National Defense and related things.

[PatrickS]

I believe that the very existence of the United States is wholly dependent upon a functional and loyal military. I also believe that the military, most especially the lower enlisted ranks are grossly underpaid. It is a national disgrace that a young military family has to rely on food stamps, or any other assistance program.

I believe in the "leaner meaner military," but I also believe that we are grossly understaffed across the board. None of the services are truly up to the strength levels needed to insure the safety of our nation. I don't have the exact figures available at this time but I believe that as a percentage of our gross national income it is very low. Perhaps a solution might be to affix an amount based upon the GNI (Gross National Income) to funding the military. With very specific exemptions.

Here is my Military "wish list."

• We need two more entire regiments of Airborne Rangers.
  
• We need another entire Marine Division.
  
• The Air force needs at least two more complete squadrons of strategic aircraft.
  
• The Air force needs three more complete squadrons of tactical aircraft.
  
• The Navy needs to develop a series of "Fast Reaction Forces" in addition to the main battle groups.
  
• The Coast Guard needs an entire new fleet, enough said.
  
• Ancillary and support for all of the above.
  

Too expensive? What is your freedom worth? I will deal the the sorry state of affairs at the Veterans Administration at another time.

[TexasFred]

Too expensive?? The money Bush has wasted in Iraq could have paid all of it...

[ajacksonian]

For me talking about hardware and troop strength are all well and good, and I do indeed have some views on necessary tactical things for the upcoming decades that are being driven out by necessity. That said, the old way of looking at the military as an armored bludgeon must go. I did my first look at this some time back: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/01/fighting-wizard-wars.html

The conception that we are fighting a new type of warfare that has not been seen before was proven out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of the basic support equipment I look at here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/crows-even-better-than-raven-banner.html Do note that the object is to give longer term insertion and independence of operation to longer range troops while lessening support personnel and increasing lethality on a per-unit basis. The way forward is high mobility, interdependence of capability and fighting using *all* resources available, not just those handed you by your own superiors.

This new way of warfare I call NetWar which I go into here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/iran-future-war-just-down-street.html And then further here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/second-iranian-war-scenario.html

Both of these scenarios are playing upon the new strengths of continuous training and feedback that allows incoming troops to immediately pick-up where exiting troops have left off. To do this requires an intensive training cycle that *starts* at the bottom and should work its way up the ENTIRE chain of command. I give further thought on them here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/my-synopsis-view-of-military.html The fact that the mid-level command structure is completely out of touch with its capabilities are pointed out by all of the retired Generals who are seeing their way of doing things going away. I address them and their lack of anything *better* here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/04/generalling-poorly.html

So, all of that said what do I see as the things needed by the US Armed Forces to succeed better in the future (0-10 years out)?

First and foremost: Heavy and hard training by those in the mid-tier command structure to actually LEARN how new wars will be fought and what the capabilities of their troops actually ARE. This will require that entire military command staffs work through multiple scenarios and learn how to adjust forces, supply, logistics, training, transport... the whole kit and kaboodle... in less than a week. Preferably in less than 2 days. When the Theater Commander gets the go-ahead to change from a slow three-pronged attack to a blitzkrieg two-pronged assault to catch an opponent off-guard, the entire mid-tier of the Pentagon needs to shift gears. IMMEDIATELY, not months down the road. The largest problem with the Pentagon staff is that they prefer nice, lazy, everyday routine to actually having to *think* about things. The Cold War is over. If you can't adjust to the new way of warfare, it will be suggested that honorable retirement with a bonuse be given in thanks for the hard work done. But get out of the way as the world is changing faster than YOU are.

Second: The synthetic, cross-capable fighting force. Boots on the ground and how to keep them filled with warm and alert bodies is primary to any military endeavour. But, there now needs to be a level of inter-service training that we are slowly coming to do and needs hard and fast expansion. As morale is boosted by actually fighting wars to *win* there will be a higher concentration of well seasoned combat forces available. I agree thoroughly that these need to be culled to get the best available for two purposes - a) training and b) *elite* force work. The first is primary and teaching incoming fresh troops on how to operate allows for new methodology and outlook to be ploughed right back into the Armed Forces. The second is that the best of those coming back should *all* be looked at as potential candidates to lead more specialized ops or to be trained in same so as to have that as a widely available understanding and tool to ALL the forces. This is important as it allows a higher degree of flexibility in approach to the entire suite of Armed Forces so they no longer operate like traditional forces.

Third: UCAV bombing platform with long loiter time and high payload at low speed and high altitude. It is obvious that with Small Diameter Bombs and pinpoint accuracy that the need for the old, manned bomber fleet is only for those times when we do NOT have air superiority. Otherwise the strategic airfleet is just an automated bomb delivery service. So automate it, already! And Strategic observation, basing and means to deliver horrible weapons in under 30 minutes. That means manned bases in orbit with 'tungsten telephone poles' at the ready. What do you call 5 tons of metal impacting at 10,000 mph? Nasty. Time to take the high ground and make it the US Aerospace Force and *mean it*.

Fourth: Tactical support aircraft. Next generation A-10. The troops love it. The pilots love it. The enemies fear it. More, please! More lethal, more accurate and more survivable. Something that can chew up a building or terrain and spit out the enemy as bodies. The USAF has always placed fighter pilots and long-range bombers at the top of the heap, leaving *other* pilots to take up the A-10. Including women. Actually, women are probably better at this and give a higher morale boost to the folks on the ground than male pilots. Very tempting, but discrimination shall not be put in place. But when Momma is popping over the ridge line to kick some butt... nothing gets smiles and puts heart in the troops than that.

Fifth: Small, mobile artillery with multiple time-on target shell capability. More lightweight and needing less provisions than anything proposed in the past, these mobile artillery platforms can travel as fast as the M1A1 and have the capability to computer direct multiple shells to hit simultaneously on a target. In a larger battlespace they will coordinate with each other and all other forces to deliver a distributed and weighty punch with low operational overhead. Put in direct fire capability into the specs so it can be multi-role as needed. The old German 88 anti-aircraft gun proved hellacious against tanks. So should this new platform have that capability.

Sixth: Next gen naval forces. Modular ships and energy weapons along with long range direct fire systems using linear accelerators. A one month shipyard stay can completely remake a Destroyer from an ASW platform to a long range fire support and control platform. On the drawing board for a decade. Do it, already. Also, a combined tender/fire support platform that has multiple fast vessels for deployment for brown water work. These vessels should include GEVs and hydrofoils. Finally, like the USAF, the *missile* ship: low crew, high number of missiles with GPS systems. Keep the basic Carrier fleets for air domination until the USAF can get good bases.

Seventh: All the boots on the ground stuff in the above article including new lightweight and adaptable body armor, better interconnectivity and longer-range independent ops capability. To fight NetWar it is ALL needed.

Eighth: Replacement for the M1A1. A hard look needs to be done at compact energy sources, sensor technology and new armor technology. We are close to some of the major tactical capabilities of a Hammer's Slammers in those areas, although direct energy weapons and GEV are a long way off for tanks. These Lords of Battle need to become more in the way of operational command posts, remote surveillance and instant fire superiority platforms. The use of a close-in defense system against RPG's is near at hand with sensors and even something like the old Claymore. If it is small, of a general shape and fast, then it gets a spray of lead if the system is activated. And such is also nasty against troops. Perhaps something along the lines of a Bolo Mark I.

Nineth: Packbots, UAV, UGV and assorted surveillance and automated supply carriers. As fast as humanly possible for secured routes or even unsecured if the transport of wounded needs be done by same. UAV/UCAV should be an integral part of the entire force structure from observation mortar rounds, to deployable observation craft (air/ground/water) to larger unit and Theater ops capabilities with better craft at all levels. Anti-mine underwater craft is an obvious issue as the USN has never believed in minesweepers since the start of the Cold War. But for underwater ops, this goes far further into the long-range surveillance and tracking area. Tanks should have deployable capability for UAVs (even small ones) and exterior camera systems and vehicles that can be left behind to trail the main vehicle or operate remotely. Ditto ships at sea with air/water capability.

Tenth and finally: Force structure adjustment. The nature of battle is changing, but it is apparent that the old way the forces were structured to 'Prevent another Vietnam' needs a complete overhaul. With more disasters and problems on the homefront, the NG is needed at home for many things they were not expected to be needed for. The Armed Forces need bulking up in specified areas and by having a higher retention rate those forces need to be expanded but *not* diluted, which will be a slow process. Basics of MOUT operations are paying off, but the synthetic environment of using social, economic, ethnic and other networks needs to be done heavily for the forces *before* insertion. Basically, we need a capable force that can bring lethality quickly and easily and scale that up from pinpoint to wide areas. I do not foresee an immediate need to go after China as they are about the only Nation State threat left to the US. Thus, distributed ops with *instant* concentration and adapatability are the key to future success. This requires training. More training. Continuous training. Language skills. Cultural adaptability. I am not joking when I point out that in many parts of Afghanistan and Iraq the US Armed Forces are seen as tourists... just well armed and willing to take down anyone threatening them or the people they are protecting. Except they get far better training than tourists do...

The US Armed Forces will always have diversity of need and specialization. But the ability to interoperate highly without more than the smiling strife between them is necessary. It will take a decade to get most of this outline up and running, and billions of dollars... needless to say I look at the rest of the Federal Government with a meat cleaver in hand. But that is, possibly, for another thread.

[PatrickS]

Great comments, although I do find the reasoning at the very beginning faulty. Guerrilla warfare has been with us as long as mankind has existed in one form or another. We used it against the British during the Revolution after all. So? What do we do, we fight them the way the British fought us!

Much of what you are promoting, as noted, has or is on the drawing boards, and has been for years. One hell of a lot of ideas that look good on paper, and later in testing, just don't end up working after all is said and done though. After all, the very first casualty in any war or battle, is the plan. That is why there are such things as contingency planning.

The part of your theory that I really do like, and Fred would probably concur. Is that victory through strength leads to improved morale. That First Wave Effect alone would make the expenditure's well worth the effort!

Great post, please continue along these lines.

[ajacksonian]

Patrick - What we are fighting is patently *not* standard Guerrilla operations that exist within one Nation with the aim of overthrowing it to put down a different political/economic or other system in its place. What we are seeing is a Transnational movement of terrorism that respects no boundaries, respects no Nation, will fly no flag, will put on no uniform, will adhere to no credo save to destroy the very Nation State system that we depend upon.

I actually have no problem with Guerrilla operations so long as they remain within their own Nation, threaten no other Nation and take no funding to become a tool of another Nation or Power. That is the *legitimate* path to Nationhood and has served us since Westphalia. Counter-Guerrilla ops look to counter this sort of insurgency, but needs a hard and fast backing with a political message behind it by the residing Government or that Government will either fall or turn even more dictatorial than it already is. Transnational Terrorists have the goal of degrading all relations between Nations, fomenting trouble and distrust widely, dividing populations on any basis they can exploit and, generally, weakening Nations until they can start exploiting people so as to continue their work more broadly.

Their message is very simple: you deserve to be ruled or killed by us, and we do not care what your Nation is.

To combat this requires a broad array of training and means to learn and support cultures so as to strengthen them at weak points and stop such exploitation. By winning trust and changing attitudes, the hard work is done from the small scale. But the military operations must incorporate those same things and adjust on-the-fly as necessary to incoming and immediate circumstances. This is the hard, hard work of re-enforcing the Nation States by having the people believe in themselves and their identity as a Nation. Guerrilla warfare seeks to use that same methodology to achieve their ends. Terrorist seek to decay that and weaken Nations until they can start exploiting people.

Guerrilla's fight *for* something, and by offering an alternative to the current society, especially if it is corrupt, they can actually defeat a much more sophisticated and well armed force via an ideological based attack.

Terrorists by fighting *against* everything that supports the rights of mankind use fears and distrust between people to shake the foundations of the modern world. In this they are aided by their Transnational Progressivists brothers who have the exact same goals and exploit the very liberties within Nations to divide populations and sow the seeds of distrust amongst them. Together they are an acid to the West and to the entire structure of National organization that keeps all we hold dear at peril. You cannot combat this like normal counter-insurgency, especially when the Transnationalists work *together* simultaneously, although their final ends be different their main goals are the same.

Guerrilla's seek to unite a Nation or large part of it under a new concept and have governance with their ideology.

Terrorists go by the old adage: a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Tactics are *similar* in combating them, but not the *same*.

And as each and every head of every Agency and every Cabinet member has said to Congress on the GWOT: we are doing all we can and it is not enough.

I will go further and say that one final War Power has *not* been deployed.

I look at the hypothetical here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/02/pork-is-for-terrorists.html
And the examination of it here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/02/congressional-role-in-warfare.html

This is the Congressional Power for denying trade with those hostile to this Nation and putting them on Warrants and empowering private enterprises to seek out same and bring them in. This is the Letter of Marque and Reprisal language, which has not been used since the Civil War. To fight a distributed opponent that will seek out the interstices of Nations and exploit trade and commerce to survive, one must deploy people into those interstices and this is *not* a military area, save against Nation States. This is the Congressional domain and *must* be addressed by them so as to give fair and just Bounty for bringing in those goods headed to Our enemies.

The US could not sign the Paris Treaty outlawing Privateers as it was unconstitutional to do so.

And so we remain the ONLY capable Nation on this planet of actually doing this. It is the one weapon that will be truly and nastily effective against Transnational Terrorists.

The military does great at bashing Nations and so-so at weeding out insurgencies and terrorists. But to cut off the air and food supply of commerce takes Citizens given Warrants to do so. High risk and high reward.

I think $1 Billion for each cargo aircraft and $10 Billion for each cargo ship supporting al Qaeda would be a great start. So far the military hasn't found them (last count had the latter at 6 and a possible 4 707 class aircraft directly under al Qaeda control in the late 1990's). Because I do not want a day when a re-marked freighter slips through the Coast Guard and finds a port... and then that port is depopulated or goes missing from the map.

Of course, I am a Jacksonian.

I want Transnational Terrorists running in fear and not even *thinking* about attacking. Until they are either dead or give up.

[PatrickS]

Guerrilla (also called a partisan) is a term borrowed from the Spanish guerrilla meaning little war, and used to describe small combat groups and the individual members of such groups (see Etymology). Guerrilla warfare operates with small, mobile and flexible combat groups called cells, without a front line. Guerrilla warfare is one of the oldest forms of asymmetric warfare. Primary contributors to modern theories of guerrilla war include Mao Zedong, Wendell Fertig, Regis Debray, Vo Nguyen Giap, Josip Broz Tito, Michael Collins and Che Guevara. Later students of guerrilla warfare included Swiss Major Hans von Dach who wrote the now widely available Swiss Army field manual "Total Resistance".

SOURCE

Unconventional warfare (UW) is the opposite of conventional warfare. Where conventional warfare seeks to reduce an opponent's military capability, unconventional warfare is an attempt to achieve military victory through acquiescence, capitulation, or clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict. On the surface, UW contrasts with conventional warfare in that: forces or objectives are covert or not well-defined, tactics and weapons intensify environments of subversion or intimidation, and the general or long-term goals are coercive or subversive to a political body.

SOURCE

Asymmetrical Warfare A conflict between two foes of vastly different capabilities. After the Red Army dissolved in the 1990s, the U.S. military knew it was basically unbeatable, especially in a straight-up fight. But that meant that much smaller opponents would seek to negate its strengths by exploiting its weaknesses, by being clever and "dirty" in combat. On 9/11, America got a real dose of what asymmetrical warfare is going to be like in the twenty-first century.

SOURCE

The current conflict that we are engaged in is something of each of these things and will require an appropriate response with each differing component. That might mean improved hardware, better technology, or simply out thinking the other side. Much is a new twist on War of Attrition via psyops by the bad guys. This is what we saw during Viet Nam. John Kerry, Jane Fonda , and all the rest wore down American resolve. We are seeing this again by various people today. Bin Laden, like the Vietnamese, is capitalizing on dissidence.

This multi pronged form of warfare can be effectively turned on the opponents by using much the same weapons that they themselves are using.

Getting back on topic though;
The United States military should be allowed to do what ever is needed to bring this, and any other enemy to their knees.

[ajacksonian]

Patrick - I agree on the Asymmetrical Warfare aspect of Transnational Terrorism, and that they fit in the UW arena for many things. The goal of such, as you noted, can be very similar to that of standard UW combat groups which were typified through the late 19th and throughout most of the 20th Century. A distinction with a difference must be drawn between those opponents that are using means and methods to stand up a new social order, on their own, either via revolution or segmentation of territory, vice those that respect no territorial boundaries, will put down now flag anywhere and not openly declare themselves. These Nationalists are doing things the way put forth by Nations to do them and *not* trying to attack a larger system of Nation State coherency on a global scale.

While the NVA and VC used the media to weaken the will for warfare in the US to force withdrawal, the Transnational Terrorists have no such firm goal, save to bring chaos in as many places as possible so as to weaken the concept of the Nation State itself. A look at Hamas and Hezbollah, which took on trappings of political units, when given actual power, have no conception of what to do with it. They do not conceive of a Nation State as an operating unit and only have ways and means to bring down states but not stand one up. No matter how much Castro is disliked, he had a firm concept of a dictatorial Nation State in mind, even when giving it trappings of Communism.

An organized, state-based military is wonderful for many things and can even be pressed into service in areas of UW and MOUT and triple canopy jungle. But do realize that at that point one is dealing with the long, long end of a tail... it can be chopped and sliced and, possibly bleed one beast to incapacity... but then one is never sure if the entire beast is dead nor if there are multiple tails if they all belong to the same beast. Against Nation States the military can legitimately attack cargo and haulage of an industrialized State as that is the life blood of creating military power for a State. Unless the US is prepared to declare open warfare against all suppliers and intermediaries to Transnational Terrorists, the military is hard pressed to actually get at the oxygen supply and throat of a terrorist organization.

Luckily, at the founding of the Republic, this sort of thing was recognized in a general way, and allowing those Citizens and companies involved in trade to track down supplies to the enemies and return such for Bounties or Auction was a way of doing business and *codified* within the Constitution. Against a globally distributed, asymmetrical, UW opponent that will raise no flag, wear no uniform, and adhere to no credo to actually build a state but seek the extermination of all States so they may carve kingdoms out of chaos... to those barbarians there is an answer.

The military is a fine thing to sop up those that decide to actually attack where they are close by... not so good when the organization is supplying itself from Nation States that are turning a blind eye to the supplying of same. Pure embargo is somewhat brute-force and really does not get at the problem, as where there is a profit to be made in supply, suppliers will pop up. But those who live and work in those very business areas know how those sorts of supply routines work, which shipping groups do such work, which overland storage groups hold such things...

The US Armed Forces are the keen edge and tip of the Sword of the Republic and it can burn very harshly indeed. But the heft of the sword to actual carve into a non-military opponent requires the rest of that Sword. The Congressional War Powers have not been unlimbered for over 100 years... by definition it is UW. By definition it is distributed. And by definition it strikes in the one place that will hurt the Terrorists *most*. Not killing their people, but cutting off their trade. And that is asymmetrical in a way they will not understand.

This global war is more like one on piracy, which we still have around just no one fool enough to attack US interests. Terrorists need to learn that same lesson and in a harsh manner. This Nation reserved that Power unto itself at its founding... and now when every other Nation of import has given it up, it stands as an old tool that has actually grown more keen and deadly over time as trade has become an integral part of every sort of operation. But especially that of terrorists. Because once people start realizing that trade with them is not only *not* profitable, but can end up being lethal... what will they do when their suppliers start to dry up? Attack them? And if they wish to attack *us*... well, now they actually have to do things to come to *us* and that is where an effective military is so very handy.

It is a difference in viewpoint, I agree. And I do not denigrate any member of the Armed Forces in saying these things. But the Federal system that is set up allows many *other* ways to hit this problem... especially when all the regular tools of the State leave room for the enemy to operate effectively. I advocate opening up the *unused* compartments of the National Toolchest and *engaging* the Nation to a real fight... with just reward for just risks taken.

Call it UW from Warranted Citizens... or Privateering, by its older name. It has the benefits of not being easily countered, not being easily stopped and, as they work up and down the business chain, giving us a much, much, much clearer understanding of just *who* is really standing against the Nation. Add this to a legitimate way to engage other Nations to ensure the safety of the banking and shipping realms and you have a potent combination to pressure Nations outside of the secured commercial realm to shape up... I go over that here: thejacksonianparty.blogspot.com/2006/04/goals-in-global-war-on-terror.html

The military is a number of pieces in a much larger puzzle... address the puzzle and you see their fit... mighty and potent, but not omnipotent and incapable in many realms. Or, as the logicians would say: Necessary, but not *sufficient*.

[PatrickS]

Great post! Yet, this forum is about developing platforms. Discussions such as is being done here would best, IMO, be carried out at Ace in the Hole or another such venue. Then again, perhaps myself or Fred could set up a "Background" place here to formulate the arguments of why what, and so on for a platform statement. Such as

The United States military should be allowed to do what ever is needed to bring this, and any other enemy to their knees.

Let me know what you think folks. This is not my forum where I intend to force feed anyone anything. LOL is way ahead of the game on abortion. Fred is degreed and experienced in military science. Me? I am just a dumb retired Paramedic. I mean hell, as far as the military? You never would have known I was there.

As much as I hate to say it though. We need an Attorney here, one experienced in Constitutional law.

[ajacksonian]

Patrick - The Executive is limited to those things given to it on a Nation State level and for being able to send the military to do something at that level. Thus going after a Nation's commerce is only valid *if* there are declared hostilities with that Nation.

Transnationalists groups, by having no Nation's sanction nor being a Nation in, and of themselves, exist *outside* the Executive power, save when they take to the actual battlefield in a legitimate war.

This is a major problem not only of the United States, but of the entire system of Nation States set out by Westphalia and thereafter. At one time the legitimate way to stop such groups was through Privateering and putting non-National groups to work against these non-Nation and yet hostile groups. Terrorists that are Transnational, as opposed to guerrilla warfare fighters within a single Nation to set up a new National Governance, fall into this category. Unfortunately, since the Paris Treaty and the decades of Imperialism, we have gotten this foolish notion that the State based Military Forces are the ONLY solution to those that use force against Nation States.

That is because, since the mid-19th Century, the only means to carry such things out was by National Forces at a State based level. Revolutions and insurgencies were, by and large, limited to within Nation States, with minor exceptions put out by the USSR and Communism which were non too successful bringing about the Global Revolution. But even *those* were State supported by Foreign Nations.

The basic division of powers in the Constitution gives State based military conflict to the Executive.

Commerce based conflicts, via the Letters of Marque and Reprisals language exists within the Legislative.

Transnational terrorists by not being a Nation nor Nationally supported by a single State or grouping of same do *not* fall within the Executive save for law enforcement with Foreign Nations by Treaty and via normal Diplomacy, which the Executive gets via the Head of State power.

If you want to cut off the oxygen supply in a hard way via commerce based warfare, the route to go through, as given in the Constitution is Congress to hand out Letters of Marque and Reprisals, set out rewards, bounties or offer auction-based recompense, and duly Warrant Civilians or US companies to do this work.

The US Armed Forces, by conception, are very potent against Nation States and with the reductio ad absurdum of nuclear devices they are well neigh the most potent forces against Nations on the planet. When we are faced with non-Nation hostilities, the Executive can use the Marines here and there for some minor disruption... use Intelligence services and Law enforcement via Treaties to help other Nations attack these scourges... and can even use 'hot pursuit' against hit and run attackers to justify going into other Nations to capture those that would use boundaries as sanctuaries.

You do not *need* an attorney.

Read the Constitution and understand the Separation of Powers.

The US Armed Forces are NOT the 'do everything folks'. If they were then there would be NO justification or need for the Letters language for Congress.

We *must* get out of this mindset that the Constitution was drawn up with a Mighty Nation State as sole means of attacking and defending a Nation. It was *not*.

Many things were available to the young Nation to defend itself via many means and methods... and Commerce was and IS the domain of Congress.

That is why I will never, ever vote for a sitting member of Congress as they have not actually READ the Constitution.

When the Executive and all branches, including the military, respond that they are doing everything that they are granted to in the Constitution to fight terrorism and it is NOT ENOUGH. There is one mighty arm that has its OWN war powers. And that is Congress and the Commerce War Powers via Treaty and the Letters language.

That is where I see the Republic today.

I want full backing for the military, but making them the omnipotent tool over all forms of conflict is clearly unconstitutional on its face as a proposition given the division of powers as clearly stated in Article I and II.

We break *that* at our peril as a Republic.

You do not need to be a lawyer to read the Constitution.

Those that it addresses is given in the Preamble and should be clear to them. And that first sentence clearly defines Who it is that the document addresses and hands responsibility to.

We the People of the United States....

Notice, it is not: We the Lawyers of the United States as the only fit ones to decide upon things....

The Constitution separates and the laws and lawyers must work with those compartments. They may *not* tell We the People what those compartments ARE. We put those in place and continue to do so as long as We adhere to the Constitution.

And I adhere to the Constitution *strictly*, so that lawyers have conniption fits trying to say that it doesn't say what it does say in clear and unambiguous language. Lawyers have to work with what We the People have handed them... not the other way around.

[PatrickS]

You do not *need* an attorney.

That was there only to ensure that any platform language would be proper. Not as some means to interpret the Constitution or any other document of the Founders.

If you knew me a little better you would know that one of my biggest gripes is that people think that you need a PhD to understand anything. Those documents were written so that the common man could understand them. Indeed, although I cannot locate the source/citation Immanuel Kant is said to have used the founding documents of the United States as an example of his first moral law, that being that it be understandable by the common man.

I would propose that any position/platform also meet that criteria here, or anywhere that a new party might be formed.

[ajacksonian]

Patrick - Damn! You sound like me! Most dangerous... let me post my Intent/Content proposal for reforming the law... yes, off-topic for the thread, move/delete as needed. It is about as radical as I get, but this sort of thing, if passed, would still be fully Constitutional while slowly phasing out loopholes, twisted meanings and suchlike. The Constitution does not *mandate* any set nor specific legal system so long as it has due process and has regularity to it.

The excuses by lawyers for complexity in the law has been a major gripe of mine for... well as far back as I can remember. Working class extended family and exposure to all sorts of folks who saw people being cheated out of their money and livelihoods by lawyers, along with many a slacker who used the law to continue their slacking. Basically the underlying concept came from my Uncle Joe, a truck driver from the 1930's to the 1970's and he really had seen way too much of lawyers and the law going in places it was not intended to go and then doing things against the intention of the law by the wording of it.

So I shear Intent from Content. Anyone who adheres to the clearly given Intent cannot be guilty of going against poorly crafted Content. And the best place to see this in action? The US Constitution. Each part has an Intent lead-in and then the Content to allow the Intent to be met. So anyone complaining about this would also needs point out the problem with the Constitution being too simple... and yet complex in its enaction.

Then throw in some lobbying reform to make it a workable system. Why throw out lobbying by companies and such? Well, if you give Corporations the franchise, then fine... they get the same lobbying time as any individual per company. But as we stick with this quasi-hemi-semi-demi-individual concept for them, they currently get far too much in the way of gathering power and far too little in the way of being held accountable. (I actually propose this here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/01/corporate-citizenship-give-them-rights.html ).

Well, here is the main part... enjoy!

From thejacksonianparty.blogspot.com/2006/03/legislation-petition-intent-and.html

The Following is a Proposition Paper for the Jacksonian Party.

Anyone who tries to actually understand the legal and civil codes, along with legislation needs have some understanding in legal background. That is because the House and the Senate are chock-a-block with lawyers, who love putting in weasel wording to get exceptions and loopholes and other goodies that a plain intent document would not allow. Further, the actual Citizenry input to new legislation is virtually nil today as lobbyists use their contacts to push ideas of large groups that may or may not have the general interest at heart.

Jacksonians distrust this legislation at a distance idea fully.

So all legislation under a Jacksonian concept would have two main parts to it. The first is the INTENT part and the second the CONTENT part.

• Intent is the actual, plain language intent of the legislation as passed. Whenever adjudicated or set before a jury this part of the law is predominant as it describes the clear intent of Congress in passing the legislation being enacted into law. This will be limited to a 1,000 word document no longer than 2 paragraphs. Call it the legal abstract of intention.
  
• 
  Content is the legal content to clarify how the Intent is to be carried out. That can be voluminous but is merely a way to clarify and regularize the Intent.
  

If a jury of common Citizens cannot understand the Content, then they shall use the Intent to guide them. To be ruled UnConstitutional the Intent must be at variance with the Constitution and the Court must demonstrate the problems between the Intent and the Constitution clearly. If a case is rejected based on poorly worded or otherwise not understandable Content, that portion of the law is held in abeyance, but the Intent is still the Law of the Land. Congress shall either redo the Content portion or clearly pass Legislation of Understanding that they will let normal Citizens rule on Intent ONLY. The Congress shall have 30 days to either pass the latter or inform the Citizenry that new Content wording is being made and give a deadline for its passage. If the new Content does not pass or is not made into Law, then the Intent is kept as the Law of the Land for Citizens to figure out on their own.

Lobbying

Only Citizens may lobby their Representative or Senator.

No corporation, foreign power or other grouping may lobby the Government.


Petitions

Petitions for new legislations with clearly worded Intent language shall be presented to a Representative and shall have no less than 1,000 signatures from voters in that District. When presented the list of signatures will be passed back to the State for verification of all voters.

For Senators the amount of signatures shall either be 1,000 or 100 per District in that State, whichever is GREATER. All signatures will likewise be screened by the State for verification.

Each Representative and Senator shall allot 1 hour per petition for hearing its need and description. The individual that will do this will be chosen at random from amongst the signatures and may NOT include any of the original drafters of the Intent document nor anyone from their families nor anyone gathering signatures. All of these individuals must be clearly listed so that they can be removed from the selection list. A common Citizen who has signed a Petition will be brought as quickly as is feasibly possible to the Office or other site where the Representative(s) and/or Senator(s) shall hear the Petition. Such meetings will be publicly recorded, but shall NOT be public meetings. After the presentation the Yea's and Nay's will be counted and the Petition shall move forward or not based on that vote. If a single Representative or Senator is all that can be briefed at one time, that briefing shall be recorded and played as soon as possible to the other Senators and Representatives involved. Each member shall cast their vote on paper ballot in a signed and sealed envelope and when all have been briefed the envelopes Read Out as to Signer and their Vote.

This new Intent legislation shall have appropriate Content drafted for it and all members of the House and Senate shall view all appropriate recordings made by the Citizen presenters and then hold appropriate debate on the legislation.

The only other method for starting legislation is to help Federal Government Agencies do their appointed work.

Representative and Senators who have ideas for good legislation must go to the Citizenry and present their idea(s) and have the Citizenry then take up the Petition process. Again, clearly stated Intent language shall be used to do so and the originating Representative or Senator must recuse themselves from the entire organizing, voting and procedural language process until the final legislation is presented on the Floor of their respective chambers for final debate and voting.

All legislation and laws shall have a maximum 10 year 'sunset' provision. The original legislation may be re-passed so as to reset the 'sunset' clock.



The idea behind this is: if an idea is good and can be clearly stated then ANYONE signing up for it should be able to explain it to their Representative and Senator *without* coaching. If a Senator or Representative cannot clearly explain what needs to be done to their Citizens, then it is unlikely to be good legislation in the end. Either way the entire legal system must get back to rule of the Intent of the Law. Currently we are headed to a Law of Rules, where minor loopholes and such are exploited by a system of lawyers and lobbyists to the disadvantage of the People.

This MUST end.

If the Law cannot be clearly and easily understood, then it is NO DAMN GOOD.

As my Uncle Joe pointed out: "The lawyers make the law, the lawyers represent the law, the lawyers sit on the bench and rule on the law and the people just can't understand it as it is."

That is RULE BY LAWYERS and must END.