Oh boy, a new Constitution. Imagine rewriting the 2nd Amendment...

Your sarcasm is not in vain. A great answer. I am frustrated with the whole thing. You do sound a bit anti-human in your assessment of humankind, that we are doomed. We are fundamentally flawed as a species, and all we can come up with is violence, I believe is what you're saying? In my post I said I give up. Let them eat lead (cake). Everyone is fed up with liars and thieves in charge. I know that violence won't solve anything in the long run.

I like the sentiment but I can see several ways this would be impractical.

First, publishing identifiers such as SSNs, bank account numbers, and VINs makes it easy for others to impersonate the individual, or the owner of the bank account or vehicle. I don't think it would help to enable that.

Second, crooked or even just sneaky operations such as transferring funds to allies or to shady vendors such as Mr. Epstein is frequently done through family members or other trusted "dummies." Think of outfits like Obama's ACORN and OFA or Soros's foundations, each of which uses hundreds of front organizations to hide their actions. To even try to make this scheme work we would have to expose to public view every person or entity that has ever received money or favors from a politician, no matter how indirectly, including before he or she sought public office. And expose everything all those people and companies do as well, and THEIR beneficiaries.

The IRS has tried on multiple occasions to similarly investigate the opponents of powerful politicians. Presidents FDR, Nixon, Obama, and now Biden have set the IRS on their "enemies lists" this way, and it hasn't worked very well. I doubt if any civilian can assemble an auditing team more thorough than the IRS.

Corruption is in human nature; no one is worthy of ultimate trust. The only solution to it is a combination of unending skepticism and vigilance, plus an overriding constitutional principle that no one is above the law. If the constitution (either as written or as enforced in the real world) does not work this way, then it's time to scrap it and form one that does.

Who or what is a "leader"? Why do we even have them if we are all independent individuals? What primitive tribal relic is still with us of accepting rulers and obedient subjects? Where in our psyches is the command programmed that we must be subservient to others, who quickly take on the role of superiors, from the simplest lieutenants or supervisors to the fiercest tyrants? Is this phenomenon related to the built-in genetic drive to be predators versus prey? Is it an outgrowth of the earliest evolutionary command to survive by overpowering others?

And what is "corruption"? An animal to survive may resort to any form of aggression, by camouflage or outright force, with sly hunter's tricks or laying traps. Deception is nature's most sophisticated tool of conquest. But what creature devours its own kind? Yet that is what humans do with their wars, crimes, and collusions. So why do we call them corrupt when they simply operate according to their natural modus operandi for survival by acquisition? Everyone would operate the same way if they had the skill and opportunity.

Humans are still deeply under the influence of their original algorithms of seek, find, take. They are no different from the millions of other species that co-exist with or co-consume what is available on the earth. It is easy to accuse other humans of "corrupt" practices when all they do is follow the original program of seek-find-take. Ah, but what other lifeform destroys its own kind? A major glitch in the human software lets humans turn against their own kind, defrauding and destroying instead of cooperating for mutual benefit.

So the question should be how to eliminate the whole concept of leaders and followers, rulers and serfs. Hire administrators, don’t empower commanders. How can humans cooperate for mutual benefit, not for cancerous mutual destruction? How can respect for each individual’s unalienable rights be the prime directive?

And yet, what do we find at the end of this fatiguingly long discourse by the august thinkers of the Gulch? The most barbaric proposal to kill in the most ghoulish ways anyone they can accuse of serving their self-interest, along with all the relatives in their bloodline. Care to rethink this?

Yes to term limits. How do we get those in power to limit their own power?

Ban lobbying and campaign contributions. Make it illegal. Throw politicians in prison for violating the law.

Yes good point, we don't want any honest Communists. (As if they could tell the truth in the first place.)

Yes good point, we don't want any honest Communists. (As if they could tell the truth in the first place.)

I disagree, because it is not done by the basis of bloodline, or race, it is done by the basis of corruption. The @55hole doesn't fall far from the tree. Not to mention that the names listed above were all White men.

It is racism when done on the basis of the bloodline.

Very perceptive on your part.

I’m less concerned with the politicians who line their pockets than I am with ideologues whose goal is to destroy the government and the Constitution, and thus America as we know it.
Term limits can stop a lot of the former, but given the people being elected by the “woke” portion of the electorate, term limits may be able to do little about the latter.

Term limits.

Be better armed than the corrupt leaders.
It’s just that simple.

Yeah, that's simplest clearest answer. Humans can be awesome as individuals, or in small groups, but we are corruptible when given large powers over a large group.

Works! On the reading list. Thanks.

All good. I remember when the Unaffordable Careless Act was about to be passed. To make good on his bogus pledge of transparency, Oblama announced that the 2500 page ACA bill would be posted online for 48 hours before the vote! Who reads 2500 pages in 2 days? It took me 6 weeks to read the Gulag Archipelago, 1800 pages.

Democracy is a corrupt form of government that uses violence to control and plunder its participants while the public think they are directing its behavior. The writers of the constitution understood the difference between a republic and a democracy and feared it would devolve into a democracy. It has become a socialist democracy where it does violate the original contract (constitution) at will. Any kind of government that gives power to the people instead of recognizing its place to protect people will attract those who want to benefit from the plunder and control of others.

I support your last line.

But seriously, TERM LIMITS!

No, not unless you have a small group of like thinking people. Power corrupts, always. Only if you have leaders who have no desire to lead nor follow, but to act and allow other to act in best interest of self, which has never happened. Sad.

The gulch is changing the link text when saving it. replace the ' dot ' with . and the 'underscore' with _
www dot sfsfss dot com/stories/Robert_A.underscoreHeinleinunderscore-_Lost_Legacy.pdf

If that doesn't work, maybe this will:
http://www.sfsfss.com/stories/Heinlei...

Yes. My idea is to require a mandatory prefatory clause in every bill which cites the singular Constitutional authority under which that Bill will be executed (if passed). (This has the additional effect of providing an effective and simple challenge to any legislation. All a plaintiff has to do is show that the Constitutional authority claimed in the prefatory clause is bogus and the whole bill goes down in flames.)

A second idea is that which is already employed in many states: that the FULL text of any bill must be read in the presence of a quorum before debate may begin. If that were instituted in the House or Senate, you could kiss these "omnibus" bills goodbye.

The third would be to outlaw "reconciliation" bills. If the Senate passes a bill, the House has to vote on that bill as written. Same the other way. None of this nonsense where a committee gets to change the text of a bill and then only a slim majority are needed to pass it.

If we turn over the funding of Senators and Representatives to their States, you'll also get audits of their books. Whether or not they choose to reward their legislators with retirement packages would be up to them.

Historically speaking, of course, you are correct. The Federal Congress was never meant to be a full-time body nor was it meant to be comprised of "professional" politicians. I am in support of term limits for Congress.

Tattoos can be removed. The word LIAR branded onto their foreheads would be nice.

What is corrupt in it's design?