Needed Changes in the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution-Part Eight

Needed Changes in the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution-Part Eight

In lieu of the fact that the Vice-President Of The United States is no longer the de facto President Of The United States and it is instead the de facto Assistant President Of The United President, the United States Constitution needs to be amended to reflect that.

The VPOTUS should be renamed APOTUS. It should be a de jure (by law) an exclusively federal executive position. That position should not intersect between the federal executive and federal legislative branches of government. The VPOTUS should be designated specific oversight administrative responsibilities that should be defined in the US Constitution.

This change is necessary because the nation changed during and in the aftermath of the American Civil War. Before that war, the states were united as members of the nation known as the United States Of America.. After the war, the states became part of the indivisible nation also known as the United States Of America. The original role of the VPOTUS became outdated at that time. Therefore the change from VPOTUS to APOTUS and that office's responsibilities should be codified and made official.

The Selection Of The President Pro Tempore of the US Senate- Part Three

The Selection Of The President Pro Tempore of the US Senate- Part Three

The passage of the U.S. Constitution regarding this position:

[Article I, Section 3, Clause 5

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.]

Since the change of the American State and of federal government that took place after the American Civil War started, the President Pro Tempore position needs to change. Due to the fact the Vice-President Of The United States (VPOTUS) has changed its position completely, this would compel this temporary position into a permanent position. While it is currently a permanent position in practice, the manner in which this position is chosen must change.

The VPOTUS should no longer be President Of The US Senate. The VPOTUS should be purely an federal executive branch position. His/her responsibilities should not overlap into the federal legislative branch. The VPOTUS can nominate a candidate for the President Of The US Senate. Members of the US Senate need to confirm that nominee by a majority vote, provided all quorum limits are met.

The President Pro Tempore position should be abolished. At the same time, it is not compliant with the Representative ideal for the US Senate members to elect the permanent President Of The US Senate. Rather these members of the federal upper house legislative body just needs to provide confirmation of the VPOTUS choice for that position. By doing this, they have a stake in how that position is filled but they do not have a direct stake.

The VPOTUS must do the nomination of the President Of The US Senate because the VPOTUS is an elected official who has no involvement with the individual in that position. The POTUS should no do the nomination since he/she does have dealings with the US Senate.

Representative Democratic Model- Selectable Offices Part Thirty-One The Filling Of Vacancies For Federal Appellate Court Judges: The Filling Of Vacancies For Federal Appellate Court Judges:

Representative Democratic Model- Selectable Offices

PartThirty-One The Filling Of Vacancies For Federal Appellate Court Judges:

If a Federal Appellate Court Judge cannot complete that term for any reason (removal, retirement, resignation, or death), then the Federal House Speaker should appoint a Substitute Federal Appellate Court Judge to serve till the end of the next legislative session. If the term of the vacated judge expires by the time the next legislative session ends, the VPOTUS should nominate and the U.S. House Of Representatives should confirm another individual to serve as Federal Appellate Court Judge.

If the term of the vacated Federal Appellate Court Judge has not expired by the end of the next legislative session, the VPOTUS should unilaterally select the Acting Federal Appellate Court Judge who will serve till the end of that term. The Substitute Federal Appellate Court Judge is ineligible to serve as Acting Federal Appellate Court Judge.

He/she should be subject to nomination by the VPOTUS and then by confirmation by the U.S. House Of Representatives if he/she desires to remain on that bench upon completion of the term the vacated Federal Appellate Court Judge was scheduled to serve. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the Acting U.S. Appellate Court Judge becomes the U.S. Appellate Court Judge for the entire next new term.

The President or the federal legislatures should not get involved in the selection of an Acting U.S. Appellate Court Judge. It would demonstrate direct democratic mode as involvement by too many government bodies means too much political interference.

The choosing of any acting officeholder has to be more non-political than the choosing of an officeholder. An U.S. Appellate Court Judge, before serving the first term, should have to be both nominated and confirmed. However an individual initially serving as Acting U.S. Appellate Court Judge only needs to be selected by the VPOTUS to serve the remaining term of the vacated judge.

The Substitute Federal Appellate Court Judge is barred from serving as both Acting and as Actual Federal Appellate Court Judge. Otherwise the lack of this ban would precipitate Democratic Imperialism due to the fact centralization of power would result. An individual serving in multiple roles is considered Imperial Democratic Mode.

Allowing the Acting U.S. Appellate Court Judge to serve longer than the remaining term of the vacated Federal Appellate Court Judge without nomination and confirmation is also demonstrating Imperial Democratic Mode.

Cliff Notes Version: The Federal House Speaker chooses the substitute for the federal appellate court judge to serve till the end of the next legislative session. After that, if the term of the vacated Federal Appellate Court Judge has not expired, the Vice-President finds another individual to act as federal appellate court judge till the end of that term.

Only the VPOTUS should select the Acting U.S. Appellate Court Judge. The Acting Federal Appellate Court Judge can become the Federal Appellate Court Judge once he/she completes the vacated U.S. Appellate Court Judge's term and is both nominated by the VPOTUS and then confirmed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The choosing of any acting officeholder has to be more non-political than the choosing of an officeholder. Involvement from too many government bodies means direct democratic mode. This means too much political interference. However, insufficient involvement by government bodies breeds Imperial Democratic Mode.

Judges That Are To Be Nominated By Either The Governor Or The Vice-Governor

Representative Democratic Model- Selectable Offices Part Thirty-Five (Session Five)-

The Governor (state head executive) should nominate state trial court judges as well as the chief justice of the state appellate court that adjudicates civil cases of equity. The Vice-Governor (vice state head executive) should nominate appellate court judges as well as the chief justice of the state appellate court that adjudicates criminal cases of law.

However the Governor should be provided selection filters by the State Senate before he/she nominates the state trial court judges as well as the chief justice of the state appellate court that adjudicates civil cases of equity. The Vice-Governor should be provided selection filters by the State House of Delegates/Assemblymen before he/she nominates the state appellate court judges as well as the chief justice of the state appellate case that adjudicates criminal cases of law.

For the sake of separation of powers. The Chief Justice has too much power as he/she not only manages the court, he/she also gets to vote. A justice should do one or the other. No public officeholder should do both.

What is destroying America is dual role participation of government. Moreover due to the fact that the head executive (state or federal) should nominate both the trial court judges and the chief justice of one appellate court, he/she should not be allowed to nominate both the appellate court judges and the chief justice of the other appellate court.

Bizarre Story Of An Austrian- By Harsha Sankar

Written is a bizarre story of an Austrian. His father's birth name was Shicklgruber. His mother was a housekeeper. After quitting secondary studies, he was rejected by Vienna School of the Arts twice and blamed the Jewish administration. For next five years he slept on street corners and in shelters. He then left for Munich. For over a year he had an outdoor mural doing water coloring, paintings,and sculptures. .

He joined the Bavarian Infantry Unit as the Great War broke out. Despite  huge demand for NCO's in the Kaiser's Army, he was only promoted to lance corporal. He blamed his Jewish superior. Participating in many battles, he was badly wounded twice and was thus awarded the Iron Cross. 

After the European Dynasties ended, the Man of Destiny would begin. Newly appointed as spy, he infiltrated political meetings. He learned about Eastern traditions. He quit eating meat, believing killing of animals was wrong. He would incorporate the Hindu word "Aryan" and Hindu symbol, the Swastika. 

Discharged from the military, the 30 year old was a "stray dog looking for a new master". He joined the German Worker's Party (DAP). Asked to give a brief talk, he soon became its spokesman. A year after that, he became its head executive. The party was renamed National Socialist DAP. Detractors called it "Nazi". 

 

Many Germans blamed Jewish international financial capitalists and Communist Jews for their plight. He and his party voiced their concerns. Two years later his party tried to overthrow the Bavarian state government from a pub. During his prison time,the maid's son wrote a book which became, next to The Holy Bible, the world's best-seller. It warned all humanity.

After seven years of endless campaigning, his party had yet to make mainstream impact. During the Depression, they made great strides, becoming the biggest party in Germany. The violent vagabond from Vienna stood election and lost significantly twice against Hindenberg, a junker of Prussian honor. However the aging President named this recent recipient of German citizenship as Chancellor, the No.2 man in that nation's government.

 

The art school reject quietly exterminated democracy and human rights. After Hindenburg died, the man of peasant stock expedited tyranny. The beer joint rebel consolidated his office with that of President. The non-German would be retitled "The Leader" throughout the Fatherland. 

   

     In 1913, he left Austria a tramp. Quarter century later, he came back a ruler, annexing that nation into the Third Reich. A few years later, once deemed not fit to lead privates in his last military stint, the high school dropout would now command a highly mechanized eight million man military. The former homeless man had nearly an entire continent, the northern part of another, and one-fifth (400 million) of world's population under his rule.

 

The once fringe politician and street corner orator had the whole world gasping for breath. 30 months later, the miracles ran out. The Supreme Warlord only had a bunker to rule. More than anyone else, this lover of animals was responsible for a war that killed 60 million people. The WWI war hero's cowardly suicide took place on a paganistic satanic holiday

Reviled as the darkest figure in human history, the name of this genocidal psychopath was Adolph Hitler.

Harsha Sankar

908 Valley Ridge Road

Covington,Virginia 24426

The Renaming Of India To Bharat: Causes And Effects

There has been debate in the nation of India that its name should be changed to Bharat. It appears that India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi has addressed this to the parliament of that nation.

Naturally may believe that this name change is a racist measure that favors Hindu Nationalism. But does it really? The following that is cited must be taken into consideration.

"The term "Hindu" traces back to Old Persian which derived these names from the Sanskrit name Sindhu (सिन्धु), referring to the river Indus. The Greek cognates of the same terms are "Indus" (for the river) and "India" (for the land of the river)"- Wikipedia.

This Wikipedia reference clearly indicates that India and Hindu have the same root morphology. Therefore India is more associated with Hindu than Bharat is. This reference also cites that Hindu is derived from Sindh and Indus. Two of the first Indian civilizations, Harappa and Mahenjo Daro, were in that region. Because Sindh and the Indus River are now in Independent Pakistan and not Independent India, this name change to Bharat seems to be viable and more appropriate.

The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharatam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata. —Vishnu Purana (2. 3. 1) (Ancient Hindu scripture)

The preceding phrase, while stipulated in Ancient Hindu Scripture, has nothing to do with the descendants' religion. Hinduism itself is not a religion. It is a heritage of a people from the country of Bharatam. The Old Testament of The Holy Bible can also be described as a heritage with all its folklore and parables. Both Christianity and Islams are both faith-based, however, and are considered religions due to its core principles and edicts.

In lieu of the foregoing, Bharat refers to a specific geographical land mass from the Indian Ocean in the south to the snowy mountains in the Himalayas and even in those bordering the Afghanistan regions. That describes the Indian sub-continent today.

In the last decades of the 18th century, the British started to refer to that sub-continent as India as the British East India Company had extensive land holdings in South Asia, including the Indus Valley. The name stuck. The name India furthermore received more permanence when that sub-continent became an official colony of the British Empire in 1857. That colony was called British India. While Sindh, the Indus Valley, and the Indus River were part of British India and also previously of the British East Indian Company, they have never been part of Independent India. Hence one reason why today's India would want to be renamed.

So as India is now rapidly trying to remove the colonialist yoke of the British Empire from its nation, would it not be appropriate to rename itself as Bharat? After all, nearly all non-Hindus (one-fifth of India's population) in that nation are viewed as descendants of Bharata and thus hail from Bharatam. The religion/faith, or lack thereof, of any of its people is not a factor. Due to the fact that the name Bharat is far more an irreligious name than India, perhaps this name change is in order.

Representative Republic Ideals-Secondary Features (The United States Senate"s Approval Of Treaties With Foreign Entities)

All prospective legislation for domestic purposes has to originate in the lower house (House Of Representatives). All prospective legislation that deal with all foreign matters, including ratification of treaties, should be approved by the upper house (The U.S. Senate) with a simple majority. Presently a 2/3rds majority vote by the U.S. Senate for treaties with foreign entities is required as cited in the U.S. Constitution. This requirement of voting percentage must change.

The reason for this needed change is simple. The federal government became the sovereign government authority in the aftermath of the American Civil War. This change was designed to make the federal government much more effective and act with much more unison in implementing both foreign and even domestic policy. Therefore ratification of any treaties with foreign entities should only require approval by a simple majority of the U.S. Senate, provided quorum limits are met.

Population-Based Democracy Vs. Area-Based Democracy-(Part Sixteen)

Population-Based Democracy Vs. Area-Based Democracy-(Part Sixteen)

Members of the United States House Of Representatives should be elected by the electoral vote process.

Members of a state delegates/assemblypersons in every state should be elected by the electoral vote process.

Members of the United States Senate for each state should be chosen by the legislatures in each state.

Members of the state senate in each state should be chosen by the legislatures in every locality.

The reason for this is simple. The people who are supposed to be generally sovereign have their electorate choose (elect) members of both the state and federal lower legislative houses. They do this via electoral voting and not by direct voting.

However in the choosing (selection) of members of both the state and federal upper legislative houses, the local and state legislatures should make this choosing (selection) of these state and federal upper legislative houses respectively.

The reason for this difference is the state and federal upper legislative houses should not be extensions of the state and federal lower legislative houses respectively. In order to protect the sovereignty of the People, its electorate must not be given the unbridled authority and responsibility to make the choosing of lawmakers in both houses at both levels. That is too direct democratic and that panders to the "Winds Of Populism".

The core tenant of the protection of People's sovereignty is the protection of rights of the individual(s) except when public safety is at stake and when basic general welfare needs have to be maintained. That is why the choosing of state and federal upper house legislative members must be different than how state and federal lower house legislative are chosen.

It must be noted that in a Representative Democratic Republic mode, sovereign entities do not always do the choosing of public office holders. As a matter of fact, head executives of local governments are chosen by officeholders of subordinate and inferior authority. Federal and state senators must also be chosen by officeholders who have subordinate and inferior authority.

The only difference, in this choosing of local head executives and state and federal upper legislative house members by those of subordinate/inferior authority, is that local legislatures choose its own head executives while state and federal senators are chosen by legislators at a different level.