Before I’d even seen this movie, based on the previews I joked on Facebook that it went like this; “Cool black guy in blue pants and shades faces off against the President of the United States, who is also a discolored rage monster. Any resemblance to real persons, either living or dead, is completely coincidental.”
Captain America: Brave New World, of course, is the first feature film starring Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson, after the original Captain America gave him his shield and he ended up having to fight for it in the Disney Plus series The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Mackie proved himself to be lead material in that story, and in this film, Sam uses martial arts, the shield and a combination of his personal gadgets and Wakandan tech to be a truly bad-ass combatant. But in many ways the movie is just as much about the bigger star, Harrison Ford, who plays new president Thaddeus Ross.
In Marvel Comics, General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross was more an antagonist to the Bruce Banner Hulk, like how J. Jonah Jameson is to Spider-Man. He doesn’t have superpowers and he’s technically not a bad guy, but his social position and enmity combine to make life difficult for the hero. Ross was already introduced in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, in The Incredible Hulk movie (2008), played by William Hurt, who is sadly no longer with us. But since they’ve cast Bruce Banner as three completely different looking actors by now, apparently nobody minds casting Harrison Ford. A few years ago in the comics, Ross got himself turned into the Red Hulk, which would be a huge spoiler for this movie, except that the previews already have spoiled it.
The plot, such as it matters, actually returns to “Celestial Island”, which appeared at the end of the Eternals movie when the Earth’s native Celestial almost emerged from the planet. Researchers in the Indian Ocean have determined that this “island” consists of a certain wonder metal that the world powers might be able to use to compete with Wakandan vibranium tech. This ties into Cap’s first scene in the movie, where he has to stop a “package” from getting into the wrong hands. After this success, President Ross invites Sam to attend a presentation at the White House, and Sam agrees only on the condition that he can bring his friend and mentor, Korean War super-soldier Isaiah Bradley (the great Carl Lumbly). But out of the blue Isaiah tries to assassinate the President (cause apparently they’ll just let anybody bring guns to the White House) and Sam and his tech sidekick Joaquin Torres (Danny Ramirez) have to figure out what the hell happened and see if they can clear their friend’s name.
I liked Ramirez and Mackie, and the rest of the cast is great, including not only Ford and Lumbly but Giancarlo Esposito as a villain who may reappear later. And the background brings back not only Marvel’s Eternals movie but goes all the way back to The Incredible Hulk. But the previous Captain America movies and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier were relatively grounded for superhero movies, and the political themes made them more relevant. But that plausibility goes out the window when Ford Hulks out with special effects that look that much sillier than the ones in the She-Hulk series. But even apart from the fantasy elements, the film is unbelievable in comparison to the real world for two reasons. The first is that a president who is clearly crooked as all Hell is capable of calming down and doing the right thing in the end. The second is that the country is willing to look at him and admit that maybe it’s not a good idea for a guy in his late 70s with pre-existing health conditions and anger management problems to be in charge of international diplomacy.
Apropos of nothing, this is the first time I’ve been to a theater in a while (as opposed to seeing a movie on streaming) and I think it might be my last. I went to a theater that charged only five dollars for a matinee ticket, so that wasn’t the issue. But a box of popcorn would have cost more than a combo meal at a fast-food place, I had to wait for maybe 15 minutes of previews and before that 20 minutes of non-movie ads. Unless a movie is so visually spectacular that it HAS to be seen on the big screen (like the Spider-Verse movies) I don’t know if it’s worth the bother.
Afros gon’ be trying to straighten their heads and straightened heads gon’ be trying to wear afros When the revolution comes
When the revolution comes When the revolution comes (WHEN THE REVOLUTION COMES!) But until then, you know and I know niggas will party, and bullshit
And party, and bullshit
And party, and bullshit
And party, and bullshit
And party –
Some might even die before the revolution comes.
– The Last Poets, “When the Revolution Comes”
So, America…
How’s your 401k?
At least Donald Trump had some good news this week. We passed the Ides of March and he wasn’t assassinated by Senators.
Other than that, about two months into His Majesty’s Glorious Restoration, we are in the worst of both worlds where he is being stymied at every turn yet still managing to undermine (small r) republican government by his mere presence in it.
For example, it had seemed that when Trump hired Keith Kellogg on his foreign policy team and Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, he had adults in the room again. But his thuggish arguments with Vladimir Zelenskyy in the White House over Ukraine aid made it clear that Donnie is no longer hiding his forbidden love for Vladimir Putin. He is out, proud and sashaying down the catwalk. Yet about a week after that, for some reason he decided to switch course and endorse a Ukrainian initiative for a ceasefire, thereby putting the onus on Russian leader Putin to accept. (Notably, the agreement was made in Saudi Arabia with Rubio and the Ukrainian foreign minister, with neither Zelenskyy or Trump on camera to make the event into ‘great TV.’) Why the change? Who knows? It might be because the leaders of European nations are making it more clear that they’re willing to support Ukraine whether Trump likes it or not.
It’s been suspected that Trump is orienting away from Europe so that he can create his own little empire on our continent. Probably because he has confused Diplomacy with Risk and thinks if you get all the Canada provinces, Greenland and Central America in addition to Alaska, Western United States and Eastern United States you get the whole set and more cards next turn. We know that Trump isn’t planning for a peaceful takeover despite all this blather about Canada being a “51st State.” The reasons why are obvious to anyone with half a brain. Obviously that does not include Trump, but it might include Elon, when he’s sober. For one, Canada is the second largest country on Earth by area. For another, Canada isn’t one “state”, it’s ten provinces, which if lawfully accepted into the Union would comprise ten states. Even if you added all of Canada’s population into one super-state it would skew the Electoral College permanently against the Republicans. I don’t suppose anyone’s ever told Trump that. Or maybe they have.
Which is why Trump isn’t planning a peaceful assimilation like with Texas or Alaska. He’s planning an occupation.
For now, he is trying to escalate tensions with huffing and puffing about tariffs against Canada and Mexico, only to “delay” some of them, at least twice, after advisors gently inform him that other countries can apply tariffs against us too. For example, against the bourbon industry, which is about the last growth industry Kentucky still has. No less than The Wall Street Journal called this policy “The Dumbest Tariff Plunge.” The stock market seems to agree. But for now Trump seems to be making his economic policy an extension of his foreign policy. A foreign policy which apparently consists of leaning against a tree and squealing louder than Ned Beatty in Deliverance.
Trump had also been defeated 5-4 in the Supreme Court when they ruled that he must allow some 2 billion dollars in USAID payments already allocated, but this weekend, the Trump ‘administration’ defied a lower court order against deporting Venezuelans to El Salvador on the grounds that their plane was already in the air.
America cannot survive four more years of this bullshit.
I’m not sure we can survive four more months of this bullshit.
I know for a damn fact NATO won’t.
The rub is, even if the situation has gotten disgusting enough to lead to open revolt – and I’m not saying that it has, but I’m also not saying that it can’t – it raises the question of what would replace Trump’s ‘administration.’ Because let us not forget, we are in this mess because Democrats once again failed to do the easiest thing in the world: Prove that they’re a better choice than Trump and the Trump Party.
They’re still operating on their old model like nothing’s changed. I’m still getting emails asking me to send Democrats money to campaigns that won’t be decided for over a year. I’m like, “Guys, I was sending you money all through the 2024 campaign and now everything is worse. Maybe I can send you $50 this month and watch Trump declare himself Emperor.”
The latest humiliating example of their weakness occurred last week, when Mike Johnson’s Republican House managed to pass a continuing resolution that authorized executive branch/DOGE control over spending. Then they went home. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries had managed to get all but one Democrat to vote against the CR, largely on the belief that in the Senate, where Democrats still control more than 40 seats, they could demand modifications over the prospect of a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-New York) had said as much. But on Thursday he decided to vote for cloture in order to avoid a government shutdown deadline.
Nine Democrats (including Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman and Nevada’s Catherine Cortez-Masto) ended up voting for cloture to allow the measure to go through, at which point it passed on a mostly party-line simple majority.
As an MSDNC reporter put it: “The continuing resolution the House approved on Tuesday slashes funding for nondefense spending over the next six months but does so stealthily enough that swing-district Republicans could support it. More significantly, the normally anti-CR House Freedom Caucus jumped on board after Trump and Vice President JD Vance promised that the White House would simply cut whatever spending the resolution authorized that they didn’t like. That alone should have been enough to make clear to congressional Democrats that the language they were demanding to curtail Trump’s illegal impoundment should be required for any support in passing the bill.”
But rather than contest the matter, Schumer bought the bluff and did what he always does: Caved for the “good of the institution”, even when the institution is being gamed for its own destruction.
Schumer is feckless. He is totally lacking in feck. One could argue that it was a lose-lose prospect either way, and a shutdown would have caused Democrats to be blamed for the results, but if the Senate Democrats had held with their House counterparts, they would have forced more negotiations to claw back some of the Musk-Trump government’s impoundments. As it stands now, they don’t even have that, and a lot of current government functions are going to get shut down anyway. And House Democrats now know how well Schumer will back them up.
This is in fact only the latest example of Chuck’s passivity in the face of MAGA radicalism. At this point I would be happier with Amy Schumer as Senate Democrat leader. And yes, they are related.
So at this point there is no real organized opposition to the Musk-Trump regime, which means Trump will get to grab America by the pussy indefinitely. And America will become a country like Russia, Venezuela or Hungary, which are republican in name only. I consider this likely because Americans are by and large weak, lazy and unwilling to give up their convenience or creature comforts for a difficult goal. There’s just one problem for Trump: He and Elon Musk are doing so much to wreck our integrated economy and our place in the world that it threatens our conveniences and creature comforts. And as with COVID in 2020, the more people are made unemployed by Trump’s policies, the more people will have no reason not to be out on the street. And in fact, there is a recent example of a country that managed to overthrow a Putin puppet governor when he tried to align his country away from the West: Ukraine. And in that case, the puppet in question actually had jailed his political opposition, so it’s not like they are strictly necessary.
It would be better for the sake of transition if the Democratic Party organization could come along for the ride. The problem is, revolutions have a habit of not waiting for the nice, sensible people to get in front of them.
Good Evening. I’m Elissa Slotkin. I’m a Democratic Senator representing the great state of Michigan. And I’m giving the Democratic Party response to Donald Trump’s address to the joint Congress. It is a tradition in America that when the President speaks to the Congress on the state of our union, the opposition party sends a person to deliver a response. And as is also tradition in both parties, that person is someone you’ve probably never even heard of.
But that’s okay. Because I’m just like you. I think I’m just like the millions of people who since January 20, get up every day and ask, “What fresh hell has that fucking moron inflicted on the planet today?”
And I venture to say that now includes a lot of people who voted for Trump. I’ve seen the social media posts from people who voted for Trump but lost their government jobs because of Elon Musk’s haphazard firings. I’ve seen the town halls where people in districts that voted for Trump by double digits are asking their Republican Congressmen why they don’t stand up to Trump and Musk and why they should treat Trump like our king.
We were promised that if we elected Trump, the price of eggs would go down. Instead, it has skyrocketed due to bird flu, something that the Trump Administration hasn’t done anything about because of the hands-off policies of its bureaucrats. Those who still have jobs.
Tonight, Mr. Trump took credit for everything he could possibly imagine, but what he didn’t tell you is that just this Tuesday, the stock market crashed by over 500 points because his broad-based tariffs came into effect against countries including China, Mexico and Canada. And because of his belligerent posture towards Canada in particular, and his betrayal of Ukraine, Canada and other NATO countries are asking themselves if they should work together without the United States.
It’s almost as if Elon Musk and Donald Trump were hired by a hostile government to destroy our international alliances and economic infrastructure so that China and Russia could divide up the world.
And when I say that, I know what some of you are thinking. “Democrat hoax”, “witch hunt”, “no colusion”, “RussiaRussiaRussia” – I’ve heard it all before. And you have too.
I’m not telling you that Vladmir Putin has blackmailed Trump. I can’t tell you that Putin has bribed Trump. But you need to ask yourself a serious question: If Donald Trump WERE a known Russian agent, would he be doing anything differently?
Would he not be trying to normalize relations with Putin? Would he not be trying to start trade deals with Russia, to break the sanctions regime that is even now crippling Putin’s ability to wage war on the innocent? Would he not be agreeing with Putin’s demand that peace negotiations occur without Ukraine, or the EU, and that Ukraine must agree to a new election to remove Volodomyr Zelenskyy before a final peace deal is signed? Would we be agreeing to lower our defenses to Russia? This week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that we would no longer engage in cyberoperations against the Russian Federation. I would like to ask Mr. Hegseth a question: Did we ask our new buddies in Moscow if they would return the favor?
Would we be giving that treatment to any other nation, including our allies? Would we be giving so much deference towards any Democratic president, or indeed, any other Republican?
That’s why I’m here to represent the Democratic Party. Because it’s our job to represent the voters of this country, to defend working people, not billionaires and oligarchs. To defend our rights under the Constitution, not treat the president like a divine monarch.
Or not. I mean, I can only speak for myself. Because I don’t know what the national Democratic Party leadership has planned to deal with all of this leading up to the next election. I don’t think they do either. I mean, if the party knew how to get its collective thumb out of its collective ass last year, we wouldn’t be in this mess now, would we?
At least when it became obvious that our president was too old to handle the job, we got a replacement candidate. Trump is only three years younger than Joe Biden but acts older. Maybe that’s why he’s got Elon as his handler.
We didn’t really have much of a plan for the economy, or Ukraine, other than to keep doing what we were doing, which nobody liked. But still, in 2024, Joe Biden’s America, we reached a historically low unemployment rate. Gross domestic product expanded over 3 percent. Since Joe Biden took office, overall employment is up 12%, average pay is up 19%. Your Social Security was safe. Your Medicare was safe. And America was respected throughout the world as a strong defender of freedom.
Admit it… doesn’t that sound so much nicer than what we’ve got right now?
So, in less than two years, America is going to have a congressional midterm election. And if you’ve decided by then that you’ve had too much winning, remember, the Democrats are here for you. Or, Trump could suspend all elections and have us deported to Guantanamo. But hey, I hear Cuba has free health care.
Most of the remaining Constitution can stand as is, although I want to do some analysis.
Article IV
Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Article V
The original text: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Now, given that this article exists, it raises the question of why my project is even necessary. Well, the fact that we have never had a Constitutional Convention called by the states since original passage, that most Amendments were passed through the Congress or being ratified separately by states, and that the 27th Amendment was the last one enacted (in 1992) but actually proposed in 1789, indicates that while it is supposed to be hard to change the foundational law of the government, the process in practice is prohibitively difficult.
But again, my proposal at this moment is just that, at the proposal stage. It could still be used in an actual constitutional convention, and parts could be ratified by states. There is nothing I propose that would stand against Article V, given that its only real prohibition is against changing “equal Suffrage in the Senate” (two Senators per State) and that remains the case in my Article II.
Article VI
Original text: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This first paragraph would be modified as “all debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United States as under the prior Constitution.”
The second paragraph is similar to my Article I section 17, “The laws of each State, and their State Constitutions, remain in effect upon ratifying this Constitution, except insofar as they are contradicted by it.” It is still specific enough to stand as necessary.
I would also add the text of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”
Article VII
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
There we go. Again, it is presumptuous of me to think I can solve the problems with our Constitution in just this one project, but this is both a first draft and a starting point for debate. Because such radical changes might have been unthinkable to a lot of people, but the need for debate becomes more necessary by the day, and the need for change is coming sooner than most of us would want.
Because in my next post I will have to leave the realm of speculation and return to the here and now, where our political situation has been getting worse by the day.
In this post I will go over the judicial branch of the Constitution, which is still Article III. It is mostly unchanged. Mostly.
Article III
Section One
The judicial power of the United States is established in the federal judiciary of the United States, at this time consisting of ninety four federal judicial districts, under thirteen judicial circuits, administered by a Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall number thirteen Justices who will each administer one of the Judicial Circuits. The Congress may at its discretion create new inferior courts and judicial circuits, but must appoint one new Supreme Court Justice to administer each Judicial Circuit.
Section Two
No federal Judge, including a member of the Supreme Court, shall serve if they are not licensed to practice law in at least one State, and shall not serve if they are not at least thirty years of age and a United States citizen for at least ten years. No federal Judge, including a member of the Supreme Court, shall serve past the age of seventy-five and upon reaching such age shall retire and the Congress shall appoint a replacement. Federal judges, including members of the Supreme Court, are each appointed to one fifteen-year term, limited only in cases of death, retirement or exceeding the age limit.
The Judges of both the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The Congress may at its discretion create rules of Ethics for the judiciary to follow, all such rules binding on inferior courts shall also be binding on the Supreme Court.
Section Three
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section Four
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
NOTES
As you see, most of this is taken from the original text, except for the first two sections. The current set of courts is detailed, indicating that the new Constitution is meant to apply to the current government and supersede current law as necessary. The Supreme Court is expanded, if only to cover the difference between the number of justices and the number of judicial circuits. The main changes are in Section Two, detailing not only the point that ethics rules apply to the Supreme Court but so do both age limits and term limits. It is also specified that a judge must be qualified to practice law, and must be of minimum age and a US citizen. None of this was in the original text. It is perhaps telling the priority the Founders had for the judicial system that they did not impose the same standard of qualifications that they put on the legislature and the executive.
Next time I want to go over the remaining Constitution, which can stand as is, although I want to do some analysis.
In the actual Constitution, Article I refers to the Congress, Article II the President and Article III the judiciary. In my previous post, I explained why I put most of the amendments referring to citizen rights in Article I as primary as opposed to being an afterthought. This means that the description of Congress is moved to Article II. And it has a lot of changes, which I will discuss afterward.
The administrative functions of the United States government shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a House of Representatives and a Senate.
Section Two
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every four years by the people of their respective States, from local districts to be determined by federal law. No person shall serve more than three four-year terms to the House, except when serving up to two additional years for a previous Representative’s term in the case of vacancy.
No person shall be a Representative who has not been a United States citizen less than seven years, or is not a legal resident of the State of representation. No person shall be a Representative who is less than 25 years of age or more than 75 years of age. A Representative who has passed the age of 75 may retain that office but is ineligible for re-election if not otherwise term limited.
When vacancies occur in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker from among the membership of their Congress, and shall have the sole power of Impeachment for federal officials.
Section Three
The Senate of the United States shall consist of two Senators from every State, chosen by statewide election. Each Senator serves a term of six years, and no Senator may serve more than two terms, except when serving up to two additional years for a previous Senator’s term in the case of vacancy.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who has not been a United States citizen less than nine years, or is not a legal resident of the State of representation. No person shall be a Senator who is less than 30 years of age or more than 75 years of age. A Senator who has passed the age of 75 may retain that office but is ineligible for re-election if not otherwise term limited.
The Senators shall choose their own President of the Senate from among their membership.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the Senate is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside and the President of the Senate shall have no vote, and no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of three fifths of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall only extend to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of Honor, Trust or Profit under the United States but the Party accused shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law, regardless of the status of the Impeachment.
Section Four
The President of the Senate shall act as the chief executive officer of the United States, until removed by his fellow Senators, or if impeached. In Case of the Removal of the President of the Senate from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Senate shall immediately designate a successor from among their ranks.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President of the Senate shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
The President of the Senate shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.
He shall annually advise the joint Congress of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section Five
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be regulated by Congress according to Law. All Elections for federal office shall be non-partisan. All federal Elections shall be held on the first Monday in November unless Congress shall by Law appoint a different day.
The Congress shall meet at least once in every Year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the third day of January unless they shall by Law appoint a different day.
Section Six
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of three fifths, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section Seven
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Section Eight
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the Senate; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration three fifths of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by three fifths of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the Senate; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by three fifths of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
All Senate votes shall be decided by simple majority and cannot be debated or held up by prospect of debate for more than 24 hours upon reaching the floor, the exceptions to the vote threshold being the three fifths vote required in Trials of Impeachment and a presidential veto of a Bill.
Section Nine
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support military Forces, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the military Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section Ten
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section Eleven
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Section Twelve
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
NOTES
Notice anything different?
Much of the conditions for override in Congress require a three-fifths vote rather than two-thirds. Federal elections are to be administered through the federal government, rather than the states. Congressmen have term limits. Also, the House terms are expanded from two years to four, so that running for re-election is not more of a full-time job than the actual job.
But you may have noticed the big changes which relate to each other. Article II now refers not simply to the legislative functions of the government but the “administrative” functions. And the upper house (the Senate) effectively has the responsibility of the Presidency, because it will select a spokesman (the President of the Senate) in the same way the House selects a Speaker. This means, among several things, there IS no Vice President, since the one current administrative function of that office (nominal president of the Senate) is covered. Replacement of the Senate President is within the ranks of that house. There is no Electoral College, because the President is not elected separately. And the President of the Senate fills the functions of the President in the historical Article II, which compared to the historical Article I is actually rather brief.
The end result is to effectively change the United States from a presidential republic to a parliamentary republic, such as Germany, or Canada, where there is technically a Governor-General representing the British monarch but in practice the Prime Minister (elected as a Member of Parliament) is the executive officer and diplomatic head of government.
Why did I make these changes? Well,, the primary factor in the corruption of our republic and the business of government is the mindless partisanship between the two guaranteed parties of the duopoly, which is part of what has made the Republican Party insane: First, mindless fear of the opposition ( that being the Democrats. To be sure, Democrats are in fear of Republicans, but with considerably more evidence). Secondly, that fear leads to mindless loyalty to a Leader who promises to beat that opposition, which Trump does. Republicans lost most of the contested midterm elections but swept in 2024 and gained somewhat in downballot races in 2020. The main reason Trump lost then was COVID. Finally, that loyalty is reinforced by the fear of what happens if the Leader is defeated in any way, because that means Those Other People get power again and Our Side are second-class citizens at best.
And some would question why this system eliminates the chance to vote directly for a president. But hey, we have the chance to vote for a president now. The Electoral College notwithstanding, the US President is the only federal office that everybody in the country can vote for on Election Day as opposed to the House (which is per local district) or Senate (which is statewide). And in 2024, Trump actually got the most votes, of the people who showed up.
Was that really the best result?
I first propose to make all federal elections regulated by the government as opposed to states, because that will help to resolve issues with gerrymandering which are part of the problem of having certain seats be safe for one party or the other, which in Republican districts makes politics a contest of performative idiocy in order to get the primary nomination, which is the real vote. I also propose to make all elections non-partisan, as many state races (for judicial posts, sheriff, etc.) already are. This is the best I can expect to solve the matter of corrupt party loyalty without actually banning political parties, which would go against both the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment (the text of which is in my Article I). This would not ban parties, it would certainly not ban associations, but it does mean that party affiliation cannot be listed on the actual ballot. Which among other things means that instead of looking at which party is listed on a candidate’s name, voters would actually have to … do their research.
The other aspect of these changes is that if all work is done through the Congress, there is no longer a matter of Congress not being able to enforce its directives on the executive branch, which has been an issue for years, although primarily during the Trump terms. Most importantly, it puts the burden of responsibility on the Congress for the actions of government, whereas in the system as it stands, both the Congress and the voters build a cult of personality (or hatred) around the President and generally assume that the President is a magic man who can solve all the country’s problems by executive order. Right now it seems as though at least one party is under the assumption that that’s how the government is supposed to work, and they’re just there to draw a paycheck and get tax-paid benefits without having to actually do their jobs, namely setting the agenda for the government that the President is supposed to follow, rather than the other way around.
Now, one of the reasons why we have gradually devolved power to the President is that getting anything done through Congress is difficult. In some cases, that’s by design, and all to the good. However much of the current dysfunction is because of the aforementioned party loyalty and also because of various delaying maneuvers, namely the Senate filibuster, which is nowhere in the Constitution but has effectively created an un-Constitutional standard that any vote requires a three-fifths majority to pass even when this is not specified. That is here disallowed. Traditionalists would object that the filibuster is one of the counter-majoritarian checks in the system to protect minority interests and encourage compromise and debate. But again, it was not part of the system as designed. And in practice, it negates the chance for compromise in debate as a minority party can simply hold together to prevent debate from even coming to the floor on the premise that a measure is not going to pass. Defenders would also argue that the filibuster prevents the majority from being able to act with no regard for other parties. The Senate IS that check on the system. The Senate IS the means by which our republic makes sure that plurality interests are not overrun by a gross majority. The fact that the Senate exists in addition to the House is already a counter-majoritarian check on the public, and it doesn’t need an internal filibuster in addition.
Finally, one might ask, if the Senate is supposed to select a president from their own ranks, and there is no separate Vice President and we currently have 50 states, how would we break a tie? Simple. Make either District of Columbia or Puerto Rico a state. Either that or separate Clark County/Greater Las Vegas area from the rest of Nevada, since these are really two different states anyway.
Next time will be Article III, reviewing the judicial system and the Supreme Court. These changes will not be quite so great, but will probably be seen as radical by the supporters of the Republican Party. But they’re the people whose idea for government is to keep the Constitution exactly as it is, but then run the country as thought it doesn’t exist.
So. This is the start of my project to repurpose the Constitution of the United States. As I said, I am not a lawyer nor a political science expert, and this is very much a first draft. It is intended for the purpose of public debate, because given how the system is broken, we are going to need to debate what replaces it sooner rather than later, and maybe sooner than we would like. Article I is of sufficient length that I feel the need to present it first, and then move on.
Preamble
We the People of the United States recognize the wisdom of our Founders, that all people have the natural rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, that to secure these rights Governments are instituted among the people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers so as to best effect their Safety and Happiness. To this end we do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I
1. The sovereignty of the government is derived from the body of citizens of the United States.
2. The first principle of a free republic is that the people may act freely except where law specifically prevents it, and the government may not act except where specifically empowered by law.
3. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.
4. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.
5. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Legal constructions such as corporations are not persons for this purpose.
6. The rights of the citizen shall not be abridged by the United States nor any State on account of circumstances of birth, including race, gender or gender identity, nor in regard to political belief, religious belief, or lack thereof.
7. No law shall be made creating an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the media, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances.
8. The natural right of self-defense, in particular the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
9. No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in a time of war except in a manner to be prescribed by law.
10. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall be issued without probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.
11. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in active service in time of War or public danger, nor shall any person for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
12. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously determined by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against them, and to have counsel assist in their defense.
13. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall be twenty dollars, the right of a trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than under the rules of common law.
14. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
15. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States, nor any place subject to their jurisdiction.
16. All citizens of the United States and each state thereof, as defined above, are automatically registered to vote in all state and federal elections at 18 years of age. The right to vote may not be abridged except if convicted of a felony offense.
17. The laws of each State, and their State Constitutions, remain in effect upon ratifying this Constitution, except insofar as they are contradicted by it.
Notes
The Preamble obviously invokes both The Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the current Constitution. It stems from the premise that governments are established to protect our natural rights, and “whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends” the people have the right to alter or abolish it. Thus the necessity of the document. If the current system had not become destructive to the ends of the original Constitution, this measure would not be necessary.
The original Constitution started with focus on the three branches of government, Article I (Congress, the legislative branch) Article II (the President and executive branch) and Article III (the judiciary and Supreme Court). As part of the debates leading up to the signing of the document, it was noted by critics that certain elements of common law, or desired elements from other State documents, were not included, these being the protections that eventually became the Bill of Rights. Subsequent Amendments (such as the right of minorities, women, and 18-year olds to vote) were added over time as demand arose.
I have put most of that up front, ahead of the role of the Congress, which is now Article II. This is to emphasize the primacy of the citizen and the protection of rights as the purpose of the government. Most of Article I is simply rearranging the constitutional amendments referring to human rights and citizen rights. Including the right of individuals to bear arms. That might come up someday.
The root premise of how free a government should get versus what the basis of regulation should be “is that the people may act freely except where law specifically prevents it, and the government may not act except where specifically empowered by law.” This is similar to what are now the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (the text of which are also included here) but spelled out for emphasis. This idea is taken directly from Ayn Rand in the compilation The Virtue of Selfishness, specifically, “Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted. “
This is also paralleled in the language of France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Articles IV and V. I believe it is important enough that it needs to be emphasized even over what is currently the First Amendment.
In this country, we call voting a right, but in practice states keep putting up a bunch of roadblocks to make it more difficult. Default voter registration addresses this, so that it is not an issue that states can interfere with, and the right to vote only being denied for cause. In some ways this goes against my inclination. I am inclined to make voting eligibility contingent on a civics and basic knowledge test, including the question, “Can you explain the difference between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’?” But as with literacy tests, that sort of thing was declared unconstitutional because it was gaming the rights of citizens so that state governments could pick their voters. Likewise making registration and eligibility a federal matter makes it more difficult for states to select their voters, which is a big part of why the last few elections have turned out like they have. This is especially important in the rules for Congress (Article II) to follow.
So I said that before giving my ideas for a new US Constitution I would need to explain my perspective in order to show where I’m coming from and what my proposal is based on.
To sum up from one of my other pieces, “I am NOT a “progressive.” I am not a Socialist. I am a conservative in the sense that I want to preserve the American system of government. I am a libertarian in the sense that I believe in The Law of Unintended Consequences, and in the sense of Thomas Jefferson: “That government is best which governs least” and what someone else believes “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” In other words I am what Jefferson and F.A. Hayek would call a liberal.”
I had previously considered myself a (L)ibertarian, because in the duopoly the Democrats were in many ways flawed and the Republicans were outright insane, no later than when they first started to follow Donald Trump. So I voted Libertarian. Until they went insane. And while the (L)ibertarian movement always has been an exercise in herding cats, things really came to a head with the Libertarian Party with COVID, when their demand to maintain freedom from government rules went up against the need to contain the worst pandemic in this country since the 1919 influenza outbreak. (There were a lot of people masking up then, over a decade before FDR turned this country socialist.) The “freethinker” response to COVID only confirmed that the movement was not based on a healthy skepticism to big government, but rather oppositional defiant disorder, which made it ripe for takeover by the kinds of people whose politics may not have been identical to Trump’s but were starting to run parallel. The common element was distrust and outright hatred of a political establishment composed largely of mainstream Democrats and professional bureaucrats, whom Trump calls “the deep state” and prior to him were simply “the state” or more properly the administrative state. That coalition of people had much to do with why Trump won last year and Kamala Harris lost.
The other reason I quit being straight libertarian is seeing what happens to government when the people allegedly against Big Government get a hold of it. We may not like everything government does, but until we can figure some better arrangement, it will always exist. As long as there are group resources, or resources that cannot be held individually, there will always be some designated agent to administer those resources, to make rules on group activities and to enforce those rules if they are broken. You can call it a commune, a government, or an HOA, but it will exist.
You can’t kill government, you can’t drown it in a tub. We can have a legitimate political debate as to how much is needed, but it is going to exist on some level. As they say, “power abhors a vacuum.” So one of the things we have to do is figure out what we actually need government for, as in, something that is necessary and can’t really be done by anyone else. One could argue whether that applies to, say, education. There are lots of homeschooled people, and some have argued that they do better academically than public school kids. But having government provide schooling at all levels, and creating standards, broadens the opportunities that education provides. Likewise, you could have people sponsor a highway, but the private sector isn’t able to develop the comprehensive infrastructure and highway system that the federal government developed after World War II. These are legitimate debates. But what we’re seeing with the Musk-Trump administration is targeting programs that have been useful, not because they are wasteful but simply on the basis of a reflexive anti-establishment ideology, like a mirror-universe version of the Red Guards. And we will soon see the consequences of seeing what parts of government are necessary or not, especially when the decision is made for emotional reasons.
I still consider myself libertarian in terms of my internal definition, but that doesn’t seem to be one that’s shared by the “official” movement anymore. Which is one of the points that I want to make here: Politics, at least in the US, is not based on ideas and consistent ideology, it’s based on labels. And if you can take over the labels that people agree with, like “freedom” and “America”, you can get people on board with some pretty statist and un-American ideas. Likewise from a leftist perspective, you might think that socialism is a humanist movement, and maybe in Europe it is, but in America, it has always been associated with the worst sort of Maoist and Leninist tyranny. So trying to promote racial and income equity is considered socialism, but autarky, tariffs, having the president directly manage the Kennedy Center and staff it with his cronies and having his patron boost his own government contracts while regulating his own competitors are NOT socialism.
So I do not think my position should be based on ideology as much as philosophy, because that is more consistent and more easy to test. My philosophy is what has been called classical liberalism, heavily based on Ayn Rand. Now, while these days I think Rand as a person had more issues than TIME Magazine, I don’t see anybody else in philosophy who gets to the issues with both Left and Right, particularly why the Trump Right engages in magical thinking and the Left, lacking conviction in reality and objective standards, has been powerless to address this. But I am basing my positions on these basics:
Reality exists, independent of subjective perception or opinion.
At the same time we do not have perfect knowledge of reality. Determining the truth of a thing (at least on empirical things) requires a process of examination akin to the scientific method.
For us to have the best chance of gaining knowledge and developing accurate views of the world, we need the maximum freedom to act, particularly in the action of gaining knowledge.
Thus the best systems are those which allow for human freedom in a person’s own sphere while by the same token protecting the same right for others against other individuals.
In regard to the above, I think that for most of this country’s history, our Constitution, with all of its flaws, was still the best government we could have devised. I think that it did not account for the natural tendency of people to engage in partisan politics, which is fine, except in the sense that it directly corrupts the system of checks and balances that the Founders created. This is why, for instance, the Electoral College creates results against the popular vote, because all but two states set up their electors as “winner take all”, meaning that only two candidates have a chance of getting any electors, because we define “democracy” as who wins the popularity contest between the two parties that have set themselves up to have all the advantages. And in the one clear case where we could have used a veto of the popular vote, the 2024 election, the Electors went ahead and certified Donald Trump because to do otherwise would have gone against democracy. Even though putting a check on the flaws of democracy was precisely why the Electoral College exists.
Likewise, the Founders intended impeachment to be a check on the power of an unscrupulous president (or other federal official), but in practice it can’t be. The premise was that the three branches of government are the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary (in that order) and each acts as a check on the other, because each institution serves to protect its own priorities. That’s the system on paper. The system in practice is that the three branches are the Democrats, the Republicans, and the judiciary, and the third is chosen by the dominant of the other two. And with a majority vote required to move impeachment from the House to the Senate but a two-thirds vote required for the Senate to convict, you are never going to get that many Senators to go against a President of their own party, because he is not a competitor in the system, he is their boss. If a President doesn’t have the loyalty of one-third of the Senate it raises the question of how he got elected in the first place.
I am operating on the premise that we should keep most of the government that exists, because it was working pretty well with the capacity for evolution and reform, prior to being gamed by unscrupulous and authoritarian people. This means that such changes that I propose are geared mainly towards addressing those exploits.
You will also note that by the standards of left-wingers who act like the whole Constitutional project was a mistake, all this makes me fairly right-wing. But that is a standard of right-wing prior to the current one, which is “I agree with everything Donald Trump says, even if he changed his mind three times today.” By that standard, I might as well be Che Guevara.
This perspective has been referred to as radical centrism or even ultra-radical centrism. Which is of course a contradiction in terms. But the difference is a matter of means as opposed to ends. In this case it is an acknowledgement that the current system isn’t working, that it needs to be changed, but the changes being implemented now by the anti “deep state” party are taking us further from where we need to go.
It’s been implied that the problem with “no labels” movements outside the duopoly (such as Andrew Yang’s Forward) is that they are not really distinguished from established political systems and in their pragmatism don’t have an identity. “Mark Satin worries that radical centrism, while “thoroughly sensible”, lacks an “animating passion” – and claims there has never been a successful political movement without one.”
In my mind, this objection gets back to the problem I mentioned earlier. A movement based on ideology is in danger of being hijacked by people with ulterior motives. Moreover, its definitions refer only to itself and do not adapt. When the ideology clashes with reality, ideology can only win with force. A philosophy based on finding reality and changing opinions to fit the facts is better for the world than an attempt to make facts fit someone’s opinion.
Bruce Lee was once quoted as saying: “The highest technique is to have no technique. My technique is a result of your technique; my movement is a result of your movement.” You need to be able to acknowledge the world around you and act accordingly before you try to change it.
In fact it is that very non-identity that is at the core of original liberalism. It is the premise that since we are so different not every way of life will suffice for all and therefore we cannot make our politics such an ideology that it becomes a religion. As Ludwig von Mises said in Liberalism (a book that the Von Mises Caucus has apparently never read):
“We see that as soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual’s mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail. … Liberalism limits its concern exclusively and entirely to earthly life and earthly endeavor. The kingdom of religion, on the other hand, is not of this world. Thus, liberalism and religion could both exist side by side without their spheres’ touching. … Liberalism, however, must be intolerant of every kind of intolerance. If one considers the peaceful cooperation of all men as the goal of social evolution, one cannot permit the peace to be disturbed by priests and fanatics.”
I mean if “radical centrism” seems like a contradiction, well nowadays we are supposed to normalize Nazi sympathies and a unitary executive, but limits on government power are apparently un-American. At this point there IS nothing more radical than centrism.
This is the perspective I’m coming from with my next idea.
My Dad died. My Mom died. My brothers died. My two best friends died. My dogs died.
And as I go on, everything I loved and everything I care about dies out before me.
As I get older it is increasingly clear that I am not immortal and I am getting less immortal all the time.
I now basically have the old-fashioned idea that I should just try to leave this world a better place than I found it, or at least not make it worse.
And I had thought that the United States of America would outlive me, but now I’m not so sure.
Because this week, Elon Musk, the actual chief executive of the United States, commandeered the records of the entire US Treasury and sent his own personal staff, who were not government employees, to come in with personal unsecured devices in order to purge the bureaucracy, taking out the separate USAID charity organization (supposedly now being shifted to the State Department) while also seeking to defund or outright eliminate other agencies like the Department of Education. [NOTE: I just found out that the Trump ‘administration’ agreed to restrict DOGE staff access to Treasury records “after a group of union members and retirees sued the Treasury Department alleging that providing DOGE access to the federal government’s massive payment and collections system — and the personal data housed in it — violated federal privacy laws.”]
Now, I still consider myself a right-winger, so in principle I would be in favor of killing the Department of Education. After all, most of the people who voted for Trump after he gave us all Trump Virus ™ were products of American public schools, so clearly it’s not doing any good.
But even if you could make cases against a lot of these agencies, the fact is it is not Elon Musk’s place to cut the funding. The Congress in Article I of the Constitution has sole power of the purse and the executive branch is there to make sure its funds are administered as Congress directs. Even if Vice President Trump designates Musk and his boy band “special government employees” after the fact they have no certification in that system. And nobody, including Republicans, elected Elon Musk to effectively have more power than the President does. This is nothing less than a coup.
We could fight them for real, but as Eric Stratton says, that would take years, and cost millions of lives. The saving grace of our situation is that these people are as incompetent as they are evil. In past examples of encroaching tyranny, we had previously used the example of a frog in a pot of water, which is gradually turned up to the boiling point slowly enough that the frog doesn’t realize what is happening and cooks to death. Well, the Trump-Musk Party decided to just turn the stove to full boil then take the metal pot off the stove and shove it in the microwave.
But even if we could claw back some of this power grab, we will never get back to the status quo ante, because it no longer exists. The precedent has been set. The precedent being, that once a guy is elected president, he can do whatever the hell he wants. Even if he’s not currently president. He can stage an insurrection against his successor’s certification, send a mob into the Capitol to try and kill the Speaker of the House and his own Vice President, and not get prosecuted. He can run for president again despite being an insurrectionist, because the Supreme Court wants to pretend the 14th Amendment doesn’t exist. He can steal classified documents from the White House and not get prosecuted because he’s running for president again. And when he gets re-elected he can have Elon Musk and his chemically addled commandos seize control of the infrastructure with no certification whatsoever. Why? Because we let the president do anything he wants. And this is a standard that was set long before Trump. And if you’re a Democrat, not taking advantage of that is handicapping yourself. People complained that Biden pardoned his son, like that was going to be a lowering of our legal standards. But those standards no longer exist. Biden was simply acknowledging that fact.
We need to acknowledge it too.
The system is broken. It cannot be glued back together like a Japanese vase. We need to start over.
We need a Constitution 2.0.
Laws in and of themselves will not restrain evil men, for the reasons we’ve seen, but we can at least change the incentives to make abuse less likely, and resetting the system will make it more clear that the precedent of abuse will no longer stand.
Now, I am not a lawyer, nor do I have a Political Science degree, but neither does Elon Musk, and that’s not stopping him. I think that we need to have this discussion sooner rather than later, and in my next posts I want to go over my ideas for what ought to be changed. You could even call it a prolegomena, if you want to get all Kantian and pretentious.
But prior to going over my ideas, I would need to explain the basis of where they are coming from, so in my next post I want to go over what my philosophy and political positions are now and how I got to that point.
Do I think there is NOTHING good about Trump 2.0, otherwise known as Everything I Don’t Like is DEI? Well actually I am pleasantly surprised that his foreign policy team consists of realists on Ukraine like Marco Rubio and Keith Kellogg, who put the burden of resolution on Vladimir Putin, as opposed to Anthony Blinken, who was trying to preserve a status quo that no longer exists, or a John Mearsheimer, who would tell us all that Putin is just misunderstood.
But otherwise, we go back to your question, “regime change or another shit-show?” And after only two weeks, the answer is clearly: BOTH. We have these people creating deliberate chaos with orders and policy changes that are illegal, cannot be carried out, or cannot be carried out because they’re illegal. You would think that conservatives would know what “Chesterton’s Fence” is.
What we’re seeing are two inter-related points. One, Trump is clearly a senile tapioca brain who is front and center to amuse the proles and distract the media while the actual think tank like Elon Musk, Stephen Miller and Russell Vought does the real work. You can see this in his marathon Oval Office signing sessions where the staffer has to tell him what the order he’s signing is for, and Trump looks at it and always says, “Ooh, that’s a big one.”
From a right-libertarian standpoint, if all this just meant cutting taxes, cutting wasteful spending, cutting counterproductive regulations, and killing wokeness, that would be one thing. But that gets to point two – clearly people like Vought, Musk and Miller have no clue how government works either, despite being more intelligent and qualified than Trump. But the point isn’t to do things on procedure. The point is to break the system. And they’re doing it because they think they can.
Because everyone in the institution, from Mitch McConnell to Merrick Garland to John Roberts went out of their way to tell Trump that he could do anything he wanted and no one would stop him, and last election the public agreed with that, and thanks to the downballot vote, Democrats have less ability to oppose him than ever. But then, if they knew how to counter Trump, they wouldn’t have lost the election.
But now we’re seeing Musk muscling in to get his people infested in the civil service and his information systems running the record keeping, and various things are being taken out of government websites, like, the text of the Constitution. Any dissent is being killed, despite the fact that the last nine years have demonstrated that you can dissent against Donald Trump all you want, and nothing can stop him.
The only thing that did stop him was public contempt at his disastrous handling of COVID, and that was only because it was an election year. And I predict that Trump WILL cause a catastrophe on par with COVID, if not worse. Because the factors that led to it have been reinforced and the safeguards have been removed.
So when you say, “Keep Calm, Carry On… And Wait”, I ask- wait for what? Things ARE going to get worse, much quicker than anybody expects. The catastrophe is going to happen before the midterms, and at this rate, before June. And when, NOT if, it happens, we as a country will not be ready. Because again the election will not be a factor, Democrats cannot stop him and Republicans never would stop him. And if Trump dies of his various co-morbidities, his handpicked successor is JD Vance, who is a sincere religious fanatic, as opposed to Trump, who is clearly just a religious fanatic for the money. But in regard to Vance, good of you to point out that every conservative convert to Catholicism suddenly acts like they have more doctrinal authority than the Pope.
But hey, at least we don’t have to worry about the pronoun police anymore. That’s the important thing, right?
Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.
– Martin Luther King Jr.
Supposedly Donald Trump got re-inaugurated last Monday. I didn’t see it. Because I have made a deliberate policy to punish Trump’s collaborator media by boycotting any live coverage of his appearances, including his State of the Union or any White House press conferences. After all, most of non-Trump America boycotted Election Day, and that made a pretty big difference.
Trump won the election even though on the one debate His Majesty deigned to grant Kamala Harris , she spanked his ass harder than Stormy Daniels and didn’t even have to get paid for it. He won because a critical plurality of Americans are maliciously ignorant and see all his vices as virtues. But the malicious idiocy of Trumpniks is a known quantity. All you have to do is outvote them. They were not outvoted. Kamala Harris got at least ten million less votes than Joe Biden got in 2020, and if you’re to believe the people in Nancy Pelosi’s camp, Harris did a lot better than Biden would’ve if he’d stuck it out.
Everybody knew Trump was a criminal, everybody remembered, presumably, that he killed hundreds of thousands with Trump Virus (TM) and everybody knew what would happen if Trump was re-elected, and they stayed home anyway because they did not see the Democratic Party as worth voting for.
And it remains to be seen exactly why each and every potential voter who didn’t vote for Trump also didn’t vote for Harris, but there is some more after-the-fact research coming out. “A poll from the Middle East Understanding Policy Project/YouGov released Wednesday found that Gaza was the number one reason why millions who voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 decided to stay home in 2024.” The YouGov poll revealed that the issue played a huge role in battleground states, which Donald Trump swept, as 20% of voters in the six swing states that flipped from Biden to Trump said that “ending Israel’s violence in Gaza” was their top issue followed by 33% of people for the economy. “Even among Biden 2020 voters who did vote for Harris in swing states, voters by a 7:1 margin say they would have been more enthusiastic in their support if Harris ‘pledged to break from Biden by promising to withhold weapons to Israel,’ rather than less enthusiastic.” USA Today: “Harris underperformed with voters of color − particularly Latino voters − but also Black voters in urban centers such as Philadelphia, Detroit and Milwaukee. Harris carried Black voters 86%-12% and Latino voters 53%-45%, according to CNN exit polls. But in the 2020 election, Biden won Black voters by a wider 92%-8% margin over Trump, and Latino voters 65%-32%.”
The point isn’t whether Democrats should align with the socialist/progressive/Free Palestine people or go with the centrists like Lucas Kunze, John Fetterman and Seth Moulton who want the party more focused on the old kitchen-table issues. The point is that they aren’t doing either. What is the Democratic Party doing? Who knows? Not even them.
Back in Malcolm X’ day he would talk to Black audiences about the difference between the “field Negro” and the “house Negro.” (Keep in mind, at the time ‘negro’ was the polite term.) In one speech, he said: “The house Negro usually lived close to his master. He dressed like his master. He wore his master’s second-hand clothes. He ate food that his master left on the table. And he lived in his master’s house–probably in the basement or the attic–but he still lived in the master’s house. … But then you had another Negro out in the field. The house Negro was in the minority. The masses–the field Negroes were the masses. They were in the majority. When the master got sick, they prayed that he’d die. If his house caught on fire, they’d pray for a wind to come along and fan the breeze.
“If someone came to the house Negro and said, “Let’s go, let’s separate,” naturally that Uncle Tom would say, “Go where? What could I do without boss? Where would I live? How would I dress? Who would look out for me?” That’s the house Negro. But if you went to the field Negro and said, “Let’s go, let’s separate,” he wouldn’t even ask you where or how. He’d say, “Yes, let’s go.” And that one ended right there.”
Democrats are the house Negroes of American government. Their priority is to preserve the institution, even if it ceases to serve its original purpose. So if that means enabling the Trumpniks that seek to destroy it, well, that’s okay, as long as they keep a seat at the table. Even if it’s the kids’ table. The point is they get to keep all the privileges and perks of being in Washington, which is really all that Republican politicians want, except they actually, y’know, do stuff.
There is this theory in cynical leftist circles called Murc’s Law, which is the idea that in public perception everything is (or is made out to be) Democrats’ fault, including what Republicans do because Democrats somehow provoked them into doing it. Which is not entirely fair. Because it’s pretty obvious that Republicans are going to do whatever they want regardless of how Democrats act. Murc’s Law has also been expressed as “the widespread assumption that only Democrats have any agency or causal influence over American politics”. A more accurate expression would be this: Republicans DO have agency, and they have the power of moral choice, whether they want to admit it or not. They go along with Trump not (just) because they’re scared of him and his Mob, but ultimately because he gets them what they want, and for that they will throw away everything they used to call “conservative.” They have agency. They can choose to do the right thing. And for at least since the Clinton Administration, they have always done the wrong thing. And since you can’t control them, and you can only control yourselves, you are responsible for what you can control.
Some would argue that rather than blaming Attorney General Merritt Garland for not prosecuting Trump before the midterms, we should blame Mitch McConnell, because after all, he was Senate Majority Leader during January 6 and in the impeachment could have organized his colleagues to get the necessary two-thirds vote for conviction, which also could have meant barring Trump from office and breaking his hold on the Republican Party. It was his fault for not having the Senate do their damn job. And while that assertion is quite true, it only confirms the point that Republicans have agency and choice, and they always choose evil. Mitch McConnell is the reason why Merritt Garland is not a Supreme Court Justice in the first place. If you’re relying on Mitch McConnell to save the republic, you’re doomed. Which is why the Biden Administration should have taken McConnell’s decision as policy, and acted accordingly.
If Biden had instead appointed Jack Smith or someone of like character to be Attorney General, he would at least have started the investigations earlier so that Trump’s telegraphed strategy of legal delay until re-election would have been less likely to succeed. Biden and Harris kept saying that Trump and Republicans were an existential threat to the republic, but they didn’t act like it. By appointing Garland as AG and not pressing the issue of January 6 while it was still fresh, Biden and Democrats gave the impression that Trump’s behavior was the new norm. If we wanted to preserve the impression of a two-party system where Republicans and Democrats could negotiate in good faith, Democrats needed to address the main aberration preventing such negotiation. Because let’s face it, if you really DO believe that the republic is under threat, refusing to take every legal means to deal with it means you have failed your raison d’etre as government, just as surely as if you had let Mexico or Russia march troops into one of our states.
Another issue that was definitely under Democratic control was the economy. “It’s the economy, stupid” in America is analogous to that Roman emperor who told his heirs “Make the soldiers rich and don’t worry about the rest“. This is what you need to keep foremost if you want to stay on top. Needless to say, one thing you don’t want to do if you want to stay in office is jack up inflation. But while Biden’s America Rescue Plan was intended to deal with COVID impacts on the economy, and other developed nations also had price increases after 2020, in the US prices rose higher and faster. was primarily intended to reduce deficits long term by creating even more spending on IRS enforcement and renewable energy initiatives. However experts say its impacts, if any, will take place over years and it did not have a statistical impact on inflation leading up to 2024, and now that Republicans have all branches of government, they are in position to reverse a lot of these changes. Which is another good lesson in regard to both the Biden and Obama presidencies: Will the changes you want to implement cost you so much politically that they can be easily reversed the next time Republicans get power?
Democrats, you protected an establishment that wasn’t working for the average American, and that’s why the country abandoned you. Now authoritarians control all three branches of government, and thanks to the tech bros and TikTok, they control the media. Something else you completely took for granted. So you can quit defending the establishment, because you’re no longer it. You should do what Republicans did during all those years of liberal Big Government dominance: use the remaining procedures of the system to gum up their plans, while you still have the chance. Create your own media spaces to build a following outside the “Lamestream Media.” Like Rush Limbaugh did. And you should actually do what Rush and Newt Gingrich did with the “Contract For America” when they sought to take control of the House of Representatives: Tell everybody what you’re actually FOR. And publicize a step-by-step plan for how you want to accomplish it in the Congress, as opposed to hoping you elect a president so he can do everything by executive order.
And to the leftist faction, if you really care about the human rights of Palestinians, maybe try not to give political aid and comfort to Jared Kushner’s father-in-law. Just a thought. You could use one.
To come down to it, Democrats need to find out what people actually want from the government and then offer yourselves as the party that can do it. Even if that goes against your protocols or you don’t think it’s going to work. You’ve tried what you think is going to work, and it hasn’t. Remember the Costanza Maneuver.
The fact is, most Americans are not communists. We do not believe that billionaires are inherently evil just because they have more money than everyone else. We do not necessarily hate Christians just because they believe in something no one else can see. The majority ARE Christians, at least nominally. We do not hate conservatism just because. In fact, the reason the once-Republican Party has managed to coast this long is because Americans ARE generally right-of-center. It’s the billionaires and religious conservatives themselves that are promoting an image of petty control freaks against a general public that is disinclined to believe the Left’s opinion of them. In other words, if anyone believes the “conservatives” are the enemy, it’s because of what they actually do, not because of what Democrats say they are. Cause as we saw in November, no one cares what Democrats think.
If there is no constructive opposition to the party in power, eventually there will come a destructive opposition. This is what we saw in at least two elections. People were so sick of the Democrats and their mores and their political correctness that they elected the Trump Party, again, even knowing what that would mean. But what happens when even the opposition becomes insufferable and there is no constructive alternative to them?
If we actually survive four years of this, the Trump Party is going to have to decide if it wants to support Trump for a third term, against the Constitution. (I doubt he will live so long, but remember, God is real, and He hates us all.) Doing so would cause conflict immediately. Worse would be if he does retire, or dies before 2028, in which case the cult will have its various factions fight it out for supremacy, since none of them command the same mass appeal that Trump does on his own. I predict the various proud oathbreaker boogaloo boys will rampage across the land committing bloodshed and mass rape, possibly involving women. Eventually it will escalate across the 48 states, if not beyond, and make The Purge look like Switzerland. When they have exhausted our military resources and manpower, the remaining 40 percent of sane Americans will have to find the least radioactive part of the country and try to rebuild civilization.
But that’s the optimistic view.
More likely Americans will continue to do what they always do, they will continue to normalize, they will continue to rationalize, they will continue to refuse to take radical action against radical action, and the republic will continue to decay into a zombie of itself, dropping once-vital organs out of its body as it shambles on. And future generations will think the current dysfunction is the way things always were, and therefore the way things are supposed to be. While those old enough to remember where everything went south will look at 2025 as the good old days.
In the short term, I’ve decided that when it comes time to confirm my voter registration, I’m going to change back to Independent from Democrat. Not that I am not still obliged to vote for Democrats as the only plausible not-Trump party in the general election, but the only reason to be in the party is to vote in their primary rounds, and it’s pretty clear to me that my opinion isn’t wanted. And if my mental contribution isn’t wanted, most of the party (with some exceptions) isn’t getting my material contribution either. Cause at this point, the main difference between a Kickstarter fundraising campaign and a Democratic Party fundraising campaign is that in the Kickstarter campaign there’s a better chance of getting what I paid for.
Star Trek: Section 31 is really more a vehicle for Michelle Yeoh than an examination of the titular secret agency. If you’re not a Star Trek fan (and if not, why are you reading this?), Section 31 was introduced in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine as the secret service of the Federation, doing grey and black intelligence missions that Starfleet’s laws officially do not allow. If you haven’t seen Star Trek: Discovery, Yeoh played Phillipa Georgiou, the mentor and commander of officer Michael Burnham, who was quickly killed but then turned out to exist in the evil Mirror Universe as none other than the ruler of the Terran Empire. Burnham rescued that version and brought her into the main universe but when Discovery was catapulted into the far future, Georgiou became too much of a dimensional paradox to live, and so was sent to another part of the temporal continuum closer to when she came into it.
After a flashback scene with a truly brutal family reunion, it is announced that Georgiou reappeared in the main universe and was recruited by Section 31 only to go missing after a few years. The story starts with Georgiou running a swanky nightclub on a station outside Federation space, but she is tracked down and given an intriguing mission by Section 31 field leader Alok (Omari Hardwick). He then introduces her to his team: “Fuzz” (Sven Ruygrok), one of those Men In Black-type slugs piloting a bipedal robot in disguise, equipped with a terrible haircut and even more terrible accent, Zeph (Robert Kazinsky) a cyborg mercenary with a slightly less terrible accent, Melle (Humberly Gonzales) a Deltan seductress/’face’ agent, Quasi (Sam Richardson) a Cameloid shapeshifter and theoretical genius, and Starfleet liason Rachel Garrett (Kacey Rohl, who does look a lot like Tricia O’Neil).
Of course what seems like a simple job becomes more complicated as the mission turns out to be a loose end from Georgiou’s Terran past, one that threatens entire star systems.
The movie moves fairly quickly and lasts only a little more than 90 minutes, but it requires some clumsy exposition to connect most of the parts together. And as one of the action scenes sped along two-thirds of the way in, I found myself thinking of why the original Star Trek holds up so well despite having outdated ideas and really cheap production (which wasn’t much improved in the first two seasons of The Next Generation). And I decided that the Original Series’ painted sets and school-theatre special-effects budgets were almost an asset, because lacking our modern techniques, they had to depend on old-fashioned elements like scripts. And dialogue. And characterization.
I mean, Hardwick is good and Rohl shows promise, but the main reason to see this movie is Michelle Yeoh, clearly having a blast with the whole thing, despite playing a character who is always confronted with a legacy that makes Palpatine look like Mahatma Gandhi. The story’s epilogue clearly sets up “continuing missions”, and the production was originally intended as the pilot of a spin-off series, but with Star Trek apparently cutting production and Yeoh having a higher work profile, this was all that could be made of the idea. Just as well. Star Trek: Section 31 is good enough as a stand-alone action movie but its presentation makes it unlikely to work for a whole season, let alone more than one.