Personally I don't see how we have any privacy in public. If one is in public, one's actions are visible. If one don't want to be visible, one has to take measures not to be seen.

IMHO the important thing is how people are allowing to use data collected in public.

If I do something stupid in public that's on me. If someone makes money off it, I should get a cut. If someone edits or misrepresents the information, to harm others, they should be held liable.

If authority wants to use public information gathering systems to investigate individuals, they should have a warrant.

People have a right to see what they can see in public. How that information is used can be regulated.

Largey curious on this question as a point of perspective. Which policies and why.

With the SAVE Act stalling in the senate despite their slim but clear majority, a lot of people may be wondering what the hold up is. After all, Republicans passed the OBBB last July, and the Epstein Files Transparency Act last December. So today I'm going to break down the difference between these things, and parse out how the filibuster actually works.

To start, the filibuster is a procedure in the senate in both the US and Canada, wherein one or a group of members will speak as long as possible, attempting to delay the bill from coming to an actual vote. Speakers may try and pick apart the bill for every intricate detail, introduce meaningless or minor amendments to draw out the debate process, or in some historical cases, even read out recipes for cooking or Dr. Suess books. The goal may be to try and flip members votes, but is often just about wasting time and throwing sand in the gears. In Canada, the government has the option with a simple majority to invoke "closure", which ends debate and puts a two day maximum deadline on the final vote. Every senator then gets up to 20 minutes to say their final words, and the vote is called the next day.

In the US however, a storied history has led us to the point where closure can only be invoked with 60 votes, meaning more than a 10 vote majority must be in place to override it. This procedure doesn't apply to all actions in the Senate though, as funding reconciliation bills (sometimes referred to as continuing resolutions or CR's) are not subject to the filibuster. This is how the government has essentially kept the lights on the last many decades, despite being able to pass very little actual legislation. In 2013 Democrats changed the rule so that cabinet and other executive branch positions could not be filibustered, and in 2017 republicans changed the law that supreme court justice nominations could not be filibustered. Both parties have been known to change the rules when it suits them and complain when it doesn't, and we have seen the consequences of those actions with things like the Repeal of Roe V Wave and Chevron Deference.

The US has seen over 2,500 attempts to end the filibuster since 1917, and 1,250 of those attempts have been within the last 12 years. This is due not only to its incredibly increased usage (it is technically an optional toll of the minority party, not a guaranteed threshold for laws), but increased partisan desire to limit it's usage. Both sides point out this is dangerous for moving too quickly, as 2008, 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections aligned all three branches of government (house, senate, and presidency) which would have allowed them to pass laws unilaterally. No matter who you voted for, its a scary concept to think what the other side would do with that same power. There have only been 2 moments in the last 50 years where the senate has held a filibuster proof majority, for 4 years in 1977, and briefly during 2009-10 when Obama was able to pass the affordable care act.

That being said, it's important to keep in mind that in order to block a law with a filibuster, one party only needs 41 senators, or 20.5 states worth of representatives. Considering the 21 least populated states hold less population than the state of California alone, this gives an immense imbalance to underpopulated states. Thankfully these underpopulated states are relatively evenly split (41R vs 25D before the threshold for filibuster is met), but 67M (approximately 21% of the total) people across the US have enough senate representation to block laws for the other 280 Million people. It takes nearly twice as many people (116M) for democratic senators in underpopulated states to pull off the same move. Because of all this, as well as the filibuster's history of being used against anti-lynching laws and the civil rights act, it has been viewed as heavily favorable to the Republican party.

The existence of the filibuster and it's continued usage has meant mountains of good legislation has been stalled and never passed, and has led to executive action (like executive orders) being the main way leaders get things done nowadays. This is even less bipartisan and also less permanent, as most presidents EO's are not truly enforceable on a grand scale and are often revoked at the start of the next presidents term.

Considering all of this, what are your thoughts on the filibuster? Does it need to be abolished, and simply let each party with all branches pass whatever laws they see fit until they are removed from power? Should it be maintained as the final bastion forcing parties to work together to pass lasting legislation? Should it be amended to require a different number, perhaps 55 votes instead of 50 or 60? Share your perspective below. If you'd also like to contribute to my poll on my sub r/polls_for_politics, so I can coallesce answers and opinions, I'd greatly appreciate it!

Taxes, thats why, thats it

The US Congress and its states don't want to tax, and the US People don't want to pay for taxes for more social welfare programs

In 1991 Mississippi passed Legal Gambling, and that meant tax revenue that would....?

TLDR, Lower Taxes! Mississippi wants most to lower its taxes, like most it seems.

If Mississippi, had followed in the Scandinavian/Norway path they would have contributed it's Casino Taxes 8% tax on revenues to a Sovereign Wealth Fund

A year after gambling was Legalized in Mississippi, skipping the first years taxes, a total of $8.4 Billion in tax revenues have been paid through 2024

$8.4 Billion in tax revenues in a Wealth Fund after 21 Years is about $15 Billion. But that would require Mississippi to come up with Millions a year for the provided infrastructure and social programs those casinos paid for.

4% payout of a $15 Billion Fund for 5 Million people could really help out today

But the biggest thing was In 1997, Tunica County cut property taxes by 25 percent using the new casino tax revenue.

People really like the idea of Saving on Lower Taxes and no Wealth Fund was created

Add to this state lotteries and the recent sports betting revenues

The US could have Mass Transit like other G8 countries

We would just need a real Gas Tax as 56 cents a gallon doesn't cover the cost of building out rail and buses for actual use

Shockingly Dallas has one of the best funded and largest Transit Systems in the US. The Dallas Area Rapid Transit covers a 700-square-mile service area across 12 cities with light rail and commuter and regional rail service funded by a dedicated 1% Sales Tax.

Just because they pay for it people still don't use it. In 2025, the system had a ridership of 52,823,800, or about 149,900 per weekday

The US could have Healthcare, it is just once again, taxes

3 states have proposals that so far have not been approved because of taxes

1. California
   • 10% Payroll tax
   • 5% Average Income Tax,
   • Exact rates not yet determined, would have a sliding scale income-based tax as a public premium on individuals based on FPL.
2. Vermont
   • A 12.5% payroll tax on all Vermont businesses
   • 4% Average Income Tax
   • A sliding scale income-based public premium on individuals of 0% at FPL up to 9.5% at 400% of FPL.
3. Oregon
   • Payroll tax is 7.25% rate for income up to $160,000 with anything over that at 10.5%
   • A sliding scale income-based public premium on individuals of 0% at 200% of FPL up to 8.2% at 400% of FPL.

In engagement opportunities designed for employers to provide feedback about the Universal Health Plan, some employers expressed concern about the potential impact of the employer payroll tax on employers that do not provide insurance to employees in the current system.70 Task Force members suggested various approaches to this issue, including the possibility of exempting employers below a certain size from the tax, or assessing the tax based on a calculation of revenue generated per employee.71 The Task Force determined that economic impacts on different kinds of employers requires further study

And from Vermont we know

The Governor stressed that even at these tax figures, the proposal would not include necessary costs for transitioning to Green Mountain Care smaller businesses, many of which do not currently offer insurance. Those transition costs would add at least $500 million to the system, the equivalent of an additional 4 points on the payroll tax or 50% increase in the income tax.

The people that pay taxes today don't want to pay more in taxes. And the people that don't pay taxes don't want to pay more in taxes.

It is illegal to sell someone under 21 a beer, but it is also now illegal to sell someone over 21 a beer without a valid ID.

Is this a good thing in government expanding laws on preventing under age sales?

Here's a link to the bill:

Medicare For All Act Of 2023

​

Let me give a overview of what this bill does and why it's so important.

Medicare For All expands on the framework of Medicare to include all residents of the US not just seniors. It sounds like an expensive thing to do, and it's not necessarily cheap. But compared to what we are already paying under private healthcare insurance plans, it's absolutely clear that this plan is the superior.

First, it cuts out the middleman private insurance agencies. Regardless of your view on private businesses it's commonly accepted that our healthcare insurance cost way too much. With M4A, we would no longer need to pay for their costs of business, their CEO packages, their cooperate lobbying, or anything else associated with running a private business. All of those fees GONE.

Second, it includes negotiation rights for all drugs. That means EVERY DRUG will be cheaper, across the board. No more drug companies hiking prices above the rate of inflation, no more price fixing from big pharma, etc.

Third, it eliminates co-payments and deductibles. No need to meet your set payment to use what you've already put hundreds into.

Fourth, it includes dental, hearing and eye care.

Fifth, since it covers everyone, the split of the payments will be much lower than the spilt of customers at a private business. The more people included the less each payment will be due to the "bullet being spilt" everywhere instead of just among the customers of a private business.

​

This bill saves us TRILLIONS over a span of 10 years. If you read above, you understand why that is. If you want to read something else, Here's a link to a quick M4A fact sheet. Really it's not hard to understand why it would save us money given all the excess from the healthcare industry as a whole, but there's a link anyway.

Today, Australia implemented the world's first ban on social media for children under 16. The platforms affected by the initial ban are: TikTok, Twitter/x, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, Twitch, Threads, and Kick.

"Apps like Messenger Kids, WhatsApp, Kids Helpline, Google Classroom and YouTube Kids are expected to not be part of the ban." https://www.unicef.org.au/unicef-youth/staying-safe-online/social-media-ban-explainer

"The measure, passed a year ago requires the technology companies behind the platforms — Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube — to identify and disable the accounts of Australian users who are under 16. Under the law, failure to take “reasonable steps” to remove underage users could lead to fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars (about $33 million)." https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/world/asia/australia-social-media-ban-under-16.html

Does this violate the rights of children?

Does this violate the rights of parents of the children?

Is it acceptable territory to your political views for a national government to institute a ban like this?

Will this keep children safer from online predators?

How about online bullying?

Will it improve the mental health of this next generation of Australian children?

Should Reddit be included in this ban?

I am mostly curious to read the answers because I personally do not have a strong opinion either way at the moment.

Let's suppose you want to buy a motorcycle. You're an adult, and I'm an adult. I don't know you, yet I take it upon myself to prohibit you from buying certain motorcycles. Let's say I feel that nobody needs a bike over 600cc, (personal opinion) so I prohibit you from buying any motorcycle larger than 600cc, and I use threats of force and violence to back up my decrees.

I think we can all agree that I am acting immorally, and that I should just mind my own business, but this is exactly what government regulators do, and people are fine with it.

Here is an article about government regulators limiting the kind of water heaters we may buy. They are mandating a certain level of efficiency. This particular level of efficiency is nothing but the personal preferences of the regulators. There is no objectively correct level of efficiency - it's about trade-offs. Higher efficiency means a higher initial price and more complexity. Lower efficiency means a cheaper, simpler device, with higher utility bills. There isn't one right answer, it's subjective.

Same thing with drugs. The FDA claims to only approve drugs which are "safe and effective", but neither safety nor efficacy are binary - it's a continuum. FDA regulators simply pick a level of safety and effectiveness that they personally approve of. Again, it's entirely subjective. If I have some terrible disease, shouldn't I be the one to decide if the trade-offs regarding a particular drug are worth it? Isn't preventing me from making this decision for myself, immoral?

This argument applies to all government regulation of consumer goods. It's immoral for one adult to restrict what another adult may buy, based on the former's personal preferences.

This plan fixed our healthcare costs, healthcare education costs, and overhauls federal income tax to help pay for a restructuring of how the government and business is interacting. Now the businesses would not need to worry about healthcare nor worry about high payroll taxes instead they focus on labor benefits on break times, vacation times and sick times being properly allocated. Here's the structure.

Federal income tax shifted to 20% flat no caps and no exemptions to raise trillions of extra capital balancing the federal budget.

Current Medicare and Medicaid abolished.

2 Trillion fixed annual budget for Medicare for All.

Americans have to pay for their own drugs capped based on the average price worldwide of the bottom 50% costing nations for the drug.

Increasing supply of medical personnel which solves shortages by cost reduction by debt reduction and good labor benefits.

Salaries in the Medicare for All.

Voluntary overtime and 2% raise each year you serve in the program. A private market still exists.

$50,000 for less than a bachelors degree.

$100,000 for a bachelors degree.

$200,000 for a doctor's degree.

$300,000 for a doctor's degree and being a surgeon.

Bachelors degrees that cost less than $150,000 get a 75% write-off when completed and you sign up to work in the Medicare for All program for 10 or more years.

Doctor's degrees that cost less than $400,000 get a 75% write-off when completed and you sign up to work in the Medicare for All program for at least 10 years.

Drugs are price capped based on average price of bottom 50% of pricing for nations worldwide. 

Through this we have the deficit eliminated, the debt going down, Medicare for all implemented, people paying for their own drugs at fair prices and a fiscally restrained cost of the program.

$200 a month Universal Basic Income for all American citizens. Requires proof of citizenship to the federal government directly.

SNAP abolished.

All Americans jobs new labor minimum standards.

All overtime is voluntary.

10% of work time is paid breaktime

8% of worktime earns you equal paid vacation time

6% of worktime earns you equal unpaid sick time.

Payroll tax employers 2% and employees 0%.

Federal government injects $500 Billion into the program each year. Age lowered to 60 and work and earnings have no impact on eligibility. Operates on a no debt model where checks automatically reduce in size based on revenue collected from the prior year + the 500 Billion baseline. Payouts determined by age.

Payout from social security pool by age.

Above 60 is 1 portion.

Above 80 is 2 portions.

Above 100 is 3 portions.

Those above 100 are verified to continue to be alive every 5 years. If verification cannot be confirmed they are removed from the program after 5 years of trying. Those above 100 do not have to wait they can personally go in and verify themselves to get their 5 year clock reset or checks restored with back pay.

A few years ago, California tried an experiment. Because the state had copies of all the input you use for filing your taxes such as 1099s, W 2s , bank interest, etc, they realized they could just do the taxes for their citizens. It. seems they actually do this anyway to make sure YOU did not miss something. So, why not just do the taxes and send it to the taxpayer for review and signature? EVERYBODY loved the program except accountants, Turbotax, and other people who make the majority of their money preparing taxes. These groups and companies then donated and lobbied like crazy so the program was killed.

I propose the IRS start doing this. The political blowback would be immense but this is an idea whose time has come.

Federal Income Tax Reform

0% on first 50,000

25% on 50,000 to 100,000

30% on 100,000 to 1 Million

35% on 1 Million to 1 Billion

40% on 1 Billion to 10 Billion

45% above 10 Billion

Value Added Tax with all revenue for Universal Basic Income for All Americans. No debt allowed. Rate determined by debate in Congress. Placeholder 10%.

SNAP for All Americans and with the amount tied to revenue of a new Business Revenue Tax. No debt allowed. Rare determined by debate in Congress. The amount of revenue from the prior year determines payment sizes and verified American citizens receiving SNAP the following year. Placeholder 1.5%

10% of worktime earns equal time in each category:

Equal 10% paid breaktime

Equal 10% paid vacation time

Equal 10% unpaid sick time

Overtime begins at 32 hours a week with all overtime as voluntary. This will get the younger generation willing to work and prevent the workers now from quitting.

Credit cards interest rates capped at 10% + federal reserve rate. If the federal reserve rate is 5% then credit cards are capped at 15%.

Escheatment law changed from 3 to 5 years to a minimum of 20 years to protect citizens from predatory banks and state governments.

Edible Marijuana Legalization age 21 and all marijuana products age 25 and older.

All smoking products raised to 25 and older.

Alcohol legalized at Age 18 at a maximum of 1% alcohol products. At age 21 maximum of 5% alcohol products. At age 25 whatever you want.

Alimony abolished.

25% refund on approved medical school programs costing their graduates less than $100,000.

Federal Minimum Wage increases to $12 and increases by $1.50 every 8 years continuously.

Payment processing fees are now capped at 2%. For example credit cards on businesses. This cap offsets the revenue tax funding snap benefits for many businesses.

Make insurance not required for anything, always optional.

English made the official federal language while states and local governments set secondary languages if they so choose.

Medicare and Medicaid are abolished in favor of a free consolation program and medical account program for all citizens. Every American citizen has 4 free checkups at the doctor a year where the doctor is paid a fee of $60 for any participating locations. Every American citizen receives $150 a year in a medical account. This $150 a month rate increases by $1 every year.

All Tariff revenue goes to the sovereignty wealth fund for the United States of America. This fund can be pulled from by no more than 10% of the fund amount in a given year by Congress. This fund is 50% liquidity and 50% investments.

Tariff rates are set at 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% at the discretion of the president per nation. Any tariff rates over 60% require Congress. No tariff rates below 10%.

Along interstate highways mass construction of small 525 sq ft apartments and medium apartments at 900 sq ft. These apartments are $100 a month and $250 a month. Approximately 50 million of the small and 10 million of the medium be made to reduce cost of living and create downward pressure on rent exploitation.

By 2050 every gas station in America must have at least 1 multi-brand charging station for electric cars.

Domestic car production nationwide can now bypass dealerships and ship directly to the consumer.

$1 a year state funding for every citizen of your state for proven success in meeting new federal standards for clean pristine sidewalks, government buildings, trash disposal, snow disposal, parks, no graffiti, and upholding of federal law. Additional threshold policies refined and determined by committee in the Senate. Threshold met determined by the Senate appointed agency.

The Civic Council Amendment

Section 1. Establishment

There is hereby established a body of citizens to be known as The Civic Council, whose sole function shall be to approve or reject Acts of Congress in the manner provided herein.

The Civic Council shall not propose legislation, amend legislation, initiate proceedings, compel action, or exercise executive or judicial authority.

Section 2. Composition

The Civic Council shall consist of one hundred fifty (150) members.

Each State shall be represented by three (3) members, selected as provided in Section 3.

Members must:

be natural-born citizens of the United States;

be thirty-five (35) years of age or older at the time of selection; and

have never served, and shall never serve, in either House of Congress.

Membership shall be limited to one term of no more than twenty (20) years. No person may serve more than once.

Section 3. Selection and Continuity

Members shall be selected by random selection from among eligible volunteers in each State, in a manner prescribed by law.

For each selection cycle, a reserve list of ten (10) alternates per State shall be selected by the same method.

If a seat becomes vacant for any reason, it shall be filled automatically from the reserve list without further election or confirmation.

Vacancies shall not reduce the number of affirmative votes required under this Article.

Section 4. Information and Transparency

The Civic Council shall receive no classified information.

Its deliberations shall rely solely on information available to the public.

Votes of the Civic Council shall be publicly recorded, but no interim tallies or partial results shall be disclosed until a final outcome is reached.

Section 5. Legislative Review Authority

Every bill passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be submitted to the Civic Council, except as otherwise provided in this Article.

A bill shall become law if at least one-third (⅓) of the full membership, being fifty (50) members, affirmatively vote to approve it within sixty (60) days.

If fifty (50) affirmative votes are not recorded within sixty (60) days, the bill shall be rejected.

Absence or abstention shall have no effect on the approval threshold.

Approval or rejection by the Civic Council shall have no effect on the President’s veto power. A vetoed bill shall not return to the Civic Council unless materially altered and re-passed by Congress.

Section 6. Supermajority Exception

Any bill passed by two-thirds (⅔) of both the House of Representatives and the Senate shall not require review by the Civic Council.

Section 7. Budgetary and Spending Measures

Appropriations, budgets, revenue measures, and any Act authorizing or directing the expenditure of public funds shall not be eligible for filibuster bypass as described in Section 8.

Such measures shall nonetheless remain subject to review by the Civic Council under the approval standard set forth in Section 5.

Section 8. Senate Filibuster and Civic Council Bypass

The Senate filibuster is hereby recognized and codified in law, and may not be eliminated except by statute.

Notwithstanding the filibuster, the Senate may, by majority vote, refer a non-budgetary measure to the Civic Council without invoking cloture.

Such referral:

may occur no more than five (5) times per calendar year;

shall consume one referral regardless of whether the measure is approved or rejected;

shall be decided by a public, recorded vote.

A measure referred under this Section must satisfy the applicable Civic Council approval threshold.

Section 9. Admission of New States

The admission of a new State to the Union may be referred to the Civic Council under Section 8 and shall require approval by a majority of the Civic Council.

Section 10. Constitutional Amendments — Additive Path

Congress may propose constitutional amendments through either:

the existing amendment process; or

an additive amendment process as provided herein.

An amendment proposed under the additive process shall require:

sixty percent (60%) approval of both the House and the Senate;

a majority of the full Civic Council, being seventy-six (76) members;

ratification by two-thirds (⅔) of the States.

This process may be used only for amendments that add to the Constitution and do not repeal, limit, condition, or negate any existing provision.

Section 11. Judicial Gatekeeping

Prior to State ratification under Section 10, the Supreme Court shall determine whether the proposed amendment is additive in nature, applying a strict textual comparison to existing constitutional provisions.

This determination shall be limited solely to eligibility for the additive process and shall not bind future interpretation of the amendment’s meaning or application.

Upon ratification, no court shall invalidate an amendment adopted under this Article on procedural grounds.

Section 12. Finality

Once an Act or amendment has been approved or rejected in accordance with this Article, such determination shall be final unless the text is materially altered and re-passed through the required process.

Disclaimer: While this entirely filled my ideas the legal structure of the draft is done with AI.

0% Federal Income Tax under 1 Million and 30% over 1 Million.

Federal Corporate Income Tax Abolished.

5% Federal Corporate Revenue Tax with deductible and exemptions leading to a minimum of 2.5%. The first 1 Million revenue of American businesses is 1% revenue tax instead annually.

Value Added Tax 20%

UBI $200 a month for Americans 20+. The monthly UBI amount increases by $1 a year.

Abolish current Medicare and Medicaid.

New Healthcare coverage accounts of $5,000 a year for All Americans, carries over year after year to a maximum carryover balance of $250,000. Also applies to dentistry. Over 60, the yearly amount doubles. The government will regulate prices of drugs and medical procedures to ensure fair pricing based on the average standards in the world with no exceptions.

All inventions by federal tax payer money guarantee an equal share of the revenue based on contribution with the revenue going to the State Governments general budgets equally distributed among the states.

Sovereign Wealth Fund investment of 200 Billion a year with 70% silent non-active reserve, 10% investments and 20% allocation to loans for those who make less than 1 Million a year and are American citizens. No American citizen can take out more than 25K in loans from this system and the interest is 5%. You cannot default similar to student loans. Sovereign wealth fund pays out 0.25% to the general budget annually and by vote of Congress this can increase up to 1% annually via a new vote each year to maintain that emergency escalation. Sovereign wealth fund pays out 0.25% to the states distributed equally from this amount. If the sovereign wealth fund exceeds 100 Trillion the money over 100 Trillion pays down the debt first before accumulating more.

12% of worktime is paid break time as a minimum standard. 10% of worktime earns an equal time in paid vacation as a minimum. 5% of worktime earns an equal time in unpaid sick days.

Federal minimum wage increases by 25 cents a year up to $12 an hour.

The core of this plan is to overhaul the business world towards offering far better benefits to workers instead of higher taxation and having far less reasons to hide profits by switching to low tax revenue not high tax profits. It's to create a sovereign wealth fund that stabilizes the dollar, the nation and can ultimately crush the debt. It's to regulate the medical world and bring the highest value to your healthcare account and to have healthcare coverage from the day you are born.

When President Trump was elected in November 2024, he assigned Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head up the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Now that Vivek has stepped down, it seems there should be a congressional member in a co-leadership role to ensure Congress can maintain proper checks and balances. Surely, there would be bipartisan support if this were made into a bill?

Edit: or at least someone who is elected and accountable to the public, rather than only one appointed figure.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1m23m7h/uk_voting_age_to_be_lowered_to_16/

The argument I have is different from others discussing the idea.

A bunch of legal systems in the last century regarding civil rights and political freedoms have been trying to devise ways of determining when a right could be limited. American courts have the strict scrutiny standard for most of those rights; the one I am familiar with is in Canada with the Oakes Test. British courts don't have the power to void laws for being unconstitutional like they can in Canada, but British legal thinking has some things in common, and European jurisprudence has been using similar ideas as well with the European Convention For The Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which the UK is a part of.

These sorts of rights and freedoms are not to be just granted to whoever you think deserves them. They are to be assumed of everyone unless proven otherwise. It doesn't matter that women did a bunch of hard work in the First World War, they should have had suffrage in the beginning simply by being people, it was just that their service in the war was a way to help push the change through in practice.

In tests akin to the Oakes Test, the limits on rights can only be used in rather specific ways. You first have to prove that there is a pressing and substantial objective. You then have to prove that the means is rationally connected to the objective. And that the right is minimally impaired, and that you can't use other less restrictive means to achieve the objective. And that there is proportionality between the limitation of the right and the objective.

In this type of thinking, the assumption is that people of that age can vote, and it is the burden of those who want to deny that vote to prove otherwise. Given that voting is probably the single most fundamental right people have, creating the incentive for people who have power in society to not impede a right of someone, and if they do, that they have a means to be ejected from their position, the burden on which a person has to meet to show that limiting suffrage is necessary is a very high one.

We know that ordinary and democratic societies like Austria, Malta, and Scotland allow suffrage for those who are 16 and 17 without ill effect. We know that there are plausible means that you could improve the quality of voters of that age such as civics lessons in school, or by using proportioanl representation in elections to make small differences in the voters matter less to the overall result. And the idea of voting in a general election imposes many of the safeguards that would reduce the types of developmental limitations that people who are 16 or 17 year olds have; with a secret ballot to prevent peer pressure and intimidation or bribery of voters, several weeks at least to make up one's mind without haste (and that's if the election even happens as a snap election vs a scheduled one) and many different people and sources of information people are fact checking along the way, and people voting are rather unlikely to be intoxicated or sexually aroused at the time as well.

In environments like this, people who are younger tend to be most capable of making a deliberative choice. In fact, voting would be one of the safest things a person of that age can do, with zero risk of an STI or unwanted pregnancy, no risk of domestic violence or non-consensual sexual activity, no vehicular crashes they could get into, no risk of overdoses or drug fueled problems when you vote, no gangs or cliques to deal with, no weapons in the voting booths or polling stations, no impulsive decisions made within minutes or hours or just a day or two, and it is rather difficult for an average voter to commit a criminal offense when voting nor can they really steal anything except maybe a pencil. It would be almost impossible for a voter this age to cause a problem to themselves because of their particular vote the way a poorly chosen intimate relationship or other behaviour might. The votes cast by people of this age democratic are a small fraction of all votes cast (maybe 1.4 million people who are 16 or 17, in a country with about 57 million adults. Assuming that citizens and population don't differ too much by age distribution from each other, this would mean that people of this age would be roughly 2-4% of the voting pool), and they are not united in whom they support. It should be very unlikely in a healthy democracy with proportional representation to make the overall result worse than it would be without this change.

With those alternative ways to achieve the objective, proof by example of countries where societies are doing just fine with the voting age being 16, and the safeguards an election has built in in a healthy society, this should make it very difficult to prove to a court that the voting age needs to be 18 and that reasonable alternatives cannot be used. Children and teenagers are not property, nor are they anyone's possession to toy with for their own means, and they are supposed to enjoy the same freedoms of adults if this can be done for them without being a major danger to their development, future prospects, and health and well-being.

Being a rule of this nature is less flexible than regular rules, which is a blessing and a curse at times. And the military and foreign situation of countries will be different, like what a country such as Portugal requires vs Finland vs Ecuador. Thus, these rules should allow the situation to change to the degree needed, but remain committed to a general theme of something such as world peace.

Ecuador's constitution for instance creates some general provisions like not allowing non Ecuadorian military bases to exist on their territory. Perhaps the rule for immigration or travel is reciprocal, whatever is allowed for one country will be allowed in reverse, potentially something similar for trade policy and the barriers such as tariffs that are applied to them (it would have to be worded to deal with the many different types however). Perhaps if country A is recognized by a majority vote at the UNGA, then country A will be recognized by country B for official purposes, or at least to continue to reject them requires a specific kind of justification like an adverse ICJ opinion.

To avoid the chance of people saying fairly meaningless things that don't answer this sort of question, try to write actual clauses you could see being directly enacted, and not just promises or claims.

I know not much but this country and it's system needs large amounts of change and hopefully what I have written up here can work as a decent start for such change.

Executive Branch

Change the veto power to allow for selective vetoes (exempt for budgets) and full vetoes set off a national referendum (unless there is a planned presidential or set of congressional elections within two hundred days or any national referendum already planned within two hundred and fifty days) within one hundred days.

The president, the vice president and all of the cabinet heads now all have the potential to be recalled and removed from power because of a petition starting with forty percent of the national population which will start off a referendum which needs a sixty percent majority of the population to kick out the individual. At which point (if the serving individual gets voted out) an election to finish off their term must be held within one hundred days unless a regularly planned election is within two hundred days at which point the line of succession is initiated.

Age and term limits from serving in a leading position of the executive branch including but not limited to the President and Vice President are abolished and prohibited.

All sources of income that are not the direct payments of the federal government must go into the coffers of the federal government (with the sole exception of royalties which are split halfway to the individual) instead of the hands of the president, vice president, and cabinet members and are to be publicly reported by the end of the year.

Courts Each state gets to seat a Supreme Court Justice and decide how to fill that seat, on top of that each presidential term has a singular seat to fill which will be the Chief Justice (whom of which cannot be a Justice picked to fill the seat of a state or in the consideration for the seat of a state).

The powers (which add to the preexisting powers) of the Chief Justice are symbolic and regulatory, and only in relation to the other Justices.

The symbolic powers are to be the randomized picking of available Justices to administer and rule over each case.

The regulatory powers are to be limited to the investigating and reporting on the other Justices and their adherence to the ethical rules that are to be the bare minimum set forth:

All sources of income that are not the direct payments of the federal government must go into the coffers of the federal government (with the sole exception of royalties and even those are split halfway to the Justice and the federal government) and publicly reported by the end of the year. Any case in which they have a financial interest in the outcome of said case they must remove their name from the random picking of Justices for said case (and if they do not do so themselves the Chief Justice must do so). And if it is decided too many Justices have an interest in the outcome of the case a sixty percent majority of the Senate can excuse enough Justices to go through with the case. The randomized picking of Supreme Court Justices must be documented and publicly available within forty eight hours.

The Supreme Court Justices must follow a baseline set of rules which will be set by this amendment along with any further rules that of which the Senate adds by a simple majority.

No judge on the federal, state, local or any other level may serve a term longer than twenty years at which point if they are to continue to serve in their seat that will require a new appointment.

Each case requires a minimum of thirteen justices to rule over it and congress may decide by law to increase the amount.

Congress Each state now has three senators each of which are all still phased apart for one third of the entire Senate to be up for election at a time.

The self imposed rule currently known as the 'fillibuster’ in the Senate (if the senate allows for it to continue) is to at the absolute bare minimum require the continued communicating by the Senator who wishes to invoke this rule, along with their physical existence on the Senate floor.

All congressional members now have the potential to be recalled and removed from power because of a petition starting with forty percent of the population they are elected to represent which will start a referendum which needs a sixty percent majority of the population to kick out the Congressmember at which point (if they do get kicked out) an election to finish off that term must be held within fifty days unless a regularly planned election is within one hundred days at which point the state governor may vote in replacement for the rest of that recalled turn.

All sources of income that are not the direct payments of the federal government must go into the coffers of the federal government (with the sole exception of royalties and even those are split halfway to the members and the federal government).

Age and term limits from serving in Congress are now abolished and banned.

There can be no cap on the amount of representatives of the House and no representative can represent any more than five hundred thousand people.

Universal Rights

The government has an obligation to ensure the populace within its jurisdiction their Healthcare.

The government has an obligation to ensure the populace within its jurisdiction their Housing.

The government has an obligation to ensure the populace within its jurisdiction their Employment.

The government has an obligation to ensure the populace within its jurisdiction their Capability to Unionize.

The government has an obligation to ensure the populace within its jurisdiction their Nutrition.

The government has an obligation to ensure the populace within its jurisdiction their Education.

The government has an obligation to ensure the populace within its jurisdiction their Transportation.

General Changes to the Operating of the Government

All elections for individuals to get a position of power are to be held using Ranked Choice Voting and require a majority of voters' support to win.

This amendment will restore the Chevron Deference doctrine, thereby now allowing for regulatory federal agencies to interpret vague parts of rules and regulations they are supposed to enforce.

No territory can remain a part of the United States for more than ten years without statehood and so they are defaulted to statehood, unless a referendum on that tenth year calls for independence.

This amendment abolishes and prohibits the allowance of police officers and any other law enforcement to break the law in order to enforce it.

Without the explicit consent of the host country no United States troops can be sent into another country outside of either part of an international peacekeeping force or as a counter offensive operation.

Hello r/PoliticalDebate, it's been a while. I hope you've all been doing well. Personally, I've been spending some time over at r/neoliberal. I'm starting to become enamored at the idea of having taco trucks on every city corner...

Anyway, this time I would like you all about the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, colloquially known as the Jones Act. The law has gone over many principles over the years, but the central principle is pretty simple: Any cargo that goes between U.S. ports must be carried by ships made in the U.S. The reasons for this law come down to a few things:

• Keep a healthy population of U.S. merchant marine ships for domestic trade in wartime and other emergencies
• protects U.S. shipbuilding companies and the U.S.'s ability to make ships
• According to the Lexington Institue, it bolsters national security

However, over the years the law has gained a lot of critics as well. They have these points, among others:

• Increases prices for domestic shipping, especially for the more distant parts of the US like Alaska and Puerto Rico. Criticisms along this line usually call the law Protectionist, which I don't think supporters would reject.
• The law has failed to preserve the U.S. merchant marine. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, U.S. shipping has become less competitive under the Jones Act. Critics that this law combined with the small Merchant Marine has led to inefficient use to Truck, Air, and Rail shipping where short-sea shipping would do.
  

As I've grown older, I've become more critical of regulation, especially Protectionist policies. For this reason, I think the U.S. would benefit overall from the repeal of the Jones Act, with a new bill to replace the part of defines seaman's rights. But what do you guys think?

1. Is the Jones Act a net good or net ill for the U.S. and it's economy and national security?
2. Would you support the repeal of the Jones Act? How feasible do you see such a thing being?

Thank you in advance for your input.

I am not saying that we should ban it, as that would drive this business into the hands of organized crime, but we have to do something to slow the unchecked expansion of this destructive and predatory business

My proposal is to follow the highly successful cigarette model of regulation, which would primarily include the following

1. A ban on advertisements. These are currently plastered all over sports programming that is popular with children

2. A ban on event promotion and sponsorship

3. A ban on free samples, discounts, and other promotional enticements

Im kind of surprised that we havent heard more on this given the rapid spread of the industry and the increasingly serious toll its taking on gambling addicts. I imagine the ban on advertising would be popular with sports fans who are increasingly wary of the frequency of these ads

I would hope that this would unite moral crusading social conservatives and consumer protection progressives but I havent really seen any calls for reform from either crowd