In this final post I will address my idea for a "Bill of Responsibilities" to match the Bill of Rights, specifically, the addition of a requirement that every able-bodied person between the ages of 18 and 26 give two years to Universal National Service (UNS). The military branches are one option, of course, but so too would be some civilian agencies such as Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. New groups, including a Disaster Strike Force (think Katrina), would be a part of the UNS menu. I also add all qualifying non-profit groups, such as Teach for America, which are non-governmental but offer the young solid alternatives for service.

UNS will appeal to the idealists--there are still some, aren't there?--and will offend libertarians. But in A More Perfect Constitution I try to make a strong case for national service. You'll have to be the judge once you read the full chapter in the book.

As I wind up this series, I'd like to thank Markos for the forum, but also the hundreds and hundreds of you who have commented here, emailed me, or gone to our website, www.amoreperfectconstitution.com. You've proven that there are a lot of good ideas to be considered, not just the twenty-three I suggest in the book. That was my purpose, to get a debate started so that others would be encouraged to participate. I've also put together a series of YouTube videos where I outline these proposals; feel free to take a look! (My explanation of UNS is here.)

Over the past few weeks, I've learned that almost everyone takes some time to absorb new ideas, especially a big one like a second Constitutional Convention. The hidebound nature of humanity, and the deep polarization that currently exists in American society, make most people inherently suspicious of any novel proposal. That's understandable, but I hope that as people think and read further about the subject, they'll see that we can take a good system and make it better--not today or tomorrow in a rushed manner, but after a long period of thoughtful discussion and debate that could last a generation. The opposite alternative--to do nothing, to stand pat, to say we don't trust ourselves and our fellow citizens to achieve constructive change--is not only depressing, it's wrong and dangerous. Societies that stop evolving and progressing are doomed. There are ways to evolve and progress outside the Constitution, of course, but the basic document of state must be a part of this forward-looking process.

Now, on to the proposal for Universal National Service...

I will read all comments, gratefully—-as I have done over the last two weeks, and I appreciate the feedback. As always, please keep in mind that A More Perfect Constitution is not intended to be the end of the argument, but the beginning. Any Constitutional changes must be considered in the most careful and deliberative manner, and most amendments--and certainly a Constitutional Convention--might well be a generation away. It would be wonderful if those of you with comments and further ideas for change could register them at www.amoreperfectconstitution.com.  Add your '24th Proposal' to the 23 offered in the book. Actually, you can add another 23 if you wish!

I also invite those who will be in Washington, D.C. this Friday, October 19, 2007 to join us for the "National Constitutional Convention" to be held at the Andrew Mellon Auditorium on Constitution Avenue.  Among our speakers for the day are Donna Brazile, Geraldine Ferraro, Sarah Weddington, Nadine Strossen, Bob Dole and Justice Samuel Alito.  The convention is free, but all attendees are asked to register in advance so we can get a lunch count.  To register, please visit www.amoreperfectconstitution.com and click on the "National Constitutional Convention" icon at the bottom of the front page.  

Thanks to Markos for the forum and sincere thanks to all participants.  --Larry Sabato
---------------------------

Last week, I discussed changes for the first half of the presidential selection system. The second half of the presidential electoral process is also in need of constitutional reform. This week, I offer my thoughts on how to update the Electoral College to fit the needs of a twenty-first century republic.

The 2000 election cliffhanger between George W. Bush and Al Gore was only the latest crisis to beset the constitutional mechanism for the election of a president, the Electoral College. There have been other Electoral College controversies, including the presidential elections of 1800, 1824, 1876, and 1888. In those elections—-just as in 2000-—the popular vote winner was denied the presidency because of a contrary Electoral College vote. In those elections—-just as in 2000-—there were political shenanigans of various sorts that further clouded the results. Many analysts and observers of American politics say that this record, and the very real potential for more mayhem in the future, calls for outright abolition of the Electoral College in the next constitutional revision. But these critics ignore some important advantages of the Electoral College, which deserves more respect than it gets. At the same time, the current system is inadequate to the needs of the modern Republic, so a proper approach is "Mend it, don’t end it."

It did not take long for the Electoral College to stir controversy. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran against incumbent President John Adams. Jefferson and his ticket mate, Aaron Burr, came out on top in the Electoral College. At that time, each elector voted for two men, and the top two vote-getters were supposed to serve as president and vice president. But the Jefferson electors had voted for both men, so Jefferson and Burr each had 73 of 138 electoral votes. While Burr had been the choice for vice president and not president, his political ambition kept him from stepping aside. It took thirty-six ballots in the U.S. House of Representatives—-with votes cast by state delegations as a whole, not by individual members—-to select Thomas Jefferson as our third president. This fiasco prompted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, which, among other provisions, requires electors to vote for presidential and vice presidential candidates separately.

More than two centuries later, despite the many controversies that have engulfed presidential elections, the Twelfth Amendment still marks the most significant change to the Electoral College in all of American history—-a fact that alone suggests that some rethinking may be in order. In the 1960s, the Twenty-third Amendment granted three electoral votes to the District of Columbia. Other amendments have primarily altered the timing of the electoral vote tabulation and the way in which individual states choose to allocate their electors. Despite these small changes, the Electoral College today works much as it has since the 1800s. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present...As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew." The political system of the 21st Century needs an injection of new thinking. My three proposals serve just such a purpose for the Electoral College.

First, abolish the threat of faithless electors, electors who don’t follow their pledge to vote for the candidate their state has chosen. Make the position of elector a strictly honorary one. The political parties could still offer these posts to their staunchest members, but the individuals would not need to make a trek to the statehouse (except perhaps for some sort of ceremony) and they would not cast an actual vote. Instead, each state’s electoral votes would be cast automatically for the winner of the certified popular vote in the state. Surely, this is one change that cannot be very controversial. The political parties will be able to keep these prestigious patronage posts to reward loyal party activists—-the honorary position of elector will remain a résumé enhancer for those selected-—but the nation need not worry about an illegitimate president produced by electors who arbitrarily decide to abandon their solemn pledge to back the people’s candidate.

The second reform, which would also be nearly universally welcomed, would apply whenever the election of a president is thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives, due to the failure of any candidate to secure a majority of electoral votes. Fortunately, this unwelcome event has only occurred twice in American history, in the presidential elections of 1800 and 1824. In 1800, the nation narrowly avoided being deprived of the signal presidency of Thomas Jefferson, and having Aaron Burr substituted instead. In 1824 the machinations in the House resulting in the election of John Quincy Adams as president literally ruined Adams’ one term.

The worst aspect of the House selection process is the unit rule, which mandates that each state shall cast one vote for president, irrespective of the state’s size, with a majority of states (twenty-six) being required for the election of a chief executive. So Wyoming (population 505,887) would have the same weight as California (population 35,842,038) in selecting the occupant of the White House for four years. The easiest, most sensible reform is to abolish the unit rule, and let every U.S. representative cast a ballot as he or she sees fit—-a ballot for which each member of the House will be held accountable by the constituency at the next election. A good case can be made for preserving the Electoral College as a bulwark of federalism, but the House unit rule in presidential elections is federalism taken to a destructive extreme.

My third proposal is to expand the size of the Electoral College. Should the changes to the U.S. Senate that I advocate in the book (and will propose here next week) be adopted, with larger states gaining U.S. senators, then the tally in the Electoral College would automatically change in the correct direction. This reallocation of Senate seats would add electoral votes to the heavily populated states and thus help to maximize the opportunity for the popular-vote winner to capture the presidency, while preserving the wonderful college advantage of isolating recounts in close elections to one or a few states. In that sense, expanding the Senate to account for population would send two birds—-both outdated constitutional pterodactyls—-into well-deserved extinction. The Senate would become more representative of the electorate, and the Electoral College simultaneously would as well.

If the expansion of the Senate proves politically or constitutionally impossible, there is another sound means to accomplish the very same goal in the Electoral College. The college itself could be directly enlarged, and the new electoral votes distributed among the heavily populated states to more closely reflect actual population. In addition to the 538 electoral votes currently allocated among the nation's fifty states and the District of Columbia, this proposal would give states additional electoral votes based on their percentage of the national population. With the specific method I put forward in my book (which I won’t go into here, but which is explained in great detail), this new version of the Electoral College would have closely paralleled President Bush’s 3-million vote plurality over Democratic senator John Kerry. But the real test would have come four years earlier, in the squeaker election of 2000. It would have produced an Electoral College result that more closely reflected the popular vote, and would have sent the 2000 election to the House. As we have suggested above, a House selection of the president isn’t the ideal solution, but one could argue that in 2000 the people’s House might have conferred more legitimacy upon the nascent Bush presidency than a 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

For a system as inherently complex as the Electoral College, any changes are difficult to comprehend. There are really only two ways to better understand them: first, this video. Second, the painstaking research that went into my forming each of these proposals is presented in the chapter on political reforms in my new book. If something here seems obtuse or confusing, please, go pick up a copy! Even if you disagree with what I’ve said, the important thing is that you’ll have a strong base of facts on which to formulate your own argument.

(Footnote by kos: An intro to this project can be found here. You can read some of his other proposals here. He'll be discussing other proposals from his book in the coming weeks. No money or other consideration has exchanged hands to get these pieces promoted to the front page.)

(I will read all comments, gratefully—as I have done over the last two weeks, and I appreciate the feedback. As always, please keep in mind that A More Perfect Constitution is not intended to be the end of the argument, but the beginning. Any Constitutional changes must be considered in the most careful and deliberative manner, and most amendments--and certainly a Constitutional Convention--might well be a generation away. It would be wonderful if those of you with comments and further ideas for change could register them at www.amoreperfectconstitution.com.  Add your '24th Proposal' to the 23 offered in the book. Actually, you can add another 23 if you wish!

I also invite those who will be in Washington, D.C. next Friday, October 19, 2007 to join us for the "National Constitutional Convention" to be held at the Andrew Mellon Auditorium on Constitution Avenue.  Among our speakers for the day are Donna Brazile, Geraldine Ferraro, Sarah Weddington, Nadine Strossen, Bob Dole and Justice Samuel Alito.  The convention is free, but all attendees are asked to register in advance so we can get a lunch count.  To register, please visit www.amoreperfectconstitution.com and click on the "National Constitutional Convention" icon at the bottom of the front page.  

Thanks to Markos for the forum and sincere thanks to all participants.  --Larry Sabato)

--------------------------

Woodrow Wilson suggested the government was subject to Darwinian evolutionary forces, and he was correct. Over many decades, the parties have evolved to meet the organizational needs of government. Along the way, though, the constitutionally ungoverned parties have also changed to serve their own needs better--and some of those selfish purposes have begun to override those of the citizenry's.

Political parties are and have always been state-based, because there are no federal constitutional guidelines and strictures on them. The state party committees, in conjunction with the state legislatures, actually set many of the rules for presidential selection, such as whether a primary or a caucus is held in a particular state, and how those events are actually run. With no one at the national level truly in charge, the fifty state political parties on each side (Democratic and Republican) squabble among themselves, initiating internecine battles over the order of presidential selection every four years. Sometimes, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in some states cannot even agree on a common date for the primary or caucus, so the voters in those states are treated to two separate nomination campaigns within the span of a few weeks or months. In doing so, the state parties promote and serve individual state or party interests over the national interest.

The federal Constitution has been preeminent over the state constitutions since the days of Chief Justice John Marshall, but not so among the political parties, which live in a no-man's-land--a Wild, Wild West--in law and practice: nationally organized but state-based, fundamentally private associations of like-minded people yet groups with vital public functions (such as the nomination of our highest elected officials). Darwinian evolution is fine for the origin of species, but it is past time for the necessary political institutions called parties to be governed by some sort of federal intelligent design. Only the Constitution can achieve this aim. If any ongoing disaster can prove the point, surely it is the quadrennial orgy of the presidential primary process.

In 1968 there were fifteen presidential primaries, a manageable number spread out over about three months, from March until June. The voters could focus on their task, and often there was enough time between primaries (a couple of weeks or so) for midcourse corrections in the selection of a party nominee, that is, enough time between contests for the momentum of the first primary winner to die down so that voters in the next state could take a fresh look at the contenders. In 2008, forty-three state presidential primaries are crammed into a 2-month span at the time of this writing.  

To make matters worse, in a phenomenon called front-loading, a majority of the states are rushing to the start of the calendar, in order to maximize their impact on the choice of the party nominees. The financial and other benefits are great in securing one of the early spots. The problem here is that the states are now bunched together so tightly that the winner of the first primary or caucus often wins the second, and the third, and the entire nomination simply because of the big momentum generated off the first victory. Some call it a "steamroller," others a "slingshot," but the effect is clear: a lightning-quick nomination of that initial victor.

The Congress should be constitutionally required to designate four regions of contiguous states (with contiguity waved for Alaska and Hawaii, and any other stray territories that may one day become states), with the boundaries of each region determined by the present state boundaries. All of the states in each region would hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in April and ending in July. The two major-party conventions would follow in August. This schedule, all by itself, would cut three months off the too-long process currently prevailing in presidential years.

But how would the order of the regions be determined? In many cases, there would still be a bonus in going first. The establishment of a U.S. Election Lottery, to be held on New Year's Day of the presidential election year, would yield fairness and also add an element of drama to the beginning of a presidential year. Four color-coded balls, each representing one of the regions, would be loaded into a typical lottery machine, and in short order—the length of a ten-second lottery TV drawing—the regional primary order would be set. Since none of the candidates would know in advance where the political season would begin, part of the permanent presidential campaign would be dismantled.

One additional facet should be added to the plan in order to enhance its effectiveness. The best argument made for Iowa and New Hampshire is that their small populations allow for highly personalized campaigning. The candidates are able to meet individual citizens for lengthy and sometimes repeated conversations about the issues, and these voters are able to size up potential presidents at eye level, without the candidates having the protection of the usual large retinue of image makers and staffers. In that sense, lightly populated states can serve as a useful screening committee for the rest of us.

There is a way to combine the advantages of small-state scrutiny of candidates with the inherent fairness of round-robin regional primaries. We can achieve the best of both worlds by adding a second lottery on January 1. The names of all states with four or fewer members in the U.S. House of Representatives (at present, twenty states) would be placed in a lottery machine, and two balls would be selected. The District of Columbia should be included, and this would mean twenty-one jurisdictions would have a chance to be selected in the second lottery.

In sum, this Regional Lottery Plan would achieve many good things simultaneously for a selection process that currently makes little sense. The election campaign would be shortened and focused, a relief to both candidates and voters. All regions and states would get an opportunity to have a substantial impact on the making of the presidential nominees. A rational, nicely arranged schedule would build excitement and citizen involvement in every corner of the country, without sacrificing the personalized scrutiny of candidates for which Iowa and New Hampshire have become justly known. And all of this can only come about by putting the politics of nominations and elections in its proper place—the United States Constitution.

(Footnote by kos: An intro to this project can be found here. Larry discusses his proposal for new warmaking powers here. He'll be discussing other proposals from his book in the coming weeks. No money or other consideration has exchanged hands to get these pieces promoted to the front page.)

(I asked Prof. Larry Sabato to discuss his new book in depth on the site, which he started last week with this intro piece, and will continue doing over the coming weeks. Again, let me point out up front that no money has exchanged any hands to make this happen -- kos)

----------------------

I will read all comments, gratefully—as I did last week, and I appreciate the feedback. As I have stressed over and over again, A More Perfect Constitution is not the end of the argument, it's the beginning. Any Constitutional changes must be considered in the most careful and deliberative manner, and most amendments--and certainly a Constitutional Convention--might well be a generation away. (A war powers amendment, discussed below, ought to be one of the exceptions; it is an urgent matter.) It would be wonderful if those of you with comments and further ideas for change could register them at www.amoreperfectconstitution.com. Add your '24th Proposal' to my 23. Actually, you can add another 23 if you wish! Thanks to Markos for the forum and sincere thanks to all participants.  --Larry Sabato

----------------------

Going back to some concerns raised last week, I want to stress that I am advocating the calling of a second Constitutional Convention only after the idea is given much study, thought, discussion, and debate, such as we are seeing on this website. The process will be generational; that is, there couldn't possibly be a new Convention for a generation. The prism through which some are interpreting the proposal—the current Bush administration—will be very old news indeed. In the meantime, certainly, a more urgent proposal such as the one discussed below on restoring the balance in war powers could be passed under the normal constitutional amendment procedure of Article V, should that prove possible. (If it doesn't prove possible, this is more justification for a second Convention.)

Virtually all of the delegates to the original Convention expected and welcomed future conventions to reconsider their work. As George Mason of Virginia put it in September 1787, "A second Constitutional Convention will know more of the sense of the people, and be able to provide a system more consonant to it." After 220 years of experience, I believe Mason, and the other Founders and Framers, would have insisted on a new debate about constitutional reform.

This week, I’ll focus on a rebalancing of war powers between the Congress and the President. Both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts have illustrated a modern imbalance in the constitutional power to wage war. Once Congress consented to these wars, presidents were able to continue them for many years— long after popular support had drastically declined. Limit the president’s war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue American military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have no more than one year to withdraw all combat troops.

Citing the need for speed and secrecy, presidents of both parties (Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton) have taken “emergency actions” as they saw fit. The natural tendency in a frightening era, when the nation is under threat, is to defer to a tough-talking president who can take swift action—even if the action is unwise or poorly thought out. And yet, as the war-powers scholar Louis Fisher has argued, “The Framers also lived in a dangerous time, possibly more hazardous than today,” as they faced the superpowers of their era (England, France, and Spain) with few military advantages. “Contemporary Presidential judgments need more, not less, scrutiny,” wrote Fisher, and Iraq surely proves the point. While the press can supply some of that scrutiny, there is no substitute for Congress. Its powers of the purse, subpoena, and Article II’s Senate approval of ambassadors and treaties entitle it to a full share of authority in this most important sphere.

Most important of all, there should be a time limit on unilateral presidential war making—ninety days appears reasonable—at which time Congress would need to either give its assent or, through a resolution of disapproval, cause the orderly withdrawal of American forces. Given that Congress, especially the Senate with its unlimited debate rule, can be dilatory, this new constitutional provision should mandate a congressional vote on military action in both houses, up or down, by the end of the ninety-day period.

The legislative resolution of approval ought also to set a time limit on the grant of war-making power for any conflict—six months, or a year at most. By the end of that time period, Congress should vote either for a continuation of the conflict, or by its disapproval, direct that our military forces be withdrawn on a reasonable timetable. Such a resolution would not be subject to the presidential veto. This resolves the problem of congressional approval, once given, being interpreted by presidents as an endless blank check for years of war—precisely what Lyndon Johnson did after the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution with respect to Vietnam, and George W. Bush did after the 2002 congressional vote on the Iraq War. New information comes to light, and new conditions develop—and Congress should regularly review the situation, checking the president in this life-or-death realm of constitutional power.

The era of open-ended, unilateral war making by presidents should be brought to an end, and it will not happen without a remedy such as the one discussed here. If this be “hamstringing a president,” as critics might charge, it is time to use a little string—and the Vietnam and Iraq wars show why. Should combat be in the American national interest, it ought to find favor in both elective branches, not just one, for we will surely fail to win the battle eventually if the nation is not substantially behind the war effort. All Americans understand that this is not an arcane debate about a few phrases in the Constitution. The most awesome authority contained in the text of our basic document of state is the war-making power. How it is described and allocated determines the fate of millions of our sons and daughters—those who wear the American military uniform. Just as vital, America’s decisions to wage war affect our ability to survive and succeed in a dangerous world. It is long past time to rethink the inadequate constitutional arrangement that was well suited to the eighteenth century but is out of step in the twenty-first.

(I've asked Prof. Larry Sabato to discuss his new book in depth on the site, over the coming weeks, to spur discussion about his radical and quite intriguing idea to call for a Second Constitutional Convention to update the U.S. Constitution. It's a scary proposal for what should be obvious reasons, but his book is a great look at the parts of the Constitution that don't work, and what could be done to update our most cherished national document. To be clear -- no money has exchanged any hands to make this happen -- kos)

-----

Throughout the history of the American republic, politicians have run on platforms of change: changing healthcare, or the economy, or foreign policy. They have promised their constituents that they will go and "clean up" Washington, and encouraged voters to "throw the bums out." But nowhere amidst their posturing has there been a call for changing the system itself; no one seems to see that maybe it’s the Constitution, not just the Congress, that needs to be cleaned up.

In the 220 years since the Constitution was written, the United States has undergone a great transformation. The 13 original states on the Atlantic seaboard have grown into 50, from sea to shining sea. Advances in transportation and communications have created an interconnected nation that shares information in the blink of an eye. We've seen the growth of political parties, and the various institutions and practices that come with them.

But what we haven't seen is major Constitutional reform. There have only been 17 amendments (the first 10 must be considered a part of the original document), one of which simply reversed another, others of which have been quite minor. Despite the new realities of the modern United States, our government runs under the direction of a document written with quill pens. This is not what our founders envisioned. Thomas Jefferson insisted that, "No society can make a perpetual Constitution...The earth belongs always to the living generation." He wanted major Constitutional reform every generation. One of Jefferson's great contemporaries, James Madison, agreed on the matter, saying that constitutional revisions would be "a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors."

The Constitution remains brilliant in its overall design. The Founders devised a political system that separated the powers of government, placed mutual checks on the powers each branch held, and ensured certain civil and human rights. Any new Constitutional initiatives must steer clear of infringing upon these bedrock principles of American government.

The first step toward changing the Constitution is beginning a discussion of what's going wrong with the one we have, and what we might do to fix it. Over the next several weeks, I'll be posting diaries outlining some of my proposals for Constitutional reform (which number 23 in all, though only a sampling will appear here). This week I hope to provide readers with some general ideas to get the creative discourse started; as the weeks progress, I'll be going into greater depth on some proposals.

To begin with, by what sort of mechanism would all of this constitutional change be achieved? Our present Constitution outlines two ways to bring about amendments. The method used for all amendments up until now has been a proposed amendment passing both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority in each house, then getting ratified by three-quarters of the states. For interlocking reforms of the scope and scale that I am proposing, however, such a piecemeal process wouldn't work.

Instead, we need to turn to the second process, one never before used in the history of the United States: a Constitutional Convention. Thirty-four states would petition Congress for a Convention, and the Congress would be obligated to call it—while designing a "Call to Convention" document that would list the subjects to be considered by the delegates. The Congress would be able to, and should, bar the convention from addressing hot-button social issue amendments, such as abortion or gay marriage, or tampering with the Bill of Rights; if the convention does so anyway, Congress could refuse to send the amendments to the states for ratification, as it would have the right to do.

The ultimate check on any Convention, though, is the requirement that thirty-eight states ratify any proposed change to the Constitution. There are more than enough Blue States, and Red States, to stop any partisan or ideologically driven amendment dead in its tracks. It only takes a mere thirteen states to bring down the curtain on any change.

Under the proposals that I will discuss in succeeding days are some affecting each branch of the federal government. For instance, concerning the Congress, I would expand the size of the Senate to ease the dramatic disparity in representation among states—the massive inequality from a population perspective that directly impacts the legislation passed or killed daily in the Senate. I will make the policy case for an admittedly difficult political alteration: Each of the 10 most populous states would receive an extra two senators, and each of the next 15 most populous states would get one additional senator. The District of Columbia would also receive representation in the Senate.

The most far-reaching reform that I propose for the executive branch is a dramatic redistribution of war powers, restoring the Congress' original co-equal Constitutional role. This shift is not only achievable; it almost certainly has broad support among the American public after the experiences of Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

For the judiciary, under my plan, all federal judges would face a 15-year term limit, without renewal, and the Supreme Court would be expanded to 12 members from its present nine.

I also propose a new and quite necessary Article on Politics. The founders did not much care for the subject, believing neither in mass democracy nor political parties. They came to accept both as inevitable, required, and even healthful, but not until long after the Constitution was written. The lack of governing guidance in the Constitution has led to all sorts of mischief, not least the state free-for-all that has produced the insanely frontloaded primary schedule for 2008. And reform of the Electoral College system is an inevitable goal for a project like mine, so naturally I have included it.

Lastly, let me mention my suggestion of a new Constitutional Bill of Responsibilities, to balance the Bill of Rights. At its heart is universal national service (UNS) for the young. Domestic civilian, nonprofit, and Peace Corps service is included, not just military conscription. My detailed and cost-effective plan for UNS attempts to revive and channel the idealism of youth in much the way John F. Kennedy began to do with the Peace Corps in the early 1960s.

This is a mere posting of topics to get us started. I will be on-line to answer questions and hear other points of view, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.