{"id":14823,"date":"2024-08-02T09:55:17","date_gmt":"2024-08-02T13:55:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/freethepeople.org\/?p=14260"},"modified":"2024-11-22T15:16:53","modified_gmt":"2024-11-22T20:16:53","slug":"freedom-caucus-path-to-constitutionally-limited-governments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/freethepeople.org\/freedom-caucus-path-to-constitutionally-limited-governments\/","title":{"rendered":"Freedom Caucus Path to Constitutionally-Limited Governments"},"content":{"rendered":"

Voters need much more than less-bad policies. Voters need genuinely-good party processes and government processes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Lately, voters<\/a> have been getting a rare chance to rapidly build<\/a> a good party<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So far, in 11 states the Republican parties now include freedom caucuses. In 2 of these states, the 2024 Republican primaries are still to come<\/a>—in Missouri on August 6, and in Wyoming on August 20.<\/p>\n

This year the Missouri Freedom Caucus was started. Immediately, most of its members worked hard to pass initiative-petition<\/a> reform<\/a>.<\/p>\n

When initiative-petition reform gets enacted, from then on it will greatly hinder out-of-state groups. Currently, they are constitutionally enabled to force their wills on the state residents in most districts, by mobilizing metro voters to amend the state constitution.<\/p>\n

In past elections, a reformed, more widely representative process would have blocked casinos and would have blocked cannabis taxing and regulation. In the 2024 general election, a reformed process would block state constitution support for abortion. (Note that even if state constitution support for abortion is enacted, such support would still violate the Constitution by unduly depriving persons of life<\/a>.) A reformed process would also block other initiatives that under the current process would still keep coming.<\/p>\n

Initiative-petition reform was the Missouri Freedom Caucus members\u2019 highest priority all session long. It appears to have been supported by majorities in both legislative houses. The state senator whipping for it \u201cfelt pretty confident\u201d that the required 18 senators would \u201cvery likely vote for it\u201d if \u201cput on the spot.\u201d<\/p>\n

But this reform ended up killed by three punches to the gut<\/a>:<\/p>\n

First, a Republican senator, who reportedly called herself the legislation\u2019s primary sponsor, initially introduced a motion to end Democrats\u2019 stalling maneuver, but then very-quickly withdrew that motion and instead motioned to send the bill to conference with the representatives. Most plausibly, this senator was acting behind the scenes to avoid being put on the spot and having to cast a highly-visible major vote that would have demolished her principal value proposition to voters—that she had been \u201ca pro-life activist my entire life<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Second, when the representatives immediately rejected the motion and sent the bill back to the senators, the lame-duck president pro tem finished running out the clock by ending early on the last day of the 2024 regular session.<\/p>\n

Third, the Republican governor has been failing to call a special session. The Republican lieutenant governor also has been failing to call for a special session when he has temporarily been the acting governor<\/a>.<\/div>\n

This reform attempt hints that freedom caucuses have promise. They could soon block bad new policies. They are the most fully-developed approach to constitutionally limiting<\/a> USA governments.<\/p>\n

But this reform attempt also hints that at least on the development path that freedom caucuses are taking currently, freedom caucuses have shortcomings. They are allocating their scarce capital to important but even so, small-ball, defensive responses to Progressive advances. So far, in most cases their numbers are still coming up short. Their worst enemies include people who present like allies but end up like sleeper agents.
\nThis promise can be fulfilled, and these shortcomings can be left behind in the dust, by completing a fundamental paradigm shift. What\u2019s needed aren\u2019t less bad policies but rather, good processes<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Use Offsetting Powers<\/strong><\/p>\n

State governments, especially, have real advantages for advancing freedom.<\/p>\n

In many states, voting is less dominated by metro areas\u2019 Progressives<\/a>. Spends by cronies are smaller, so Progressive candidates get smaller boosts from deceptively presenting themselves as conservatives and presenting opponents as liberals. In most states, most of the successful candidates call themselves Republicans, which means that the outcomes of general elections are determined by the primaries. In primaries, the voter turnout is lower, which means that well-informed voters have more impact.<\/p>\n

And once they\u2019re elected, state officials control substantial state spending<\/a>, state regulations<\/a>, and state powers<\/a> to limit the national government.<\/p>\n

In the USA\u2019s current House of Representatives, the percentage of members who reportedly belong to the House Freedom Caucus is 9%<\/a>. In state legislative houses, more favorably, the percentages of members who openly belong to state freedom caucuses are already as high as 19%<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Freedom caucus personnel have never-before-realized potential because they are mostly getting right the single action<\/a> that is the<\/em> key to limiting governments: most members are using their offsetting constitutional powers<\/a> to limit others in governments.<\/p>\n

Freedom caucuses are already the most promising new party initiative since the initial Democratic Party and the Republican Party.<\/p>\n

In the past, parties have always started out with promising personnel and programs. Successive parties offered increased freedom first from England, next from growing Federalist government, next from compromised, growing Jeffersonian Republican government, and most recently from slavery. Promising and delivering greater freedom has been what has made each successive major party rise to majority control.<\/p>\n

But every party so far has lacked party rules that limit the party organization\u2019s power. Not a single party has robustly offered voters candidates who use their constitutional powers against others in governments, limiting governments. Utterly lacking in built-in systemic limits, every party has soon enough broken bad and stayed bad<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Parties have instead ended up being vehicles for defying constitutional limits on governments. This is what a caucus\u2019s members must change in order for the caucus to be not merely good-intentioned and a promising flash-in-the-pan, but instead substantially good for the long haul.<\/p>\n

Declare Independence from Prior Caucuses<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Declaration of Independence<\/a> established a meaningful name for the new nation. The declaration stated the principle that all men are created equal and are created with certain unalienable<\/a> rights, including to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It listed specific grievances against the existing national government. This clearly established as a minimum standard that neither those specific actions nor any actions that are remotely similar would be committed by the declaration\u2019s signers and successors. It was vowed and signed by politicians<\/a>, at a clear and present risk of being pursued and killed as disgraced traitors. The USA government\u2019s declaration of independence from England\u2019s government advanced the nation along an optimal path to freedom.<\/p>\n

Party caucus declarations of independence from prior party caucuses will be the best way to advance party caucuses along an optimal path to freedom.<\/p>\n

A caucus declaration of independence should establish a meaningful caucus name. \u201cFreedom Caucus\u201d has meaning but is nonspecific, since the meaning has been blurred by the fact that current freedom caucuses include politicians who don\u2019t support freedom strongly, as will be shown later by a discussion of constitutionalist voting scorecards. \u201crepublican Constitution Caucus,\u201d or in short, \u201crConstitution Caucus,\u201d would have a specific meaning that would endure, thanks to Randy Barnett\u2019s defining nomenclature in Our Republican Constitution<\/a><\/em>. The Constitution isn\u2019t a democratic constitution, it\u2019s the republican Constitution. Under the republican Constitution, individuals are sovereign, and governments are justly instituted to make individuals\u2019 rights more secure.<\/p>\n

Caucus declarations should establish the principle of how the Constitution secures rights:<\/p>\n

Our life, liberty, property rights, and supporting rights are made secure from government people through the Constitution separating the state, legislative, executive, and judicial powers, through the Constitution defining offsetting powers, and through government people respecting other government people\u2019s powers and asserting their own offsetting powers.<\/p>\n

When government people fail to respect others\u2019 powers or when government people fail to assert their own offsetting powers, government people deny us our rights.<\/p>\n

(The Constitution Needs a Good Party<\/a>, pp. 21\u201322.<\/em>)<\/div>\n

Past and present violations of this principle should be documented in caucus declarations as specific, detailed grievances.<\/p>\n

And of course caucus declarations should be signed! Unfortunately, from inception the current freedom caucuses have been organized to allow anonymous membership, and continue to this day along this same dead-end path.<\/p>\n

rConstitution Caucus membership needs to be a brand<\/em> that voters can see clearly for themselves, needs to deliver a minimum brand quality<\/em>, and needs to stay good<\/em>. This value proposition should be promised using a caucus declaration, and should be delivered using a caucus constitution, caucus laws, and a caucus bill of processes.<\/p>\n

Enact Caucus Constitutions and Laws<\/strong><\/p>\n

Specific rules on individuals\u2019 rights, and specific sanctions that give these rules force<\/a>, are designed into constitutional governments and must then also be delivered by operating these governments constitutionally. What\u2019s also necessary for this to work, and what\u2019s sufficient, is to have at least one major party that robustly selects for candidates who will use their constitutional powers against other government people in the various government jurisdictions to limit them and their governments.<\/p>\n

Party caucuses can get the development of such a good party started by ratifying a party caucus constitutions that include every rule needed in a good party that\u2019s suitable to also use first in a party caucus.<\/p>\n

Following the model of the Constitution<\/a>, each caucus constitution should be used to create a caucus congress, executive, and judiciary. It should enumerate powers to solicit and collect donations, arrange meetings, and provide control as needed over the next-more-local jurisdiction caucuses\u2019 selection of members. It should rule out caucus funding of candidates, so that caucus funding can\u2019t be corrupted to support relatively-Progressive<\/a> candidates. It should rule out having a caucus platform, so that it leaves each candidate fully accountable for explicitly stating each of his positions himself.<\/p>\n

To facilitate changing certain rules and sanctions quickly when needed, some caucus requirements should be enacted not in constitutions but in laws.<\/p>\n

One caucus law should require that previously-elected candidates be allowed to remain in the caucus only if their previous-term John Birch Society Freedom Index<\/a> scores are a minimum of 80% pro-freedom<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Progressive Democrats increase tyranny, and they vote anti-tyranny no more than 1 time out of 5. This experience is strong evidence suggesting that constitutionalists will increase freedom if they vote anti-freedom no more than 1 time out of 5.<\/p>\n

Only Freedom Index scores and Conservative Review Liberty Scores provide good-enough sensitivity to differences between Republican Progressives and Republican constitutionalists. Freedom Index scores have an extensive track record, having been maintained for decades. Freedom Index scores are broken out by legislative session, so it can be used to measure members\u2019 actions all throughout their most-recent term in office and not at all across their previous terms in office. Crucially, Freedom Index scores are available for state legislators.<\/p>\n

Current freedom caucuses don\u2019t ensure that freedom advances by requiring minimum 80% pro-freedom support of the Constitution. This dissonance is indicated by members\u2019 Freedom Index scores for 2023\u20132024. In the House Freedom Caucus, the percentage of reported members who aren\u2019t reaching this minimum threshold is 12%. Two of these members have been voting only 68% pro-freedom. In the state freedom caucuses, the percentage of reported members who aren\u2019t reaching this minimum threshold is 22%. Six of these members have been voting only 50% pro-freedom.<\/p>\n

A second caucus law should require members to repeal all existing law, and to enact all new law, fully constitutionally. In a caucus\u2019s government jurisdiction, caucus members should vote every time in such a way that will require that the constitution\/charter<\/a> and each statute passes all of the following simple pass\/fail tests:<\/p>\n

\n
    \n
  1. No misleading parts.<\/li>\n
  2. Only uses powers enumerated for the [jurisdiction] government.<\/li>\n
  3. No delegation of legislative power.<\/li>\n
  4. No grabs of executive power.<\/li>\n
  5. No grabs of judicial power.<\/li>\n
  6. Not noncritical, complex, or long, and not helping make the total corpus of law incomprehensibly complex or long.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Any existing statute or new bill that passes the first five tests will consist only of rules and sanctions. It will only use enumerated powers, and it will separate powers. So it won\u2019t infringe on the powers delegated to other jurisdictions, the powers delegated to other branches, or the powers reserved to the people. At that point, the sixth test, of comprehensibility, will be surprisingly easy to apply acceptably well.<\/p>\n

    And even if opinions vary about overall comprehensibility, there will be the saving grace that basically every statute that\u2019s constitutional will be commonsense. Commonsense statutes automatically are obeyed without being read, when people simply respect others.<\/p>\n

    (\u201cSeparate Powers Automatically Using Simple Rules<\/a>\u201d)<\/div>\n

    So then, a caucus declaration would establish new standards of caucus behavior. Membership would be openly declared and known. A caucus constitution would structure a clearly-new kind of caucus that would have limited enumerated powers. One caucus law would guarantee that every rConstitution Caucus incumbent\u2019s Freedom Index score is at least 80% pro-freedom. A second caucus law would guarantee that rConstitution Caucus members would consistently vote to limit the caucus\u2019s government jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

    Voters would finally be assured of a real choice. And voters would plainly see that as they elect more members to this caucus, this bloc would keep growing more effective<\/a> at limiting that jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

    Already, the rConstitution Caucus would be a brand<\/em> that delivers a minimum brand quality<\/em> and that, given its constitution, has multiple layers of protections to make it stay good<\/em>. Further quality should be assured by also creating a party-caucus bill of processes.<\/p>\n

    Draft and Pass a Caucus Bill of Processes<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Even though in a given jurisdiction a party caucus starts out in the minority in the party, its members should still draft and pass a caucus bill of processes.<\/p>\n

    A caucus declaration of independence will implicitly establish vows by the chartering members and successors. A caucus bill of processes will explicitly establish vows by the current members: they will implicitly vow that when they reach the majority in the party, they will enact specific party laws that will be clearly good.<\/p>\n

    A caucus bill of processes should promise:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Moderator-free party-sanctioned debates.<\/li>\n
    2. All-closed contests.<\/li>\n
    3. All-caucus contests. [These will be neighborhood candidate-selection caucuses of around 25 voters each. During meetings caucuses will further divide into working groups of around 5 voters each. These provisions will help even introverts inform others. Compared to tiny, party-insider conventions, caucuses will make it way harder for cronies to swing the voting to favor their Progressive candidates. Also, caucuses will bring to the surface not only the same general considerations that apply in all locations, but also the more-tailored considerations that are the most relevant in each local neighborhood.]<\/li>\n
    4. All-proportional voting.<\/li>\n
    5. Electors awarded only on seats currently held by the party.<\/li>\n
    6. One-at-a-time contests.<\/li>\n
    7. Contests in order of decreasing party strength.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      (\u201cTerm Limits Won\u2019t Fix the Problem in Washington, but These Solutions Might<\/a>\u201d)<\/p>\n

      Once this caucus bill eventually gets enacted as party laws, each of these party laws will give voters more time to learn more fully about candidates. Then, voters will be far better informed. Better candidates will run. Candidates will interact upfront with voters more meaningfully, and this will make candidates improve further.<\/p>\n

      When voters are informed adequately and are presented with good choices, voters show with their actions that they prefer low taxes, parties that increase freedom, presidents who are as constitutionalist as voters get a chance to nominate, and candidates across the board who are constitutionalists<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      Combined, these provisions of a caucus declaration, constitution, laws, and bill of processes will effectively neutralize crony money. In candidate selection and election, all that will matter will be votes.<\/p>\n

      Individually Interpret Alternative Processes\u2019 Unconstitutionality<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Each party caucus member should singularly focus on creating at least one good major party whose people will operate the Constitution as-is. To settle on this focus in his mind, each party caucus member should independently interpret<\/a> unconstitutional alternative processes and unreservedly repudiate each one.<\/p>\n

      There are many unconstitutional alternative processes. Many of our best people have accepted these as valuable based on marketing copy<\/a>, tradition, or other interpreters\u2019 suggestions. Our people haven\u2019t thought through these alternatives for themselves as carefully as we need them to do upfront.<\/p>\n

      We need them to not just fool around with these ideas right now and then find out for real only a generation or more later (and quite possibly not even be willing to fess up at that point).<\/p>\n

      Legislators\u2019 constitutional job is to vote to repeal<\/a> or pass rules and sanctions, and to summarily impeach<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      No alternative actions are acceptable substitutes. Nearly all alternative actions either already are in use now despite being unconstitutional, or if brought into use would be unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

      Here are leading unconstitutional alternatives:<\/p>\n