contact the government and demand all financial records of all candidates and officials… and they’d have to provide it, free of charge. Were I an anarchist, I’d recruit a few hundred people to make such requests, and grind the government to a halt (of course, each would make a slightly different request, so that the overworked clerks couldn’t merely make a few hundred copies of the same dataset).Lastly, though this is a true nitpick, “carelessness or negligence” is strictly redundant—“negligence” is a legal term for “carelessness”. Then again, it’s not uncommon for legal language to use redundant pairs like this (e.g., “null and void”).Failure by any person subject to Section 1 of this Article to honestly and unreservedly disclose to the public information concerning financial transactions subject to this article or to proactively cooperate with requests for information concerning such disclosures or the details of the transactions disclosed, shall be a misdemeanor if negligent and a felony if willful, and shall be punishable as the law shall direct.This takes the overbreadth above and increases it. Now, an official must “proactively cooperate” with requests for details.So, “Last year, you paid $50,261 to the Law Offices of Ottaheer, Li Ving Yu, and Splitz—what portion of that fee, if any, was paid for efforts to deny or limit child support to your ex-wife?”Or, “You spent over $2,000 at pharmacies this year—what prescriptions were you filling?”Also, there is a very good reason that most disclosure statutes don’t require the individual themselves to participate in any response to requests—because it would be unduly burdensome and could be used as a form of harassment, particularly as it applies to past records of persons no longer in office.Even more concerningly, this language would, as-written, supersede the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.Lastly, I’m not really sure what “proactively cooperate” means—is it meant to imply that not only do I have to answer all sorts of invasive questions, but I also have to volunteer information that I think might be of interest?Oh, and writing criminal law into the Constitution isn’t exactly bad, but it’s weird—that’s just not what the Constitution is for. The only reference to a specific crime in the existing Constitution is the Treason Clause, and that is a limitation on what may be defined as “treason”, not a definition in itself.That’s what the “enforce by appropriate legislation” bit is for—to let Congress write the criminal penalties.Article 2, Section 1No person or entity shall donate or bequeath, either directly or by means of a living or non-living intermediary, to any Candidate running for office in a constituency in which he or she has no standing to vote.Too broad, again, with two non-obvious consequences (one maybe intended, the other certainly not).First, it bans all donations by any non-individual entity, because none of them vote. This may be intended, I suppose.Second, it prohibits gifts or bequests unrelated to political candidacy. For instance, let’s say I live in Massachusetts and my son is a candidate for office in New Hampshire. I cannot give my son money or gifts, and if I die, my son is constitutionally barred from receiving his inheritance.This points to a developing commonality in these proposals—a notion that politicians and political candidates ought to be somehow wholly isolated from the totality of the economic community, islands unto themselves. This is neither fair nor feasible.Article 2, Section 2No Candidate or Incumbent running for election shall ever use his or her own personal funds, or the personal funds of a spouse, family member, or confederate; in excess of a combined, campaign-long total of the equivalent of fifty thousand U.S. dollars in the year 2013.Use for what?As-written, this sets a total spending limit of $50,000 per year on candidates or officials—as in, their total budget expenditures for everything (mortgage, utilities, kids’ education, vacation, groceries… and oh yeah, campaigning).If you could somehow clearly define a “campaign expenditure” as distinct from personal expenditures, this clause actually seems more-or-less workable—though I’m still philosophically opposed.Article 2, Section 3Any candidate for any elected office who, as of 24 hours prior to the opening of the polls, shall have had more than one-tenth of one percent of his or her total accepted campaign funds donated by any one person or entity shall be stricken from the ballot.Unnecessary, given Article 1. Why do we care how many or how few donors someone has, if there are campaign finance laws in place limiting donations anyway?Also, this (again) has unintended consequences. If a candidate has less than 1,000 total donors (not uncommon in local elections), then he or she is automatically ineligible no matter how broadly distributed his or her support is. Also, it would mean that any candidate running a low-budget campaign would be penalized—which I don’t think is the desired effect.Besides, if donations are public already, why bother with this? If someone wants to run as “the Coca-Cola candidate,” for instance, and people choose to elect the candidate who is known to be indebted to Coca-Cola Corp. above all else, then what’s the problem?Article 2, Section 4At no time shall any person induce another to vote for or donate funds to a Candidate, or to refrain from voting for or donating funds to a Candidate; by means of threats or infliction of reprisal, or by the threat or infliction of any form of deprivation or duress. Such conduct shall be considered a felony and shall be punishable as the law shall direct.This is already law in all 50 States and the federal jurisdiction, as far as I know.The only way this could do anything that isn’t already the law would be to read it very broadly and make it felonious to threaten to break up with someone for refusing to vote a certain way, or to discontinue personal favors to a friend who campaigns for a (perceived) loathsome candidate.This would therefore either be a superfluous section, or an unprecedented restriction of personal liberty.And, again, criminal sanctions in a constitution… a bit odd.Article 3The speech of elected representatives and of appointed government officials shall be held as a distinct class of Speech, subject to limitation.Elected representatives and appointed government officials shall ensure that any and all statements made by them which are directed toward or which may be communicated to the public or their constituents or to the press are accurate, factual, and as complete as possible while protecting properly classified information.Section 1 is unnecessary if Section 2 is what you really want to accomplish.Section 1, therefore (by the canon against superfluity) would likely be interpreted to strip all First Amendment protections from the speech of government officials, including private utterances not intended to be communicated to the public.Moreover, who decides what is “accurate, factual, and complete”?In some instances, this is obvious of course. If Official X says, “The opposition’s budget would increase the deficit by $100 B,” and it’s clear under all possible interpretations that the deficit would actually go down, then clearly Official X is stating something inaccurate and non-factual.But what if a politician says, “Global warming is not a pressing concern”?The “consensus” of the “scientific community” says otherwise—but do we really want to make orthodoxy mandatory? Do we want to give “the academy” the authority to dictate what may or may not be uttered by public officials?If you’re thinking, “Yes, we do!” then just recall that not all that long ago, it was “scientific consensus” that homosexuality was a mental illness, that global cooling was a major threat, and that cocaine was safe for use in consumer beverages.Article 4, Section 1Voting district boundaries within the States at all levels and for all branches of government shall be determined by splitting the population into equally sized groups divided by the shortest possible absolutely straight line; and shall not be subject to changes by legislation or official mandate.Infeasible, sometimes perverse, and not as helpful as you think.First, it’s infeasible simply because population clusters don’t always align to a grid. If you have one very dense cluster in an otherwise uniform distribution of people, the only way to get equipopulous districts will be to slice and dice that cluster.Second, it may be perverse, because cities aren’t all grid-shaped either. So you could very well have a situation in which half of a city is one district, most of the other half is another, and three streets are lumped into a vast rural district outside city limits—whereas, with a slight curve to the line, you could have kept those three streets in a city district. It makes no sense to lump tiny segments of a one constituency in with a very different majority constituency merely because that’s how the gridlines happen to fall.And third, even a perfect grid doesn’t prevent gerrymandering.Article 4, Section 2The Census Bureau shall have the responsibility for conducting redistricting, this process being completed within 180 days from the ratification of this article and thereafter within 120 days from the issuance of each Census. Altered districts shall become effective upon the intervention of an election.This is relatively workable… though it will have the effect of dramatically politicizing appointments to the Census Bureau.Article 4, Section 3In the House of Representatives, the representative-to-population ratio of each of the States shall not exceed that of the State entitled to the smallest number of total representatives; and at no time shall there be fewer than one representative for every one million persons in any State, excepting when there shall be fewer than one million total persons in a State, in which case the one representative minimum for each State shall be preserved.First, the wording is wonky.In the first clause, I think you mean to either swap the ratio (i.e., “population-to-representative”) or to compare to the State with the largest population.As it stands, it does nothing, because it simply says no State may have more representatives per population size than the State with the fewest Representatives… but the current apportionment formula already guarantees this to be the case. For instance, Wyoming currently is tied for fewest Representatives, and its representative-to-population ratio is ~1:578,000. Every other State already has a ratio lower than that—e.g., California, with ~53:39,560,000, reducing to ~1:746,000.Second, if we assume reformation of the first clause to effect the presumed intent (to guarantee that no State has fewer Reps. per population than any other), then in combination with the second subclause of the second clause (and the aforementioned population of Wyoming), it leads to the conclusion that the House of Representatives must have at least 562 members, with that number growing with each census.This is not inherently unworkable—but it could rapidly become so if State populations grow at an uneven rate. The largest single legislative assembly in the world (discounting China’s, which is not truly a democratic assembly by any reasonable definition) is Germany’s, at 709 members—and this is a “mixed-member proportional” assembly (in other words, more than one member per district). And there are plenty of Americans who would dispute whether the Bundestag “works well” in the sense that Americans expect from our elected assemblies.Article 5, Section 1The Seventeenth Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.OK—I’m on board with this one so far!Anthony Zarrella's answer to What is your least favorite amendment in the US Constitution?Article 5, Section 2U.S. Senators shall be nominated by the Governor of each State from among the members of that State’s duly-elected Legislature, subject to the selectee’s acceptance and a simple majority confirmation vote by the other members of that State’s Legislature.Interesting, but I’m not really sure why this is necessary, rather than just returning to the old Article I, Clause 1 method (Art. I of the actual Constitution, that is).I’m not opposed to including the Governor in the process… I just don’t see the benefit of doing so.The same goes for stipulating that the Senator must be selected from among the ranks of the legislature itself—though I suppose I can see some logic in wanting it to be someone the voters have already approved in some sense.Article 5, Section 3State Legislature seats vacated by confirmed Senators shall be filled as the Constitution of that State shall dictate.Entirely unnecessary. This is what would happen anyway in 100% of cases.Article 5, Section 4, Clause 1The Governor of a State may recall one or both of that State’s Senators, subject to a simple majority confirmation-of-recall by the Legislature. Recalled Senators shall continue to serve in all capacities until a replacement has been selected and confirmed, and has traveled to the seat of government and has declared his or her readiness to assume the office…I actually like the idea of this one a lot.If the idea is that Senators represent the interests of their State, then that State ought to be able to recall them for doing a bad job.However, I’d want to see a supermajority vote of the legislature. The Senate is supposed to provide stability, and it can’t do that if a Senator is subject to recall every time his home legislature switches parties by as much as a single vote.The idea should be to recall for incompetence or simply poor representation, not because the other party doesn’t want an opposing Senator to serve out his term.Article 5, Section 4, Clause 2…unless the U.S. Senate shall resolve by at least a three-quarters majority that the recalled Senator should be immediately disempowered due to demonstrable professional or legal misconduct.Entirely unnecessary.The Senate already has authority under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 (of the actual Constitution) to expel a member by a two-thirds vote.Article 6, Section 1The Twenty-Seventh Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.OK, I guess. Not something I’d be in favor of, but that’s really all there is to say about that.Article 6, Section 2Upon taking office, the real estate property and financial assets of each elected representative and appointed government official at the State and Federal levels shall be held and maintained in blind trust until such time as that person is divested of the powers and responsibilities of office. Persons subject to this article shall be provided with serviceable accommodations and transportation for themselves and such dependents or immediate family as may accompany them.OK, wait, WHAT?!?Perhaps I misunderstand your intent here, but it certainly sounds an awful lot like I have to surrender all my personal possessions (or at least all that have significant value) and all real estate holdings upon taking office, and can only live in government housing and use government-provided transportation as long as I’m in office.I get that I’d get them back when I leave office, but this is simply ludicrous.I’m not giving up my home, my car, and any valuables I may possess. I’m not giving up any business I may have built, and trusting to a “blind trust” to run it for me.I get that this Section is aimed at eliminating financial incentives for very wealthy individuals who may have extensive investment portfolios. But it doesn’t affect only them.My house is not just somewhere I live. It is a home I have built with my wife.My father’s business (were he to run for office) is not some impersonal corporate empire in which he simply cashes the checks—it is a business that is still highly dependent on his personal leadership.And moreover, I don’t want some government bureaucracy deciding what accommodations and transportation I “need”. My housing preferences and needs are different than those of others—each person’s preferences and needs will be different.Article 6, Section 3Elected Representatives’ and appointed government officials’ yearly salaries shall at no time exceed two times the average yearly income, after taxes, of people of the United States, to include the unemployed between the lawfully-established ages of majority and of highest age of eligibility for retirement benefits, if any. Salaries subject to this article shall be tabulated and set every twenty-four months and shall take effect on the third day of January in every even-numbered year.Unnecessary, but fine, I guess.Current mean household income is ~$72,000, for a salary cap of $144,000. Current Congressional salaries are $174,000.Applying it to the President, on the other hand, would be an issue. The Presidency is not a “full-time job”—it’s an all the time job. The President is “on-call” 24/7/365, and doesn’t get to go “home to the district” on weekends.There is no one but an independently wealthy individual who could do that job for a mere $144,000 in today’s economy—and the savings to the taxpayers would be trivial ($356,000 in a budget of trillions).We can afford to pay our Chief Executive $400,000 per year.On the other hand…If you mean the mean individual income, then that’s ridiculous. The mean individual income is ~$31,000, for a salary cap of $62,000. That would be a pay cut for a middle-class professional. And I don’t actually know if that includes unemployed individuals in the mean—if it doesn’t (making your cap even lower), then it goes from ridiculous to flatly absurd.Article 6, Section 4No elected representative or appointed government official shall draw a pension from service in that office. Outgoing elected representatives may be entitled to a severance payment equal to up to 180 days’ current wages, subject to a simple majority direct confirmation vote by his or her constituents at the time he or she leaves office. Outgoing elected representatives shall be eligible to draw unemployment benefits in accordance with the laws of their respective State. No special privileges shall be enacted for outgoing elected representatives or appointed government officials pursuant to unemployment benefits.Not bad, except the “confirmation vote” thing. That’s just tedious bureaucracy to potentially save the taxpayers a comparatively small amount. In fact, the cost of holding a special vote would probably amount to a substantial fraction of the cost of paying out the 180 days’ severance.Otherwise, no big deal. I could support this Section.Article 7, Section 1Congress shall allocate funds within the federal budget to pay the nation’s debts, sufficient to avoid default on those debts. The federal debt shall never be paid by further borrowing.Good idea. Great idea.Entirely unworkable in the modern era.The national budget is just over $3 trillion. The national debt is ~$22 trillion. The annual interest on the national debt is ~$0.9 trillion (without paying down one cent of the principal).In other words, to pay the interest entirely from the budget would consume roughly one-third of the total budget.What would you like to cut?Article 7, Section 2No federal program or line item in the federal budget shall be more than fifty percent funded, and no Department of the Executive Branch shall be more than twenty-five percent funded; by borrowed monies or by bonds, credit, or deferrals. Upon ratification of this article, the federal government shall have eight years to achieve full compliance with the provisions of this section. After this time has elapsed, the federal government shall borrow no additional funds while not in compliance with this section.Again, not a bad idea—but probably not workable in the timeframe allotted.This is a great long-term goal, but not feasible in the short-term.And believe me, I’d love to see it, both to reduce debt and even more so to force a “budget diet” on the Administrative State. But I know the difference between what I want and what is immediately feasible.Article 7, Section 3The federal government shall only borrow money in such amount as can be repaid, in full, within fifty years or less. Upon ratification of this article, the federal government shall have twenty-four years to achieve full compliance with the provisions of this section. After this time has elapsed, any portion of the total federal debt which has been held or recycled for greater than fifty years must be paid, in full, immediately, without any further borrowing.This actually isn’t a bad idea—if it is made solely prospective, not applied to preexisting debt.If applied to preexisting debt, the final clause is nothing but a self-destruct mechanism—there is simply no way that in 24 years the government will be able to fully pay off all its debt from 1993 and earlier. At least, not without simply refinancing it into new loans.The other problem, of course, is in determining (when originating a new loan) which loans “can be repaid” within fifty years. That depends heavily on which economic projections you find credible.Article 7, Section 4Failure by Congress to pass a new federal budget by midnight preceding the expiration date of the current one shall result in the previous budget being automatically renewed for a full year, or until a new budget is passed. No temporary resolution shall ever be used in place of a full and duly-passed federal budget.I see the aim here. But it would have unintended consequences.It would mean that whichever party likes the previous year’s budget would have all the leverage simply by stonewalling.For instance, when the Democrats had full control of the government for a mere two years from 2011–2013, they could have passed a budget and then kept that budget until the next time the Republicans controlled all three branches in 2017.(Yes, I’m ignoring the filibuster for the moment, because as we know now, the filibuster only exists until and unless the majority decides to stop putting up with it.)Any rule that says, “IF no agreement, THEN status quo” only encourages agreement as long as neither side’s goal is to maintain the status quo.Article 7, Section 5The government shall not engage in the practice of offering no-bid contracts; nor shall it contract for any item which is commercially available to the general public in a functionally-identical form.First off, this isn’t really germane to the rest of this Amendment. But let’s bypass that.Second, this is just a bad idea. I get it, I really do—the goal is to prevent government waste and patronage-style corruption.But banning no-bids means every procurement has to go out to bid and go with the lowest qualifying bidder. (There are a few alternative systems, but most people opposed to no-bids are opposed to them, too, so I’ll assume they’re meant to be included.)This means one of two things happens:All government contracts go to whoever is cheapest—and there’s a reason that “cheap” does double duty in the English language to mean both “low-cost” and “poor quality”—ORGovernment procurement personnel get very good at drafting bid requests in such a way that the only contractor who is likely to “qualify” is the one they want.The second theme of these proposals then (following on the earlier-identified desire to isolate elected and appointed officials from ordinary human commerce) is that the drafter has paid too little attention to the Law of Unintended Consequences.Article 8, Section 1No income tax shall be levied at any level of government which shall cause any taxpayer to be burdened with a greater base rate of income taxation than any higher-income taxpayer.OK, I like it—eliminate progressive taxation. Let’s look at the quid pro quo that comes next.[EDIT: I misread this—it actually bars regressive taxation. Which is pointless because there is not and (to my knowledge) never has been any tax which is assessed at a higher rate against the poor than against the rich.]Article 8, Section 2Any and all sources of income other than wages, if taxed; shall be taxed at a rate at least equal to the rate of income taxation levied upon each person so taxed.I get what this is trying to say, but it’s failing.The intent is clearly to tax all forms of economic gain equally—particularly, I assume, “capital gains”.Not being a tax attorney, I actually don’t know how best to word this, but as currently worded, it simply says, “Income shall be taxed as income.” Because “wage” is only one form of income currently covered by the existing income tax—others include salaries, per diems, contractual fees, rents, and so on. All are already covered.That being said, the intended meaning is perfectly acceptable to me, assuming it remains indissolubly linked to Section 1’s elimination of differential rate structures AND assuming Section 1 and Section 2 are harmonized to make clear that different rates are prohibited on all taxes covered by Section 2.If, on the other hand, Section 2 sets only a floor on non-income economic gains taxation, but no ceiling, then I object. On a strict reading of the existing wording, this would be the case (“at least equal”). This would make for an irrational system in which certain ways of making money are arbitrarily privileged above other ways (yes, I know this is already the case—it’s irrational now).Article 8, Section 3No income tax subsidy, reduction, benefit, or rebate shall be granted to any taxpayer, unless it shall affect all lower-income taxpayers also so taxed to at least a proportionally equal extent.I get the intent, but this isn’t feasible to implement.If you mean only that the potential impact of such subsidies, rebates, etc. is proportionally equal across all income levels, then that’s mostly already the case. If anything, many such provisions are biased against the wealthy because there is a cap.But if you mean practical impact, then that’s just not possible.For instance, a deduction for charitable giving. Well, obviously, if you have more disposable income, then you have more to spare to give to charity, but if you’re at a very low fixed income, you probably have little or no money to spare for charity.That means that a middle-class person making $50,000 per year and deducting, say, $3,000 in charitable donations (roughly the average for that bracket) is getting a deduction equal to roughly 6% of their income. A person making $12,000 per year and living paycheck-to-paycheck and making no donations because he can’t afford it is getting no deduction.Does that mean the first guy shouldn’t be allowed to get any deduction?Practically-speaking, this rule would mean, “No deductions, rebates, etc.—EVER.”Article 9, Section 1No elected representative shall receive immunity from prosecution for any act which he or she shall have committed while he or she was in office.Very bad idea.Every developed nation (and probably every other) has some concept of “legislative immunity” and “executive immunity”.To take that away would be to make elected officials personally liable in criminal and civil court for their governmental actions.For instance, let’s say a Senator votes in favor of a bill that allows terrorists to be held for up to five days without trial. Maybe you think that’s a good idea, maybe not—but the point is that if that is later ruled to have been unconstitutional, and you’ve stripped away immunity, then that Senator could be arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit kidnapping (or whatever other crime applies).Heck, as currently written, you’d even be subjecting elected judges to personal criminal liability for allegedly wrongful rulings.In fact, interpreted broadly enough, you could even be making it possible to criminalize a failed attempt to change the law (especially since, back in Article 2, you set “speech of government officials” outside the protection of the First Amendment).If you want to address issues like the allegations against Trump, include language to the effect of, “any act committed while in office which is not pursuant to official duties nor an exercise of official prerogatives.”Otherwise you’ll destroy the fabric of government.Article 9, Section 2No elected representative shall be eligible for pardon or commutation of sentence for convictions related to conduct he or she engaged in while in office.No structural problems here, but it’s simply a bad idea.It makes “elected official” a specially disfavored class of citizen, solely to deal with… what? Nixon? Potentially Trump?It’s not like there’s some rash of public officials committing crimes and being pardoned for them. An Amendment should never exist solely to address one specific incident (unless that incident reveals a pervasive structural flaw, like the Election of 1800).Article 9, Section 3No public official accused of a crime shall receive immunity from investigation or from prosecution due to his or her position.No major objection on principle—but the execution isn’t this simple.“Immunity” isn’t really the right word for what’s discussed in the Mueller Report (yeah, you don’t have to say it—that’s what this is about). It’s more that, due to the structure of the federal government, there is no one with the authority to investigate or prosecute a sitting President—they all work for him.So, to solve the problem, you’d have to create some investigatory authority that isn’t subject to executive control.It could be done, and perhaps it even should be—but there would be a lot of details to work out. It can’t be done in a single line of text.Article 9, Section 4All allegations of misconduct by a public official or elected representative at any level shall be assessed and if corroborated and deemed both credible and legitimate, shall be fully investigated by qualified and impartial authorities.Vague. Impossible to objectively implement.What does it mean to “assess”? Who does the “assessing”? How do they determine if an allegation is “credible and legitimate”?What does it mean to be “corroborated” in this context? If two people make a joint allegation, is that “corroborated”? If multiple people accuse someone of the same type of misconduct, but no single incident is backed up by more than one person’s claim, is that “corroborated”?And what does “fully investigated” mean?Constitutional law is still law. Vague, abstract platitudes have no place in it. Law must clearly instruct as to who does what in what manner and to what standard.This Section does none of that.Article 9, Section 5At no time shall any allegations of misconduct by elected representatives or public officials be assessed or investigated internally by any entity to which the accused individual belongs. Such assessments and investigations shall be carried out by an entity sufficiently removed from the accused individual and from any entities to which the accused individual belongs so as to remain objective and impartial.Again, good concept, but not practical.You know what happens when you create a wholly external organization whose sole job is to find rot and corruption in some other organization?Eventually, they start to see themselves as the adversaries of that organization, rather than its watchdogs. They become an inquisition.Think about it—imagine that your organization’s budget, and therefore your odds of being laid off, depends on how effective you are perceived to be at finding “bad apples” in your local Rotary Club. You’re going to be very motivated to find something to nail someone with.“Objective and impartial” is exactly what you don’t get from such an organization.Article 9, Section 6Any failure by any accused individual or entity to which that individual belongs to fully and unreservedly cooperate with any assessment or investigation; or any attempt by any individual or entity, without exception, to dishonestly influence the outcome of any assessment or investigation of any allegation of misconduct shall be a felony, punishable as the law shall direct.Abhorrent.I get the intent—but the effect is to strip all procedural civil liberties from an accused official, forcing them to be cooperative participants in their own destruction.The second clause is fine, with the qualifier “dishonestly”, at least insofar as it pertains only to material falsehood, not merely to passively permitting investigators to come to false conclusions.But the first clause negates the right against self-incrimination, negates the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and arguably even requires the accused to affirmatively and materially assist in the investigation at his own expense.Also, though it seems a small quibble by comparison… as above, specific criminal provisions are decidedly peculiar as constitutional mandates.Article 10, Section 1Every person who is on or within property which he or she owns in whole or in part or in which he or she legally abides and who is situated on or in such property in such a way that he or she is out of the immediate view and hearing of the public; shall have a right to privacy.Interesting—but I’m not sure what it’s meant to do.For all intents and purposes, this seems to duplicate parts of the Fourth Amendment.Now, I know the concept of “right to privacy” plays into things like abortion—but under this text, there is no way it could apply to such matters (since abortions aren’t house calls).However… if we assume this is meant to be non-redundant, then it gets positively dangerous, because it could easily be read to imply that governmental laws and regulations cannot be enforced on private property.Oh, your husband is beating you? Sorry, he’s within his own legal abode, so we have no right to violate his privacy by investigating.Article 10, Section 2All forms of person-to-person electronic, digital, or telephonic communication along with information contained therein shall be protected from search or seizure without a warrant in accordance with the Fourth Amendment to this Constitution.OK, fair enough for the most part.Just one important detail:The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant in all instances, even for physical evidence—and those exceptions ought to be equally applied to electronic evidence.For instance, “plain view”—that is, if a cop happens to be in a chatroom or on social media and sees your unprotected, unencrypted communication, that should be allowable evidence, with or without a warrant.Or “exigent circumstances”—for instance, if cops know that your computer’s hard drive is set to wipe itself clean in 10 minutes, they can hack into it without a warrant to avoid the destruction of evidence.Assuming that this Section affords electronic property and evidence only the same protections as other property and evidence though—not greater—then I’m fine with it. It’s the way the courts are going anyway.Article 10, Section 3No government entity or government-funded or government-overseen entity shall, under any circumstances, conduct surveillance of any U.S. citizen without a court-approved warrant.Again, first—existing Fourth Amendment warrant exceptions. I have no desire to eliminate them, and I don’t think you likely do either.Second, this is worded too broadly—as-written, it would prohibit even public surveillance (i.e., stakeouts, security cameras, or even just a cop walking a beat in a “suspicious” neighborhood looking out for trouble).But then… with those two caveats dealt with, this does nothing that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t do already.Article 10, Section 4Every person shall be the sole owner of his or her personally-identifiable information, in perpetuity, and all contracts to the contrary shall be null and void. No government entity shall ever use this information such that any provision of this Article is circumvented or rendered ineffective; nor in any other way except as is specifically enumerated by law. No commercial entity shall use this information except as is specifically agreed to by the owner of that information, nor shall such entity ever require the disclosure of such information as a precondition to the rendering of advertised or publicly-offered services, except as is absolutely necessary in order to collect payment for a specifically agreed upon and fully disclosed service.Poorly-considered privacy fetishism.This would mean that modeling studios couldn’t own the photos of their own models. It would mean that actors would own every scene they appear in.It’s also self-contradictory:all contracts to the contrary shall be null and void.Versusexcept as is specifically agreed to by the owner of that informationWhen someone signs an agreement allowing for the use of their personal information in a particular manner… that is a contract.Moreover, the final clause essentially creates a universal right to anonymity—that is, no company could ever restrict the use of its services to identifiable individuals.I know some people don’t like Quora’s Real Name Policy… but making it unconstitutional? Really?And even the provisions that aren’t just shockingly bad ideas are empty platitudes, like “No government entity shall ever use this information such that any provision of this Article is circumvented or rendered ineffective” when it’s unclear how a government entity could use PII in a way that would circumvent any other provision of this Article without also violating that provision.This isn’t the worst Section of the whole bunch conceptually (though it’s near the bottom), but it’s the worst-drafted by far.Article 10, Section 5No elected representative or appointed government official shall be entitled to any expectation of privacy at any time or under any circumstances, while invested with the powers or responsibilities of office or position. No legally-empowered public employee or law enforcement official not meeting the preceding criteria shall be entitled to any expectation of privacy at any time or under any circumstances, while acting in his or her official or empowered capacity.And again, with the, “Public officials shall be second-class citizens with no rights” crap…So, because I’m an elected official, I can have my home, my briefcase, my email, my whatever searched at any time?Because I’m an elected official, people can listen in on my phone calls to my wife?Because I’m an elected official, people can put spycams in my shower? (Don’t do that. Really, for your own good…)If you made the whole thing applicable only “while acting in an official capacity” that might be better (but it would still mean that if I’m answering constituent emails at home in the evening, people would have the right to peer in my window).A better way of putting it may be, “No government official shall be entitled to any expectation of privacy pertaining to acts done in any official capacity.”I’d still oppose it, because while I’m in favor of transparency broadly, I do think there needs to be some ability to do the business of government behind closed doors. For instance, if a city is being sued by a former employee, the mayor needs to be able to discuss the case with the city’s attorney without that discussion being public.But at least then it would merely be bad policy rather than a human rights debacle.All in all, this really runs the gamut—from ideas that are generally good and just need some polish, to ideas that are genuinely shocking to the conscience.But, I do get the impression that most of the worst ideas were a matter of simple error on the part of a drafter who didn’t understand their implications. Overall, this seems like something someone worked very hard and thoughtfully on, so I give you credit for that much.Original Question:“What do you think of my ten proposed Constitutional amendments?”