Chapter 8

Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches

Legislative bodies have an important role to play in making the country work, providing
us the societal tools with which to build and the framework of laws to build upon. Legislation
itself, however, is not the primary means by which important goals are accomplished in the
nation. We the people, the citizens of the country, are the primary means.

We don't need landmark legislation (or, in fact, any substantive legislation) passed at
either the state or federal level to solve our nation's problems.

We don't need a constant stream of new laws or law changes for us to be successful and
happy as a people, or for us to do big and dramatic things for good in the nation. That is not what
self-government is all about.

New and exciting legislation has become the new aristocracy of society––the green grass
just beyond the fence that we always long for. It rivals the power of a king, the kind of absolute
power to dominate our lives that our forefathers left behind to come to America in the first place.

The fact that our representative government allows us to pass new legislation as often as
we wish doesn't mean that we should focus so much of our nation's time and energy in doing so.

There is no shortage of laws in the country. There is a shortage of good leadership,
cooperation, and common sense in government. Govern using existing laws as much as possible
and make fixes here and there on a bipartisan basis when something is truly needed.

A slow, divisive, meat-grinding process in state and federal legislative bodies, and which
is mirrored in the state and federal courts, and also in the state and federal government agencies,
is not the agent of change we need to achieve higher levels of excellence in the country, or to
unite the American people in common goals.

We can do more of the important changes we need to do as a country (and as states) using
symbolic, non-binding resolutions passed unanimously in legislative sessions. A law is one
thing, a goal is another. Freedom loves goals (set informally by government, and then worked on
by the citizens, the business community, and non-profit organizations until achieved), not ever
more laws and legislative proposals to compel, intimidate, or punish citizens.

Making the process of governing work efficiently is the top priority for each new session
of Congress, not the passage of any specific piece of legislation (JRE Link, 2017-0718 (Tue), COM-STR2).

There should be no difference in power between individual members of Congress, both in
the House and in the Senate. Seniority benefits will go away once everyone is serving one term.
Formal leadership positions in parties and committees should be considered more as just team
coordinators, and not as positions with expanded power.

House and Senate committees have too much power in government.

In addition, it should be realized by everyone that the process of developing and passing
bills is currently being done backwards by Congress. There is no purpose served by having
committees in Congress work endlessly on creating the details of legislation that is not already
pre-approved in concept by the House, the Senate, the Administration, and the American people.

Legislation should start informally outside of committee. The key decision points of any
new legislative idea can be provided in summary to all members of the House, the Senate, and
the Administration on the first day. An initial nonbinding vote can then be held in which all of
the House and Senate members go on record with their positions on each of those key decision
points. The votes in both houses should be done the same day, almost simultaneously, to keep
the process in sync, the Administration also going on record. If the House, Senate and
Administration don't agree on key points, the proposal can then be reworked as needed to reach a
successful conclusion. If that is not possible, the idea is shelved. If it is possible, then a second
nonbinding vote is held on each of the updated decision points so that everyone goes on the
record to validate the new proposal. Then, details of the decision points are developed by the
relevant committee. The goal of the committee should be to make sure the supporting detail
developed is perfectly in line with both the spirit and letter of the law of each key decision point
so that the final bill has no surprises and the nonbinding vote can then be easily formalized with
an official vote in both houses and signed by the President.

There is never a need for a special conference between the Senate and the House to
resolve differences in legislative versions. That is evidence of a broken legislative process. The
House, Senate, and the Administration all work together as a combined team on legislation from
start to finish. No independent legislative initiatives from any of these three government bodies
are needed or warranted.

You protect freedom with the Constitution and common-sense laws. Excessive laws don't
protect our freedoms, they take freedoms away from us (JRE Link, 2018-0720 (Fri), COM-STR2).

We certainly need a political system of some kind in the United States to help make the
government trains run on time, but that's pretty much it––just the basics of good government.

The whole point of this country's independence and the Constitution is that the people
have the power to rule themselves, not the executive, not legislative bodies, not the courts, and
not the kings, queens, and celebrities of the political industry. The fact that there is a balance of
power maintained between the three branches of government does not mean that the power
available to any one of those branches always needs to be exercised. A good president is one
who exercises the minimum amount of constitutional power necessary to govern, thereby
returning unused power back to the citizens, to the states, or to the other two branches of the

government. In contrast, a bad president requires maximum constitutional authority and power to
govern. This same principle holds true for the use of power by the other two branches of the
federal government––the United States Congress and the Supreme Court. They should exercise
only the minimal amount of constitutional power necessary rather than to explore the limits of
their respective powers.

The nine members of the Supreme Court need to act as one and become a unified body.
Rising above politics, they become an inspired judiciary. Showing forth honor and integrity in
their judicial decisions and teamwork, they set the proper tone for the nation (JRE Link, 2021-1019 (Tue), COM-STR2).

Indeed, a unified Supreme Court, a unified Senate and House of Representatives, and a
unified executive branch—all three branches of government working in a cooperative manner,
and in perfect symmetry, individually, and collectively—this is the ideal in government that the
American people want to see in action. If the men and women in government can do it, the
American people will happily follow their lead (JRE Link, 2021-1019 (Tue), COM-STR2).

Fighting between the branches of government is a constitutional habit, not a requirement.

All judges throughout the land should be non-political, not just in theory, but in practice.
To get there, a major transition from where we are today in America is needed.

Members of the Supreme Court should uphold the Constitution and not be driven by their
own personal ideology or by the ideology of the president who appointed them. Members of the
lower federal and state courts should do likewise. Any court that exercises power by deciding
cases based on its political makeup is manifestly corrupt and has failed in its primary mission.

An unsettled and unsure Supreme Court decision––five-four––sets a bad example to the
people of the nation (JRE Link, 2018-0919 (Thu), COM-STR2).

In 5-4 and 6-3 decisions, the minority decision is often just as political or even more
political than the majority decision. In other words, reversing the outcome in those cases with
one or two vote changes doesn't change the partisan nature of the court's action. The partisanship
manifest on both sides of the case is a double tragedy for the nation, representative of a failed
judiciary.

Partisanship has been the legacy of the Supreme Court on too many key decisions. Can
we just go back to interpreting the law? Nine judges interpreting the law is what we need,
nothing more, nothing less (JRE Link, 2018-0919 (Thu), COM-STR2).

You are nine, not one, and not four or five (JRE Link, 2018-0919 (Thu), COM-STR2).

No liberal judges. No conservative judges. No centrist judges. Just honorable judges,
please.

Supreme Court justices should not be exercising political power. Credibility comes by
interpreting the law uniformly, not interpreting the mood of the people to "protect" the reputation
of the court in high-profile cases.

All judges throughout America should say these words when they arrive to work each
morning, "I promise not to legislate from the bench today."

All freedoms should be reverted back to the citizens. Those rights do not belong to the
federal government or to state governments. Not to presidents, governors, or mayors. Not to
United States senators and congressmen or to state senators and representatives. Not to the
United States Supreme Court, federal courts, or state supreme courts. Not to political activists,
not to political commentators, not to news anchors or editorial writers, not to lobbyists, not to
political parties, not to political fundraisers or political action committees. Not to Hollywood
celebrities, large corporations, religious organizations, political think tanks, unions, or non-profit
foundations.

All Americans, particularly those in the political industry, need to rid themselves of this
idea that an election win, whether by an overwhelming margin or by the fewest of votes, creates
a mandate for action in the nation. A president never has a mandate. Congress never has a
mandate. The Supreme Court, in deciding cases, does not have a mandate to change America via
judicial activism based on one president’s appointments vs. another. An iron-fisted branch of
government pursuing an individual's, a party's, or a court's agenda is not what elections and
judicial appointments are all about, and is not good for the country. Following an election, a
newly elected president should present his or her ideas humbly to the American people and to
Congress, showing forth warmness, politeness, and gentle persuasion. If there is a ground swell
for a certain type of action in the nation, one should follow the American people's lead on the
issue and involve them in all details of the decision AFTER the election, not just before.

Federal and state agencies should not dominate the lives of the American people. We
need them to work every day in their administrative roles as friends and fellow citizens. They
should work closely with businesses and individuals (and in cooperation with other federal or
state agencies) to solve or prevent problems rather than to punish people with harsh regulations
and financial penalties imposed from a distance.

Legislative initiatives to solve problems of the nation, as well as Supreme Court
decisions, are too often one man's (or one political party's) desire to impose his beliefs or policy
objectives upon another. Kings, queens, theocracies, and dictators have imposed their will on
subjects since the beginning of recorded time. But even we, unfortunately, with all of the
advantages of the principles of self-government in our possession, have succumbed to the
temptation to exert power over one another with presidential agendas, legislative agendas, court
agendas, protest movements, boycotts, lawsuits, politically-motivated investigations, and so
forth.

We don't need a king. We need a leader. We don't need a commander-in-chief. We need a
leader. Compelling the American people to undertake an action simply because one holds the
title of president of the United States must stop. A president (or any elected or non-elected

person in government) should lead by example and forbearance, and not depend so much on the
power of his or her office. This is true of everything: economic policy initiatives, social issues,
and in the declaration of war or the deployment of military forces.

We need a different vocabulary for this new era of America exceptionalism. Instead of
using words like "mandate," "governing," "legislative action," "executive power," and
"constitutional authority," we should start using words like "leadership," "supervision," "problem
solving," "setting goals," "continuous improvement," "best practices," and, of course, "kindness
to others."