Claims And Redresses
This article is intended to complete a round of papers on elements of the definition.
The wording Of "A Claim"
A claim is a citation of, "a discrepancy between the actions of our government, and what we, the people, call moral, ethical, and just" (with the evidence to support it). I will raise two small points about this wording. For one, when we apply ourselves to the act of interpreting US law, we may come to see government action which contradicts it. This is our interpretation, and we may act upon it, but by the letter, herein it is called a "discrepancy", which reflects that we respectfully see a difference between justice and our government's actions.
On a second point, as written, it does not say "legal"; it says "moral, ethical, and just". If it does say "legal", then only breaking the law may be claimed. What if we disagree with a law? We have to be able to claim that we think an unjust law has been passed. We also have to be able to claim that our government, in a negligent manner, has failed to provide the protection, such as with regulatory law, that we feel is needed.
On What Support A Claim Should Have
We are focusing all of our efforts on universal, nonpartisan concerns, i.e. matters of universal conscience and integrity. I have also referred to our concerns as existing in the area of "universal presumption", and to constitute "internal affairs". Our laws provide examples of what we have come to enforce with at least 2/3 support, and regardless of anyone's partiality, to violate this law is taken universally as a violation, and not preferentially.
I think that our claims and area of concern align with the function of the judicial branch. In this branch, we see judges and juries achieving 100% support for judicial sentences. This is why I think our required support on claims can run higher than 2/3, and worthy proposals will pass.
This organization stands to benefit from staying away from politically contentious issues, which could be entertained at lower support thresholds.
On Damages Associated With Claims
Remedies are not a direct part of claims. A claim may be required to take the time to say what the government could have done, where the injustice would not be had. This would bolster the case of claiming the injustice, as opposed to imagining that the government did what they had to do, because they had no better options.
Redress is a time of running a campaign to end injustices, and a campaign is comprised of its own human and other resources. These are the resources to draw upon when considering going after damages associated with a claim cited by a campaign. The dynamics of whether or not there is a place for legal recourse occurs in the conduct of the campaign. We can think of resources associated with a claim of damages as campaign resources.
The respectability of any proposal, such as to conduct a particular lawsuit, is determined by a vote of the full legislature, and not just within, for example, its associated campaign. Whatever resources may be used, and whatever gains may be made in the recovering of damages, may be party to the campaign, as a party to the specific loss, for the compensation. There is room for a general proposition of such redress being conducted in a campaign, but also on behalf of every member of the organization. It may be written to allow non-members to be party to such legal cases, when they are parties to the loss.
On The Nature of Simultaneous Campaigns (Continued)
3/28: moved to its own paper.
On Blocking Worthy Proposals
We have addressed the consideration of requiring 2/3 support for protection of the universal nature of our proposals, and to overcome political factions. In our case, with claims, campaigns, and redresses operating simultaneously, we may wish to protect against elements of the legislature blocking good proposals.
One nice thing about requiring 2/3 support, is to require 1/3 to oppose. It is harder to get 1/3 to oppose than it is to get 1/10. 1/3 would not be a trivial amount of opposition. With that said, I think it might become easy for a legislator to pass on something outside of their personal interests. What if they wish to quietly vote down other people's interests, while voting up their own? While this should not go so far as a nay vote on a worthy proposition, and while such an act would be publicly recorded for everyone to see, we may consider greater protection.
It is guessed that the body will naturally wish to conduct itself in the manner of claims, campaigns, and redresses. It is expected that the natural, or organic process of the legislative body, with common cause, will be to arrive at consensus. It is also expected that members will vary on how they want to organize the legislative material. I would guess district legislatures to be one tenth the size of the national body, and easier to self-manage. They also form first, and so when the national body forms, it may choose to adopt writings from the districts.
In the US congress, a bill has an original sponsor, and possible co-sponsors, and it can accumulate co-sponsors along the way. There are committees for the various sectors who will pick up bills determined to fall in their areas, and sometimes across multiple committees, there is the manner in which they control the bill while it is theirs. When fifty percent plus one vote in support has accumulated, the bill goes to a full vote.
In the case of this organization, there is a unique set of circumstances, because at the outset, every legislator is a freshman and there are no committees. At the start, the national body is in a position to draft claims, and the number of claims that accumulate seems like it could be quite large. For this body, a period of making claims could pass at the outset, and members could begin to distinguish themselves and to have interacted. I think in this phase only a small number of sponsors should be needed to put a claim proposal to a full vote.
In creating a hierarchy of all that is to be claimed and redressed, the passing of claims produces an originating body of material, which can lend itself into falling into its own groupings, which can be more clearly seen to fall into areas for campaigns.
After this initial phase... Campaigns correspond to areas and operations, or "topics" of government activity, and this bears resemblance to the aforementioned congressional committees. Since the claim-only phase is complete, the body of all claims may be used to conduct a committee of the whole body upon defining the areas for campaigns, starting as committees. I have previously imagined this as small project committees generating claims and developing into campaigns, but now I imagine the above first phase to start up more naturally.
When a full vote is conducted, there may be enough to support passage, but this may include those who vote against. The question put is whether or not members can be held to not vote down campaigns and actions that they are not personally interested in. As desired, anyone who votes against (on a passage) can write a paper providing their reasons. Such writing can be required, and multiple members may sign the same statement.
Such a written statement would provide something for everyone that does not behave in the same way as a person does when speaking over time. They may be used in a next round of building consensus, by having the concerns in writing to work with on future propositions. This may also provide greater protection for the writer, by going beyond just their vote and having their case in writing.
On Redress
I think "generally accepted forms of redress" may be amended in two major ways; as in all cases, or by vote each time. Simple actions such as calling and writing to political offices, for example, may be amended as doable in all cases, which would mean campaign leadership would not have to go through the full legislative vote.
There may be a desire to contribute to a political campaign, which enters its own discussion; to be on government pay constitutes a conflict of interest, but what does it mean for this organization to donate to a political campaign? Can a member of this organization run for political office? Can they be backed by this organization? I would imagine that if any such action did have an occasion to pass, then it might be amended as having to be voted on each time it is used.
I think the potential for members coming in from alternative news readership rises into the millions. With this comes resource. Imagine millions of members donating to an action, such as a billboard campaign, or other advertisements. Imagine the ability to organize events in every city in the country - even the smaller ones.
What I imagine would be fun and potentially quite effective would be for members to canvas their respective neighborhoods and collectively knock on every door in the country, introduce themselves, and hand out brochures. With enough members, there would be enough resources to do this, and I imagine it could have a fantastic effect.