Legislation and Constitutional Amendments

The current Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has engaged in rulings at odds with the very constitution they claim to represent.

For example, in Trump v. USA, they created an exclusive "Constitutional Right" for Presidents be immune from Criminal prosecution for "official acts."

SCOTUS created this right despite the Constitution having no such language, and despite the fact that the Constitution speaks to immunity: but only for members of Congress, and only while engaged in legislative duties, and not in the case of Treason, Felony, or Violence. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

Corporations are manifestly not humans, yet the first amendment seems most obviously to pertain to persons, and not to corporate entities. ^{[4] [5]}

These examples are not exhaustive.

(Contributors can be particularly helpful in making a better elucidation of examples of the politically motivated contradictions in recent SCOTUS rulings. ^[6]

TRP2029 must anticipate that many of the laws we will pass for PG2029 will be struck down by SCOTUS.

Nonetheless, we must pass them first as ways to advance two other necessary strategies for PG2029:

First: for each law that is struck down, we will need to replace them with constitutional amendments — and these will have more justification if a corrupt self-serving court has struck down the equivalent laws.

Second: we need to bolster the political case for expanding SCOTUS, implementing term limits for SCOTUS, and imposing ethics reforms on SCOTUS.

The second strategy above may lead to another "Constitutional Crisis" as the sitting SCOTUS may well defend their support of Project 2025 by ruling some or all of the legislation aimed at reforming SCOTUS to be an unconstitutional infringement by the Legislative Branch on the Judicial Branch.

If that happens, the second line of legislative attack for PG2029 will be to attempt to pass constitutional amendments that duplicate the laws SCOTUS struck down.

In order to succeed, politicians in the service of PG2029 must wage a multi-decade struggle to complete a Constitutional makeover of the USA.

That mission will be accelerated by relentless political focus on the injustice of SCOTUS' decisions to grant ever more power to the powerful, and on Justices' refusal to have sensible check upon their own power.

For these reasons, every sub-folder in this folder "LegislationAndAmendments" is titled according to the subject being addressed (for example, "voting rights," or "corporate reform," or "data privacy rights") and contains within it two sub-folders: one for laws, and another for constitutional amendments.

It may be that some folders contain only a stub indicating why the law or amendment is not there. The possible reasons are:

We have now reached the point that George Washington warned us of in his farewell address that “(Political factions and parties) are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” [p 12]

The founders of the US Constitution, and of all constitutions based on the US Constitution used the concept of "separation of powers" from Baron de Montesquieu who published The Spirit of Law in 1748 ^[7].

Unfortunately, Montesquieu was working in an environment where the most separation of powers known was a parliament (Legislature) and a king (Executive). So when he envisioned three branches (adding a Judiciary), he was being visionary for his time.

However, with the authoritarian hack against our democracy represented by DJT, MAGA, and Project 2025, we have learned that a separation into three powers with 'traditions' for further constraining power, has failed.

We must therefore advocate for additional separations of powers.

These will require Constitutional Changes.

One of the traditional ways our institutions have supported the separations of powers has been political parties willing to work against their own members across branches. ^[8]

But this no longer applies. ^[9]