🔗 Share this article

Trump's political spectacle frequently appears to transform even resistance into a segment of the show. We are similar to extras who splutter while he energizes his supporters through breaking traditional principles. However why not we produced our own public demonstration excluding the former president out – or at least having an alternative priority?

Past Precedents of Political Resistance

Americans in the late colonial period established novel forms of opposition against British restrictions. Rather than employing traditional governmental bodies, they opted for boycott organizations including a first continental congress with no clear official status or prior example.

Those actions of public demonstration, although imperfect, ultimately culminated in formal independence. After the revolution, founders convened a convention – nominally to modify the first national framework requiring a unanimous vote by every state. Instead, leaders operated privately, replaced the document completely, and revised the process for modifying the updated system to a three quarters vote.

A Contemporary Possibility for Change

That political era represents a massive setback to democratic principles, yet it also presents a chance to improve these standards for the better. Like revolutionary leaders, we ought to form a selective, invitation-only group – an initial framework development – which resisting blue states exclusively establish for themselves, restrict to their group, and control.

The national framework already provides some authority for doing so.

Creating an Multi-state Partnership

The involved governments could convene to develop a multi-state partnership by and between themselves, in the spirit though not necessarily the exact wording of similar arrangements that the constitution’s interstate agreement clause outlines. These states could submit formally to national representatives for approval as binding policy. Of course approval seems unlikely currently, as Congress in its current broken form cannot function of anything like a new constitution, in any form.

But the point is to put forward a model for a different approach to governance, in a future political landscape, that maintains elements of the present governmental structure with enduring value, alongside substantial transformation addressing current challenges.

A Specific Example

Consider this: New York, California, Massachusetts and Illinois could declare a constitutional crisis. State executives would invite a select number aligned resisting governments to send delegates selected through popular vote or governmental bodies. Their responsibility would include to draft a regional agreement, a statement of protections of citizens and obligations of the participating governments.

The partnership would allocate financial support of those obligations between the states and Washington, if it were somehow adopted by the legislature. It would create requirements that national authorities would fund – specifically for member governments and any other that thereafter opt to enter the partnership.

An Inspirational Opening

This agreement might begin with a statement where The residents of member governments affirm not only our protections and our duties to engage one another with respect. The preamble would recognize our responsibilities to ensure all have food security, social protection, medical care availability, productive jobs as security during an era of AI advancement. It should be explicit about the risks automated systems and a warming planet. It should require on the federal role in healthcare innovation and evidence-driven medical care to guarantee our standards rise and longer lives.

Confronting Previous Violations

And then there should follow a detailed enumeration of violations during the last presidency, damaging actions, that should be punished and corrected, and wrongs from the judicial branch, including the campaign finance decision, that ought to be voided by states adopting the partnership.

From the beginning, participating governments ought to include DC and Puerto Rico to engage as states with equivalent rights and sign on the partnership.

The Most Difficult Part – Funding

Next involves the hardest part – money. The partnership would set out the specific programs that the state should fund and those that Washington must finance – at least for the states that join the compact. The compact would not only be a constitution for the ages, and a funding proposal for the next fiscal year. It needs to incorporate a restoration of funding for healthcare programs, and decreasing of costs for additional types medical care.

A Welcoming Offer

Finally, the compact ought to contain an invitation to conservative states, and any further non-signatory government to enter as well, even if they were not first approached.

Symbolic Significance

Regardless of what may be said against this approach, it might shift the former president off stage and demonstrate a specific tradition-defying nerve from Democratic allies. It could provide Democratic governments credit for independent meaningful challenging of traditions. All the better if conservative governments choose not to join. {In