Process to end US turmoil.

3 Branches of government but we ignore the trunk. The common citizenry should be the conduit for communication and approval of all government action between branches. This new trunk can be made of a jury of 30 citizens, selected by random voter ID number in 30 different randomly selected states.

A change of this magnitude requires a constitutional amendment. As congress has been bought out, a constitutional convention must take place. We must go as citizens to the places of our state legislators and protest their inaction on this change until the amendment is passed.

In the mean time besieging the companies and investments of these state legislators, that they have received money, goods or services from in any way should be disrupted.

-- Updated Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:35 pm to add the following --

I know you are watching, you can't stop this the idea has been seeded.

Why 30 and not 50? I like the random factor. But what if people do not want to participate in the jury and are selected?

50 instead of 30 makes one from every state, thus more predictable.

Jury duty is mandatory, find a good excuse if you don't want to be one of the most influential people in politics regarding a certain issue.

Of course there would be a screening process just like a regular jury. The screeners won't know what case the jury members are for.

[Scott]

I don't understand what this so-called jury of citizens would be doing exactly. What would be the job or responsibilities for this new fourth branch -- or metaphorical tree-trunk -- of government? Can you give a sample of the exact proposed wording to the Constitution?

What do you believe would be the benefits of such a reform and what reason/argument do you have to have to conclude that those alleged benefits would result from this reform?

So yes to reiterate what Scott is saying, what is the purpose? I like the idea of more direct personal action in government and legislature, most definitely. But could it be more beneficial to enact this in other ways? More localization of government perhaps? Direct voting (which actually counts) on the back of a ballet perhaps? or (once again) like the Swiss who directly vote and propose amendments to the constitution?

I like this jury, but are they working as a court- to check the morality/ethics/ constitutionality of legislation? My fear is this: If this jury has any influence, the people of the United States may find fault with the fact that nobody elected them, and that they do not represent the people as a whole or as a majority. These individuals could change very important legislation perhaps, and not represent even a... fifth of the population.

The common citizenry called the Jury Of Citizens, comprised of a collection of 30 citizens, selected by random voter ID number in 30 different randomly selected states; shall be the conduit of communication for the greater citizenry, and judgement of all legislation. Their purpose is to form the legislative committees that make the laws of the federal government. They will announce the group opinions on proposed laws to the public upon receiving the legislation, when they have read the legislation, and when they approve or deny the legislation. A new jury will be selected for each law being proposed. Multiple juries may be formed at the same time.

They will have no more power than congress does in regards to laws, checks and balances still apply.

Benefits: The Jury Of Citizens provides transparency in all government legislation. They would function as the forgotten layer of approval for the people by the people. Legislation could be worked with more expeditiously.

Reasoning: With the common citizenry involved in the law making process, the government becomes inherently transparent. With the jury system congress does not need to be in session for progress to be made on legislation.

If this jury has any influence, the people of the United States may find fault with the fact that nobody elected them, and that they do not represent the people as a whole or as a majority.

These will be the complaints of those in power, not the people. They most certainly represent the people, they are the people. Every voter has a chance at being in the jury.


I anticipate arguments based on jurors not being qualified to understand or interpret legislation. This means laws will have to be worded in such a way that they can be comprehended by all. The non-comprehension of the law stems from a lack of transparency, laws are written in jargon in part so they can not be understood by the common man. This is inherently bad; if the citizenry doesn't know the law of the democratic style of government in which they live. There is no point to have a law that all can not understand, if we are all supposed to be legally equal, we should not have laws that can only be comprehended by a certain legal elite if you will, unless it is meant to deceive.

This is just the first step in a long line of long needed reforms in the federal government.

It just seems as though these 30 random people, having equal power to any other branch, could be horribly influenced by parties and extremism. These people may gain a false sense of entitlement and may express their most uneducated, deepest, horribly fundamentalist thoughts. I think even a few bad eggs on this jury could be extremely annoying. At least elected idiots represent the idiots who elected them. I think a medium between this jury and our congress today represents what representatives were supposed to be. But what if the same groups that are affecting congress begin to affect this jury of malleable citizens.

Amakatura Murou,

It just seems as though these 30 random people, having equal power to any other branch, could be horribly influenced by parties and extremism. These people may gain a false sense of entitlement and may express their most uneducated, deepest, horribly fundamentalist thoughts. I think even a few bad eggs on this jury could be extremely annoying. At least elected idiots represent the idiots who elected them. I think a medium between this jury and our congress today represents what representatives were supposed to be. But what if the same groups that are affecting congress begin to affect this jury of malleable citizens.

Our government how it is right now is "horribly influenced by parties and extremism". The members of government "have gain[ed] a false sense of entitlement and may express their most uneducated, deepest, horribly fundamentalist thoughts." Every single one of them is a "bad egg", they are not doing anything to serve the people. We have to constantly petition the government to NOT get our rights taken away! Then they just rename the same law and try again! The government has proven they can't be trusted to serve the people.

This jury does not replace congress but only the law making parts.

No group could find out who these people are to coerce them before they are in the jury making the laws if it's completely random. The jury will get their per diem just as any juror would, nothing more allowed. Communication with related parties regarding the laws they are passing would be strictly prohibited.

The type of skepticism in your thoughts(and it is accurate and poignant) to me highlights a major problem. We have come to the point where every one is so suspicious of the government, that any change is immediately scrutinized. Guilt by association. We obviously don't want to keep things the same, we know that's messed up, but the powers that be have been telling us for years that moderation and big government is the only way, they have succeeded in brain washing the majority of the public against change. We are caught in a catch-22. We want change, but we are suspicious of any change, and so don't act.

This benefits the people in power, so that they may keep doing what they are doing because change is more suspicious somehow than continuing what we have been doing that we know is messed up. They have made people fear change, more than their own repeated mistakes.

This is simply not logical, we know the government is not doing it's job as it stands right now. Change is logical in these circumstances, the fear of change is not logical.

[Scott]

So you are not talking about creating a fourth branch or 'trunk' of government in the USA but adding to the legislative branch with a new layer in addition to the House and Senate?

Scott,

...shall be the conduit of communication for the greater citizenry, and judgment of all legislation.

There will be a new sector of government, the jural trunk. While their duties will be primarily legislative in nature they are also responsible for communication between the branches of government(so their words are not twisted) and the communication to the people in regular public announcements.

If I don't receive damming criticism about this amendment I will write the actual wording of the legislation.

[Scott]

So will the amendment ban direct communication between other members of government, such as a Senator calling the President to say what's up?

Isn't most formal communication between the branches done via written word or at least kept on a written record? Are these people just glorified stenographers and letter-readers?

I still don't see what kind of significant benefit is expected from this drastic change to the USA government and what reasons/evidence we have to believe that alleged benefit would result from the proposed Constitutional chance.

So will the amendment ban direct communication between other members of government, such as a Senator calling the President to say what's up?

If it is in regards to Whats up with that law then yes, in other cases no.

Isn't most formal communication between the branches done via written word or at least kept on a written record? Are these people just glorified stenographers and letter-readers?

Yes. No, the jurors are not just stenographers, they are responsible for voting on the laws.

I still don't see what kind of significant benefit is expected from this drastic change to the USA government and what reasons/evidence we have to believe that alleged benefit would result from the proposed Constitutional chance.

The congress that is bought out right now is taken out of the lawmaking process and left to do their other tasks. The people now decide what laws the country will have. As such, the benefits would be that laws will not be nebulous, so the common man can understand them. The decision will not be made based on the stand point of officials, which given their position and wealth the laws regarding finance hardly apply to them. Other benefits are government transparency, making it harder for corruption to occur that presently occurs in permanent members of government who make under the table deals, in regards to laws; since that is left to the common people who will be on the receiving end of the laws they approve. As it stands now the members of congress and government are directly benefiting from the laws they write, while the common people suffer.

[Scott]

Again, it seems like you are talking about modifying the legislative branch by replacing the election of legislators with a panel of randomly selected people to act as legislators. Thus, this isn't a fourth branch or trunk but just an amended version of the legislative branch of the 3-branch form of government.

Scott,

The specific government bodies that make up the legislative branch do more than just these tasks.

The Legislative Branch of the United States Government is made up of Congress. There are two parts of Congress, they are the Senate and House of Representatives. The Congress has many jobs. The main job of the Legislative Branch is to write bills that are to possibly become laws. They also have to print and coin money, collect taxes, impeach Presidents and Judges, make sure the Armed Forces have supplies, make treaties, and declare war.

There are two leaders of Congress. One for each part of the Congress. The Vice President leads the Senate and the Speaker of the House leads the House of Representatives.

I'm sorry the metaphor doesn't work perfectly in your mind.

[Scott]

And you want to add another body to the legislative branch in addition to the two already there which are the house and senate which would perform almost all of these duties, yes? And what exact duties would be left for the house and senate? What exactly the taxpayers be paying all those senators and representatives in the senate and house respectively to do? Right now, they right bills and then vote one them. Yes, some of these bills effect minting, tax rules, army supplies and so on. Which bills will be written and/or voted on by this new legislative body you propose and which ones will be written and/or voted on by the house and senate?