The First Amendment guarantees our right to free speech, but in today's digital age, these protections need to be reevaluated and strengthened to address new challenges. The rise of social media, digital platforms, and electronic communication has created a landscape where free speech is both amplified and, at times, restricted by corporate and government interests.

I strongly believe that internet service providers (ISPs) should function more like utilities, similar to how water pipes deliver water. ISPs should provide access to the internet without controlling or influencing the content that flows through it.

Individuals should be able to use the internet freely, without ISPs acting like media corporations that control and filter what information comes into our homes. This is essential to preserving the open and free nature of the internet, ensuring that everyone has equal access to information and the ability to express themselves online.

In addition, I firmly believe that the Citizens United decision should be overturned through a Congressional Amendment. The notion that political campaign contributions are a form of free speech is fundamentally flawed. Most Americans agree: dollars are not speech. The overwhelming influence of money in politics undermines the democratic process, allowing those with wealth to have a disproportionate impact on elections and policy decisions. By overturning Citizens United, we can restore integrity to our political system and ensure that free speech remains a right of the people, not a privilege of the wealthy.

Updating free speech protections for the modern world means ensuring that individuals have the right to express their views online without undue censorship or surveillance, while also addressing the spread of misinformation and harmful content. We need a balanced approach that protects the fundamental right to free speech while recognizing the unique challenges posed by the digital environment. This includes reevaluating the role of tech companies as gatekeepers of information and ensuring that government regulations do not infringe upon our constitutional rights.

It's time for Congress to take a hard look at how free speech operates in the digital age. We must update our laws to reflect the realities of the 21st century, ensuring that our First Amendment rights remain robust and relevant in an era where communication happens increasingly online.

In a rapidly changing world, effective and dynamic leadership is essential to addressing the complex challenges our nation faces. To ensure that our leaders are equipped with the energy, adaptability, and contemporary perspectives necessary to lead in the 21st century, it's time to consider implementing age limits for members of Congress and the Presidency.

Currently, there are minimum age requirements for these offices—35 years for the President and 25 or 30 years for members of Congress—but no maximum age limits. While experience and wisdom are valuable, there comes a point when the demands of office may exceed the physical and cognitive capabilities of even the most dedicated public servants. Age limits would help ensure that those serving in our highest offices are not only experienced but also physically and mentally prepared to handle the rigors of their duties.

By setting reasonable age limits, we can encourage a steady infusion of fresh ideas and perspectives into our government, fostering leadership that is more in tune with the needs and concerns of younger generations. This is not about dismissing the contributions of older leaders but about recognizing that leadership in a modern democracy benefits from a balance of experience and vitality.

The exact age limits would need to be carefully considered and debated in Congress, taking into account the unique demands of each office. I propose an upper age limit of 65 for U.S. President, 70 for U.S. Senate, and 75 for U.S. House, directly mirroring the lower age minimums. The goal is to ensure that our leaders can perform their roles effectively while also creating opportunities for new leaders to emerge and bring innovative solutions to the table.

Implementing age limits would also address the growing concern that some elected officials may remain in office longer than is in the best interest of the country, potentially hindering progress and adaptation to new realities. By establishing these limits, we can build a more responsive, agile, and forward-looking government that better serves the American people.

Fiscal responsibility is crucial to the long-term health and stability of our nation. A balanced federal budget ensures that we live within our means, reduce the national debt, and avoid passing on unsustainable financial burdens to future generations. By advocating for a balanced budget, we aim to promote economic stability and restore public confidence in the government's ability to manage its finances effectively.

Some nations have gone as far as enshrining a balanced budget requirement in their constitutions, which forces their governments to make tough but necessary decisions to avoid deficit spending. I'm open to the idea of a constitutional amendment to this effect, but it’s a complex issue that warrants thorough debate in Congress. We must carefully weigh the pros and cons, considering both the flexibility needed to respond to national emergencies and the importance of maintaining fiscal discipline. The goal is to create a framework that encourages responsible spending while allowing for the necessary investments in our future.

Campaign finance reform is essential to restoring trust in our democratic process.

The overwhelming influence of corporate donations and special interest money in politics has skewed the playing field, giving disproportionate power to wealthy donors while drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. To ensure that our government truly represents the people, we must implement reforms that limit corporate donations and increase transparency in political contributions.

One key step is to overturn the Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending in elections. We must establish clear limits on how much corporations and special interest groups can contribute to political campaigns, ensuring that elections are not bought by the highest bidder. At the same time, we should increase transparency by requiring full disclosure of all political donations, so the public knows who is funding campaigns and what interests they represent. By limiting corporate influence and increasing transparency, we can restore integrity to our elections, and ensure that our leaders are accountable to the people, not to powerful donors.

Digital Representation in the U.S. House of Representatives?

As our technologies evolve, so should our approach to democracy. One intriguing concept is the idea of digital representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. This approach could allow American citizens to have a more direct say in the legislative process by voting on specific propositions through a secure, government-developed app or website. Such a system would not replace our elected representatives, but could offer a complementary way for citizens to engage with the legislative process, ensuring their voices are heard on issues that matter most to them.

Digital representation could enhance democracy by making it more inclusive and responsive to the will of the people. However, this idea requires careful consideration and debate to ensure it upholds the principles of our democratic system, such as preventing tyranny by the majority and maintaining the integrity of the legislative process. It’s essential to explore how digital participation could be integrated without compromising the effectiveness or security of our government.

Congressional Structure: One or Two Chambers?

While exploring the concept of digital representation, it’s also worth revisiting the broader structure of Congress itself. Some nations, such as Chile, have a unicameral (single-chamber) legislature, which proponents argue can reduce gridlock and streamline decision-making. On the other hand, our bicameral (two-chamber) system, with the House of Representatives and the Senate, was designed to provide checks and balances, ensuring a thorough review of legislation and preventing the concentration of power.

I lean toward a conservative approach when it comes to making fundamental changes to our government’s structure, believing that we should change little unless we’re certain of the benefits. However, I’m open-minded enough to revisit the makeup of Congress. The question of whether one or two chambers is more effective is worth discussing, especially in light of the need for a Congress that can both prevent tyranny and move swiftly when action is needed.

These discussions—both on digital representation and the structure of Congress—are vital as we consider how best to adapt our democracy to the challenges of the modern world while preserving the core principles that have guided us for centuries.

Our current reliance on Social Security Numbers (SSNs) as a form of national ID is outdated and vulnerable to misuse, leading to widespread issues like identity theft and fraud. To address these challenges, I propose exploring a Digital National ID system using blockchain-style technology. This secure, tamper-proof digital identity could either supplement or eventually replace the SSN, providing every American with a lifelong, encrypted identifier for accessing government services, healthcare, voting, and more.

It’s important to clarify that this blockchain-based ID system has nothing to do with cryptocurrency, although such ‘coins’ also use underlying “blockchain” technology. Rather, this proposition is about creating a secure and private digital identity that individuals control. By modernizing our identification system, we can enhance security, protect privacy, and reduce the risk of identity theft. This transition should be carefully managed to ensure inclusivity and public trust, making it easier for all Americans to adapt to this new technology.

I strongly believe that the budgets of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of State (DOS) should be more closely linked in their missions. Currently, the DOD's budget significantly outweighs that of the DOS, reflecting a historical focus on military power over diplomacy. However, in the modern world, our long-term security strategy must prioritize diplomacy and international alliances as much as, if not more than, military strength.

The U.S. military, which I firmly believe should carry "the biggest stick," is essential for national defense. Yet, as a veteran, I can attest that most service members, myself included, are deeply anti-war. In my view, the U.S. military is the largest volunteer anti-war organization in the world, made up of individuals who do not seek conflict but are prepared to defend our nation if necessary. Our long-term investment should, therefore, emphasize the Department of State, focusing on building and maintaining strong alliances, especially with our neighboring countries, and collaborating on global challenges like climate change.

Climate change, in particular, should be a central mission of both the DOD and DOS. The military may play a crucial role in the coming decades, not only in national defense but also in disaster response, international assistance, and supporting global stability in the face of climate-related challenges. We should consider keeping a certain percentage of our forces in reserve stateside, ready to respond to domestic and international crises unless there is a declared war.

While I understand the necessity for the U.S. President, as Commander-in-Chief, to have the unilateral ability to direct the DOD at a moment's notice, I also believe that prolonged military engagements should require Congressional approval. This is why I support measures like the War Powers Act or similar independent oversight mechanisms that ensure long-term military actions are thoroughly debated and democratically authorized.

By reforming the DOD and DOS to work in closer coordination, we can create a more balanced and effective national security strategy—one that relies on strength, diplomacy, and international cooperation to address the complex challenges of the 21st century.

To break the stranglehold of the two-party system and ensure we elect excellent American Presidents,

I propose combining a national lottery system with ranked-choice voting

. In this system, a pool of approximately 100 eligible Americans would be selected through a lottery, giving a diverse array of citizens the chance to run for President. This pool would include people from various backgrounds and walks of life, ensuring that our leadership reflects the true diversity of our nation.

From this pool, the Presidential election would proceed using ranked-choice voting, allowing voters to rank candidates by preference. This system ensures that the winner has broad support, reducing the divisive, winner-takes-all mentality that currently dominates our elections. By eliminating the Electoral College and implementing this new system, we can create a more representative and fair process, paving the way for truly great Presidents—potentially schoolteachers, plumbers, doctors, and other everyday Americans who rise to the occasion.

As an additional measure to promote gender equality, I support the idea of restricting the first one, two, or three lotteries to eligible women, ensuring that we have at least one excellent female President, likely as good as or better than any male President in our history. Critics argue this is unfair, debating whether it’s an issue of “equality of outcome” versus “equality of opportunity.” However, given 250-years of consecutive male Presidents, I think most American men would at least consider this proposal.

The balance between federal and state powers is a cornerstone of American democracy, rooted in the principles of federalism established by our Constitution. As we revisit and potentially reshape our constitutional framework, it’s essential to have a thoughtful debate on how best to balance these powers in a way that preserves individual liberties, promotes effective governance, and reflects the diverse needs of our nation.

The question of federal versus state authority has long been a source of tension and evolution in American history, from the early debates of the Founding Fathers to the modern issues we face today. As we look to the future, we must carefully consider which responsibilities are best handled at the federal level, ensuring national unity and security, and which are better managed by the states, allowing for flexibility and local autonomy. For example, firearms are too easy to carry across state lines in automobiles, so I support stronger federal laws. Conversely, business practices may vary widely across states, where state rights should prevail.

Additionally, we propose the idea of larger but fewer states, which would mean fewer senators and governors, leading to a more streamlined and representative governance structure that better reflects the diverse interests of the American people. With fewer, larger, and more powerful states, states’ rights would return to the forefront of national attention, allowing states to band together more effectively to challenge unchecked federal power. Let’s engage in a national conversation about how to refine and perhaps redefine this balance as we continue to adapt our government to the demands of the 21st century.

Item descriptionWhile I considered myself educated, it wasn’t until a few years ago that I realized felons in this country lose the right to vote—and that it’s not automatically restored after they’ve served their time. The fact that this fundamental right isn't given back upon release is mind-blowing. I always thought the right to vote was a constitutional guarantee that couldn’t be taken away.

We have a significant percentage of our population in prison, and while it might be logistically challenging to allow inmates to vote, the technology and methods like mail-in voting exist today to make it feasible. Historically, stripping voting rights was seen as a form of punishment, and perhaps due to the impracticalities of voting behind bars. But in the modern era, it's time to rethink this approach.

At the very least, we must ensure that every citizen’s right to vote is fully restored immediately upon completing their sentence. This issue goes beyond just voting—it's about whether we view our criminal justice system as one of punishment or rehabilitation. This is a critical conversation that needs to happen in Congress to ensure our laws reflect the values of a just and inclusive society.

The direction of U.S. foreign policy has significant implications for our nation's standing on the global stage and the security and prosperity of all Americans. In recent years, we’ve seen Presidents from different parties undo their predecessors' policies and back out of international treaties, which can erode international confidence in the United States.

If we continue with a two-party partisan system, it's crucial that Congress play a more central role in setting foreign policy, potentially through a new Constitutional Amendment that limits Executive powers in this realm.

This would ensure greater stability and continuity in our international relations, reflecting the will of the American people through their elected representatives.

Conversely, if we move toward a lottery and ranked-choice voting system for electing Presidents, as I propose above, the Executive could maintain a more consistent foreign policy stance. However, even in this scenario, I believe Congress should have a significant influence on larger strategy and direction to reflect a broader spectrum of American voices.

My own foreign policy approach prioritizes our relationships with Asia and South America. As someone who speaks Spanish, has visited several South American countries, and hails from Hawaii with deep ties to Asian cultures, I understand the importance of strengthening these connections. This isn’t to downplay our crucial alliances in Europe and elsewhere, but we must prioritize our neighbors, particularly Mexico and the tropical Americas, who are poised to be hardest hit by rising temperatures and climate change. This approach is directly linked to our border policy and broader international strategy.

Gerrymandering—manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor one party—undermines the very foundation of our democracy.

Gerrymandering distorts our democratic process by allowing politicians to draw electoral districts that favor their own parties, often at the expense of fair representation. To address this issue, we need a solution that balances fairness, transparency, and respect for state autonomy.

One promising approach is to use algorithmic redistricting, where district boundaries are drawn using impartial algorithms based on population data, geographical contiguity, and other objective criteria. This method minimizes human bias and ensures that districts reflect true demographic and geographic realities, rather than political interests.

Alternatively, we could establish national standards for redistricting that set clear guidelines on fairness and representation, while allowing states the flexibility to implement these standards as they see fit. Whether through algorithms, commissions, or other methods, states could be empowered to choose the best approach for their unique circumstances, provided they adhere to the national criteria.

Another option could involve greater oversight by Congress or the Supreme Court to limit extreme partisan gerrymandering, ensuring that districts are drawn fairly without completely removing the states' role in the process.

By exploring these data-centric and flexible approaches, we can reform the redistricting process in a way that promotes fair representation, enhances public trust, and strengthens our democracy, while still respecting the diversity and autonomy of our states.

A Time to Reevaluate: Federal holidays are more than just days off; they are reflections of what our nation holds sacred, honoring our history, values, and shared identity. However, as our society evolves, it’s essential to periodically revisit and reassess the federal holiday calendar. We shouldn’t add or subtract days at random, but engage in a thoughtful, national conversation about which days truly deserve recognition as federal holidays.

Clarifying Military-Related Holidays: As a veteran, I’ve seen firsthand the confusion surrounding our military-related holidays. For example, Veterans Day honors those who have served, while Memorial Day is dedicated to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in combat. These distinctions are significant, and the public’s understanding of them should reflect that: most Americans don’t understand what Memorial Day is about. There’s also a lesser-known Female Veterans Day, celebrated on a different date entirely. This confusion signals a broader need to reconsider how we commemorate these important aspects of our national identity.

A Holistic Review: I propose a comprehensive review of our federal holidays, from January 1st to December 31st. This review would involve public input and historical reflection, ensuring that the holidays we observe are meaningful to our diverse population. We might ask ourselves, what days should be considered so important that we collectively pause to honor them? Should we introduce new holidays that reflect our evolving values, or perhaps consolidate or redefine existing ones? For example, should we consider adding holidays that celebrate the environment, innovation, or other aspects of our modern society?

Cultural Inclusion and Reflection: Our holiday calendar should also reflect the diversity of our nation. While holidays like Independence Day and Thanksgiving are deeply ingrained in our national consciousness, there’s room to consider other significant days, such as those related to cultural heritage, civil rights, and environmental stewardship. The goal isn’t to dilute our traditions but to enrich them by recognizing the full spectrum of what makes America unique.

A Century-Long Perspective: Revisiting our federal holidays isn’t something to be done lightly or frequently—it’s a task that should be undertaken with a long-term perspective. A review once every century would allow us to honor our past while thoughtfully adapting to the future. This process would ensure that our holidays remain relevant, respected, and understood by all Americans.

We should also ensure all holidays fall on Mondays or Fridays, extending the weekend – and never on Wednesdays!

Immigration reform is one of the most complex and contentious issues facing our nation today. While there have been efforts to address the status of undocumented immigrants, particularly the "Dreamers," through programs like DACA and various legislative attempts, a permanent solution remains elusive. Dreamers—those brought to the U.S. as children—deserve a clear and fair path to citizenship that reflects their deep ties to our country and the contributions they have made.

At the same time, we must be realistic about the strains that illegal immigration places on our judicial and social systems, particularly in southern border states and cities. It's essential to allocate more resources to our immigration courts and agencies, allowing them to process cases more efficiently and humanely. We must also consider the fairness of deportation in certain cases, balancing compassion with the need for law and order.

While some economists and idealists advocate for a world without borders, where free migration is possible, we must also recognize the practical realities of governing a nation in the 21st century. Borders, though artificial, serve important functions, but we should strive for a system that treats everyone with dignity and fairness. A reformed immigration system must reflect our values as a nation of immigrants while also ensuring that those who wish to join our society do so legally and with respect for our laws.

In addition, I believe that all Americans should have a deeper understanding of what it means to be a citizen. One way to achieve this is by requiring all adult Americans to pass the same citizenship test that immigrants must take when they naturalize. This test, which covers basic knowledge of U.S. history, government, and civic responsibility, would help ensure that every voter is informed and engaged in our democratic process. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a good start.

Streamlining government operations for efficiency.

Public libraries are more than just repositories of books; they are vital community hubs that offer access to knowledge, technology, and social services, particularly in underserved neighborhoods. Increasing funding for public libraries is essential to ensuring that they remain vibrant, modern spaces that serve the diverse needs of all community members.

Libraries should be "hot" places to go—welcoming environments where people of all ages and backgrounds can gather, learn, and connect. This means investing in more community-focused areas and rooms within libraries, where people can engage in group activities, workshops, and social events. At the same time, libraries should provide ample quiet study spaces, where students and professionals can focus, learn, and work without distractions.

For libraries to fulfill these roles, they must be equipped with the latest technology and resources, offering everything from free internet access to digital literacy programs. In poorer neighborhoods, where residents may not have access to these resources at home, libraries can be a lifeline, offering opportunities for education, job training, and personal development.

While library funding is typically managed at the state and local levels, there is a strong case for increased federal funding to help equalize access across the country. Federal funds could be directed towards modernizing libraries, especially in low-income areas, ensuring that every community has access to a world-class library. This would not only enhance educational and economic opportunities but also strengthen community bonds, making libraries the true hearts of our neighborhoods.

Investing in our public libraries is an investment in our future—one that pays dividends in education, community development, and social equity.

The influence of Super PACs and dark money in our political system has eroded public trust and skewed the democratic process in favor of the wealthiest donors. Super PACs, which can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals, often operate with little to no transparency, allowing wealthy interests to exert disproportionate influence over elections and policy decisions. Dark money—political spending by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors—further exacerbates this issue, enabling powerful entities to sway elections without accountability.

To restore faith in our democracy, we must limit the influence of Super PACs and dark money by implementing stricter regulations on political donations. This includes requiring full transparency for all contributions, so the public knows who is funding campaigns and what interests they represent. By ensuring that political donations are transparent and accountable, we can reduce the outsized influence of money in politics and create a more level playing field where the voices of everyday Americans are not drowned out by the wealthiest few.

The idea of lowering the voting age to 15-17 years old is rooted in the recognition that, for various biological and environmental reasons, young people are maturing earlier today than in previous generations. While not every young person may be ready to vote, and many late teens and 20-somethings do not participate in elections, the right to vote should be extended to those younger individuals who are educated, passionate, and ready to engage in the democratic process.

Critics often point to the perceived immaturity of youth as a reason to maintain the voting age at 18. However, we must acknowledge that maturity varies widely among individuals, and many young adults in their late teens and early twenties may still lack the experience and insight typically associated with adulthood. Despite this, they retain the right to vote. By lowering the voting age, we can empower younger citizens who are ready and willing to take on this responsibility, while those who are not prepared may simply choose not to participate.

Additionally, the concept of a "Civil Rights Package" could be introduced, allowing teenagers to earn the right to vote and other adult privileges based on their maturity and readiness, rather than an arbitrary age. This package could include the right to vote, consume and purchase alcohol and legal drugs, sexual freedom, and full legal adulthood, including financial and legal responsibility. The challenge would be determining when a teenager is mature enough to receive these rights. Ideally, this decision would be made by parents or caretakers who know the teenager personally, with 18 years old serving as a default age if no earlier maturity is granted.

By encouraging families and communities to engage in discussions about when a young person is ready for adulthood, we could foster significant cultural growth and challenge the way we think about maturity, responsibility, and civic engagement. Lowering the voting age and allowing for a tailored approach to earning adult rights could help create a more inclusive and dynamic democracy, where the voices of younger citizens are heard and valued.

The History of the U.S. Military Draft:

The U.S. military draft, also known as conscription, has played a significant role in American history, particularly during major conflicts such as the Civil War, World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War. The draft ensured that the military had enough personnel to meet the demands of large-scale wars, but it has also been a source of controversy, particularly during the Vietnam era, when widespread opposition led to protests and calls for reform.

The Shift to an All-Volunteer Force:

In 1973, largely in response to the unpopularity of the Vietnam War, the U.S. ended conscription and transitioned to an all-volunteer military force. This shift was intended to create a more professional and motivated military, relying on those who willingly chose to serve. While the all-volunteer force has been effective, it has also raised concerns about equity and representation, as service members often come disproportionately from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

The Debate: Reintroducing a Draft or Hybrid System:

Given the potential drawbacks of a purely volunteer system, there is ongoing debate about whether the U.S. should reintroduce a draft or adopt a hybrid system. A draft could ensure that military service is a shared responsibility across all segments of society, rather than being shouldered primarily by certain groups. A hybrid system might combine voluntary service with a lottery-based draft, particularly during times of national crisis or prolonged conflict.

Democratic Oversight and the Role of Congress:

One key aspect of this debate is the balance of power between the President and Congress in authorizing military actions. While the President, as Commander-in-Chief, must retain the ability to respond swiftly to immediate threats, prolonged military engagements should require Congressional approval. Linking a draft to this framework could enhance democratic oversight, ensuring that any large-scale mobilization reflects the will of the American people through their elected representatives.

The Path Forward:

The question of whether to reintroduce a draft is complex, touching on issues of fairness, national security, and democratic accountability. As we consider the future of military service in America, it's essential to engage in a national conversation about how best to balance these concerns, ensuring that our military remains strong, diverse, and truly representative of the American people.

Purposeful Travel: In a break from the traditional approach, my presidency will prioritize extensive travel throughout the United States to remain closely connected to the diverse experiences and needs of the American people. Rather than residing primarily in Washington, D.C., I will commit to visiting communities across the country, ensuring that the voices of everyday Americans shape the policies and decisions of the executive branch. This travel will allow me to engage directly with citizens, listen to their concerns, and witness firsthand the challenges they face.

Building a New Federal City: Within the first 90 days of my presidency, we will initiate the selection process for a new site for the federal executive branch, marking a significant shift from Washington, D.C.'s historical role. This new city will embody our vision for a modern, efficient, and transparent government. Breaking ground for this city will occur within the first six months of my term, with a focus on sustainability, accessibility, and security. While the new city is being developed, I will split my time between national travel, fulfilling essential duties in Washington, D.C., and living in Oregon to maintain a strong connection with my family.

A President Among the People: My commitment to travel and decentralization is rooted in a belief that the president should remain grounded in the realities of the American people. By continuously engaging with different regions and communities, I aim to foster a government that is truly by the people and for the people. This approach will also help guide the gradual migration of government offices and personnel to the new federal city, ensuring a seamless transition that benefits all Americans.

One Term, One Goal: Should we succeed in implementing the proposed presidential election reforms, including a lottery system combined with ranked-choice voting, I am prepared to step down after one term. This decision would support the first president elected under this new system, paving the way for a more democratic and representative leadership structure. My presidency will thus focus on laying the groundwork for this transformative change, with the ultimate goal of rejuvenating our democracy and restoring faith in our government.

As someone who worked with Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) in the U.S. Air Force, I understand the critical importance of maintaining government secrets to protect national security. However, this must not come at the expense of the privacy rights of American citizens. The government should not be spying on its own people without a warrant, and even then, the standards for granting such warrants should be exceptionally high. The common attitude of "I have nothing to hide" dangerously overlooks the potential for abuse, enabling the expansion of a tyrannical, unchecked government where political leaders could spy on opponents or wealthy individuals could pry into the lives of others with impunity.

To address these concerns, we must revisit and strengthen the 4th Amendment in light of our digital and electronic world. This includes updating privacy laws to reflect modern technology, establishing robust oversight bodies to ensure the government respects citizens' privacy, and implementing data minimization practices to limit the collection and storage of personal information. Privacy should be a foremost concern as we develop new technologies and digital systems.

Additionally, we need to have a serious Congressional debate over the issue of online anonymity. While the internet has provided a platform for free expression, it has also allowed anonymous bullies and trolls to harass others without consequence. We should consider implementing levels of verification for online activities, ensuring that users are accountable for their actions. This doesn't mean stripping away anonymity entirely, but rather creating a balanced approach where individuals can be held responsible for harmful behavior while still protecting their right to privacy. These steps are essential to prevent the erosion of our civil liberties and to protect the integrity of our democracy in the digital age.

Sunset provisions are a practical tool to ensure that laws remain relevant and effective over time. By requiring laws to be periodically reviewed and renewed by Congress, sunset provisions prevent outdated or unnecessary regulations from lingering indefinitely. This approach fosters a more dynamic and accountable legislative process, where laws must continually prove their value to the American people.

However, critics argue that frequent renewals can lead to legislative instability and uncertainty, particularly if laws are subjected to renewal too often. To balance these concerns, sunset provisions could be applied selectively, with a focus on areas that are subject to rapid change, like technology or national security. For the tax code, for example, a 20-year sunset provision would ensure that it is periodically updated to reflect economic conditions without causing undue disruption.

By applying sunset provisions thoughtfully—such as every 10 to 20 years for complex areas like tax policy—we can maintain the stability needed for long-term planning while ensuring our laws remain responsive to the evolving needs of society.

Introducing Term Limits: To depoliticize the Supreme Court and promote a more dynamic and responsive judiciary, I propose implementing term limits for justices, ranging from 10 to 16 years. Term limits would prevent any single justice from holding power indefinitely, ensuring a regular infusion of fresh perspectives into the Court. This change would also reduce the intense political battles that currently surround Supreme Court appointments, as each presidency would likely have the opportunity to appoint new justices, leading to a more balanced and less ideologically entrenched Court.

Strengthening Oversight: Beyond term limits, it's crucial to strengthen oversight of the Supreme Court to prevent corruption and maintain public trust. This includes establishing clear rules on conflicts of interest, enhancing transparency in financial dealings, and enforcing strict ethical standards for justices. By ensuring that justices adhere to the highest ethical standards, we can preserve the integrity of the Court and its role as an impartial arbiter of the law.

A Radical Idea: Fewer Justices: As a more radical reform, I propose reducing the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to eight, upon the next vacancy. This even number would eliminate the Court’s ability to serve as a tie-breaker in politically charged cases. In situations where the justices are evenly divided, the Court could recommend new legislation to Congress, rather than issuing a decisive ruling.

Congress would then have up to one year to address the issue through legislation, after which the President could take temporary executive action until further clarification is provided by Congress. While this proposal is a reasonable proposition to consider, I ultimately yield to the American public's decision on the matter of the number of justices. The goal is to spark a national conversation on how to best restore balance among the branches of government and ensure that the Supreme Court serves its intended role in our democracy.

Leading as an independent candidate requires thinking beyond traditional party lines, and one of the most powerful ways to do this is by assembling a "superstar cabinet" that reflects the best of America’s political and intellectual diversity. My vision for the cabinet is to bring together a bipartisan team of seasoned leaders—Democrats, Republicans, independents, and even those outside the traditional political spectrum—who are united by their commitment to serving the American people rather than partisan interests.

I don’t care about just about ticking boxes for diversity; this approach ensures the executive branch is guided by a wide range of perspectives and expertise. By drawing from both major parties and beyond, my administration would benefit from the strengths of different political philosophies while avoiding the pitfalls of extreme partisanship. This would allow us to craft policies that are balanced, pragmatic, and truly representative of the diverse views held by Americans across the country.

In assembling this cabinet, I will prioritize experience and a proven track record of leadership. Each cabinet member will be selected not just for their political affiliations, but for their ability to think independently, collaborate effectively, and solve the complex challenges facing our nation. By bringing together a team of "superstars" from across the political landscape, we can foster an environment where innovative solutions emerge from respectful debate, and where decisions are made in the best interest of all Americans, rather than being driven by party agendas.

This diverse and experienced leadership team would be instrumental in realizing my vision for a presidency that transcends the old political divides, focusing instead on healing our people, politics, and planet. With a superstar cabinet in place, we can set a new standard for governance—one that is inclusive, effective, and responsive to the needs of every citizen.

I’m open to considering a flat tax and even to the idea of totally rewriting the tax code from the ground up. Our current system is riddled with bureaucracy and complexity, disproportionately hurting those who don’t have the time or resources to navigate it, especially around tax season. It’s time we think about simplifying our tax system, making it fairer and more transparent for everyone.

I believe that every 50 to 100 years, we should overhaul the tax code to reflect the changing realities of our economy and society. Such a reform would reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, eliminate loopholes, and ensure that our tax system works for all Americans, not just those with the means to minimize their taxes. It’s time to have a serious conversation about what a fair and efficient tax system should look like in the 21st century.

Term limits for Congress are consistently the most supported constitutional amendment among Americans, with widespread agreement that they are necessary to prevent career politicians from dominating our government.

The primary debate revolves around the number of terms or years that should be allowed.

I propose a straightforward approach: limit terms, not years, with a consistent cap of three terms.

Additionally, to prevent political maneuvering, former members of Congress should be barred from switching between the House and Senate or running for President. This proposal ensures fresh perspectives in government while preventing the entrenchment of power.

Amendment Proposition:

Proposed Amendment on Congressional Term Limits:

No member of Congress may serve more than three terms in the House of Representatives or three terms in the Senate.
A member who has served three terms in one chamber may not seek election to the other chamber.
No current member of Congress is eligible to run for the office of the President or Vice President.
Former members of Congress must wait a minimum of four years after their last term before becoming eligible to run for the office of the President or Vice President.

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has been a cornerstone of American life for centuries, but it has been neglected for too long, and it's time to reconsider its role in our society. In an age where many countries manage without a national postal service, we must ask ourselves whether the USPS should be retained, and if so, how it can be revitalized to better serve the needs of today’s citizens.

If we choose to retain the USPS, it’s time to fully embrace and modernize it, even if that means a significant increase in the cost of services, such as raising the price of a stamp to a dollar. By reinvigorating the USPS, we can reintegrate it into our culture, encouraging the sending of handwritten letters, thank-you cards for birthdays, and other personal touches that digital communication often lacks. This cultural shift could foster a deeper sense of connection and community, counteracting the impersonality of modern communication.

At the same time, we should embrace and support paid services that help people send printed mail efficiently, combining the convenience of digital tools with the personal touch of physical mail. Whether through private partnerships or public investment, these services could help modernize the USPS while making it more accessible and relevant to younger generations who may have never sent a letter.

If, however, we determine that the USPS is no longer viable or necessary, we should consider a phased approach to its closure, ensuring that essential services are maintained during the transition. This decision should be made thoughtfully, with a clear plan for how to address the needs currently met by the USPS, particularly in rural and underserved areas.

Healing Our Politics

Core Statement

Overview

Fial 2024