An intro

Government. You may be wondering what type we had on my world. The answer is simple. Pretty much all of them. Drak-Bahr’s Boulders was a large place with several smaller states. But, in order to talk about a government, the definitions should be set in place. For this, I’ll use the CIA’s website. And, fit what I remember. Any government may be any combination as well. At least, any combination that makes sense.

This will be a fairly boring muse for the first part. Maybe the whole part. I’m warning you now.

A monarchy is how it sounds, the king, or queen, has all power to make decisions on how the state is run. A constitutional monarchy adds a constitution that preserves some rights for the subjects. I’ve seen a few of these, and the constitution is usually ignored or very lightly enforced.

An anarchist state has no real government authority, but the people live with each other in group. The few states in my world that I would describe as an anarchy were probably closer to a commonwealth, where the people govern themselves under the rule of law for the common good. I’m not sure I’ve seen a true anarchy-based state, but some of the bandit infested states were close.

Communism. This was fairly common in my world. Basically one political party holds all the power and keeps the lower class suppressed, while the ruling class lives relatively lavishly. This isn’t far from a dictatorship in reality. Communist governments may have a binding constitution, but they seldom follow it, or even just change it to match their needs. The CIA website states that communism strives for a classless society where everyone is equal. Have you seen that in reality? I haven’t. Over many lifetimes and species.

A federation is a collection of states that form a central government and split the overall powers between that central government and the states. This one may sound familiar to those reading this without a translator.

Socialism hasn’t worked on a large scale that I’ve seen. Governments that claim to be socialist are usually dictatorships or communist, or some other oppressive regime. Socialism is truly where everyone works together and achieves true equality. Can this work? I’ll give you some answers to that question later.

Democracy and republic are very popular terms, though most only hear how democracy is touted. A republic is where the people elect representatives to perform legislative duties. A democracy is where the people themselves perform the legislative duties. This is where my definition will differ with the CIA’s a bit more. They state a democracy usually uses a system of representation that are renewed periodically. But that sounds suspiciously like a republic. You always have to take your government entities with a grain of salt. Or a very large dab of ketchup. Whichever you have handiest.

I’ll talk a little about the governments I saw during my first lifetime. You may see some parallels.

As you may remember, I mentioned there were some states in my world that didn’t use coin for property exchanges. These were the socialist states. Their populations were fairly small, but the people were generally happy and unwilling to leave. I didn’t find these places to be especially profitable, and not because of the lack of coin. Crime was extremely low. There were certainly disputes, but the people generally had enough tact to involve a jury to settle the dispute. I did have to settle a few myself, or, more correctly, enforce some of the decisions made by the juries.

You may be wondering about what I did, besides being a hero. Some would call be a vigilante, others a bounty hunter. If you played board games instead of sports, you may call me an adventurer. A movie buff may say I was an enforcer.

Mostly wrong. I had no legal authority, only the authority granted by my mother and father. And a cool weapon. That helps.

I did watch many states change from one form of government into a dictatorship or communist-style government. This was usually a slow transition as the people in the state became more apathetic and just followed what the government told them to do. I watched several republics and some democracies follow this path. This was in my first life, as well as some of Aushlin’s memories as well. His own society went from a republic to communist and back to a republic after a revolt. He led the revolt. More on that later.

The more stable governments were usually the monarchies or dictatorships. I believe there are historical quotes on this for Earth. When the families that passed power became overly-obsessed with their power, the government was usually changed by the people rather violently. I’ve helped with this a few times. Dictatorships usually fell the same way and for the same reasons.

There were a few federations in my world. Very few. Some were centrist in the power distribution, and some left most of the power to the smaller states. The latter were more like an alliance, coming together for mutual defense. These didn’t last long. Either the central government became greedy or the individual states removed themselves when they disagreed with the overall direction the federation was moving.

Which government do I like the most? That’s an easy answer, it’s been foreshadowed. But, any government can work. The success depends on the quality of the leader or civil servant, the latter also being called a representative. How do you know when a transition is in place? An elected civil servant calls themselves a leader.

A problem for any government is the quality of life for the majority, it’s taking care of the minority as well. Most governments have more issues with the latter. Especially those that only rely on the number of votes from the general population to decide a policy. In my first world, democracies had difficulty due to the speed of communication, much like Earth a couple centuries ago. No information and a lack of true education leads to uninformed votes. This bodes well for the more communistic forms of government.

What government did I set up around my castle? Socialist Republic. Yes, even with the amount of coin and wealth I accumulated, I eliminated the need for coin within my state. But, my state was sparsely populated and farm-centric. After I removed the thieves, of course. I didn’t mind thieves overall, but preferred they lived somewhere else.

Now, a thought you may have is could socialism work in modern Earth? I think it could. The first step is removing money. This isn’t easy, but there is a way to do it, especially with the technology on Earth. Maybe I’ll talk about this later.

I hope you weren’t too bored, but there is a reason this is here.

The root of all...

Money. Is it the root of all evil or the pathway to a happier life? Some say happiness doesn’t buy happiness, but it buys the things that make you happy. But, you can’t buy love. Doesn’t love make the world go ‘round?

Truly, there are societies that have no need for money. Those that are truly advanced, and those with honor. There are others, but let’s play with these two.

My little town was more of the latter. You could definitely argue the use of magic created a more advanced society, but it really didn’t. It wasn’t nearly prolific enough to have a large impact on most people. Sure, there wasn’t much fear from disease or minor injury, but we also had no luxuries. Everyone worked. Most were working in the farming industry, or some relation to food. Others made wares such as clothes and cooking pots. You could definitely argue the latter was a food-related employment. Of course, there was also the military life.

No, it was honor that kept our needs away from money. We really didn’t have a way to track who was really working, but we could afford a few lazy people. And, any society that wants to rid themselves of the root of all evil would have to tolerate those lazy people.

But, first, a sidetrack. You should be used to these by now. One root I see in this world revolves around different types of investments. The stock market is just one, currency based on virtual media is another. While there could be an argument that the former does create jobs and material wares, there are few arguments for the latter. Or ones that I’m aware of at least. They resemble a service economy. No goods, just making people with money feel good while syphoning their happiness.

You haven’t had the chance yet, but you will see that I am actually quite materialistic. I like things. My castle was full of things. Things always have value, even in a society without money. And, don’t be fooled, the possibility of money becoming non-existent is true on Earth. The better option is for it to be planned and managed. But, it’s more likely to be gradual and chaotic. Inflation destroys money.

It wasn’t long ago, while attending a university on Earth and still perfecting the meld, that we would visit a local fast food restaurant and obtain twenty-five hamburgers for a mere five dollars. They were small, but that was enough to last until the next restaurant offered four tacos for a dollar. Which lasted until it was four cheeseburgers for a dollar, then three soft tacos for a dollar. For twenty dollars a week, we were in fast food heaven. Of course, that same twenty dollars would also purchase a week’s worth of vegetables and potatoes. Being from cattle country, my Earth-host secured free beef. But, buying it at that time would only add three or four dollars a week for a large amount, five pounds or so.

Now, you can buy a single-serving steak that takes all of that money spent in a week, and asks for money from the next week. Inflation. Of course, those university years were some time ago, but within the panic of the year two thousand. That was fun.

I see your media state an eleven percent price increase on certain groceries. Reality for two years is closer to one hundred percent. How many people track prices that closely? Most people forget that last summer was also really hot, just like this summer. The summer before was also hot, as was the one before. Short memories make for great media headlines. I should write something on critical thinking sometime. I may have mentioned that before.

Back to money. Or at least the train of thought I started with. Minus one track. I was going to talk about how I’d set up a company stock plan, but that doesn’t seem very worth-while now that I have a couple thoughts.

How did I rid my state of money? Easy, it was only needed to sell food to taverns and neighbors, which was then used to buy food from taverns and buy wares from shops. Those shop owners also bought food from the farmers and taverns. The shops would also trade that food into other states for more money, which was then used to buy food from those other states. If you really start thinking about the circle of money, you see it really only exists to create classes. Governments typically love classes. It’s a great way to create civil division so that these classes don’t pay attention to the corruption in the government. Money creates distraction.

Once I sat with the leaders and we talked about the money situation, they all agreed. Anyone could have as much food as they needed, as many wares as they needed, and as many tavern visits as they needed. So long as they contributed to the overall production of the state. Lazy people were left unaccounted for at this time, but we did know they would exist. Most were guilted into living in other states, but some turned to contribute. Not as much as most, but more than none. Some people would classify artists, sculptors, and other luxury-oriented fields in this category. But, in a society without money, all contributions are beneficial. There is certainly room for a service industry within a product industry.

The harder question. How would I turn Earth into the same type of economy? One with no money. That would seem difficult, but I think it’d just be more tedious. For one, accounting for the luxuries would take more time to list out. And, it would take time to weed out the hoarders. And the lazier people. The former would be much more difficult to manage. But, the people that don’t respect objects would be by far the hardest group. If it doesn’t cost anything, why take care of it? I see that with expensive objects as well. I don’t understand the train of thought, but I also know those are in the minority. And would be weeded out in time.

I may discuss more of this topic at a later time. It’s certainly intriguing.

But, on a final note, who thought of taxing income? It’s much easier to tax consumption, and much more fair. Those who make more money also spend more money. The majority of those having to live on paychecks need all the money they get to keep a roof over their head and food in their stomach. Not to mention all the modern luxuries, which are becoming necessities. This latter trend only works to drive more people from the middle class into the lower class, and the lower class into poverty. Of course, the class levels only refer to money. There are definitely more classy people in the lower classes than there are in the upper class.

Representatives

This is less about who’s running the government and more about who should be. More importantly, how I laid out the republic part in my own world. At least, in my little state. Or castle, whichever you prefer.

I had also set up a couple different houses of representatives. One for the people and one for the land. My state was divided into several smaller sections. You would call them states, but they were more like counties. If you were looking from the federal level, that is. It is odd how many people I run into that don’t really understand what the name of their own land means. A united federation of states. In most parts on Earth, a state is a nation. A certain federation has taken to calling itself a nation of states, which kinda confuses the meaning, and most likely intent. I wasn’t hear two and half centuries ago, so I can’t really say what was going on in those meetings. But, I can guess based on the language I see.

But, let’s get back to the topic at hand. Each town was considered a section of my state. There was of course some land around those towns where farmers grew their crops and rancher raised meat. We also had hunters who brought in meat, and they would typically live like a rancher. It was a saying that a rancher was just a bad hunter. Or, a rancher was just a lazy hunter. The ranchers said they were just smart hunters. Either way, that part really doesn’t matter. How we defined those sections is more important.

And, it was a simple division. While most people were fairly self-sufficient, there was still a need to sell crops and buy some other basic needs. Which county you were in depended on which town you did your business with. There was some overlap, as expected, but it worked for the most part. Each town would send end up sending a representative to one of the houses. This representative was usually chosen from the business owners, farmers, or ranchers. Some towns simply sent the mayor.

Each town was also allotted a certain number of representatives for the people, to speak for the people. These were decidedly not business owners or part of the town government. Each town also had a court, which would answer to a court created at my castle. The castle court wouldn’t really say if someone was innocent or guilty, their job was to make sure the verdicts and punishments fit the crime. This was literal in my state. Murder and assault were met in kind, and there were often bounties offered to bring them to justice. Who would show for court when they knew they were guilty?

All of this was overseen by yours truly. When I was home. When I wasn’t, I had a few people I trusted to fill in my role.

This may all sound familiar, with some minor twists. I wasn’t elected, really. No one objected, and I happen to have the most stuff and land. If you recall, I had gotten rid of money, even though my coins were part of my stuff. Could I have been replaced? Certainly. There were provisions, but someone would have to been unhappy enough to run against me in a political race. No one was that interested in politics. Most only cared about survival, which is why it was so easy to remove money.

But, the apathy also created a different problem. No one really wanted to be a representative, outside the town government officials. A mayor would typically serve their entire life if they were kind. If they weren’t kind, or were known to be in certain nefarious circles, an election with them on the ticket wasn’t usually in the future. See bounties above.

Of course, I had already seen what career politicians had created in other states, and really didn’t want any part of them. So, what was the solution? Simple, really. And, you likely have seen something similar here. Have you ever received a summons to serve on a jury? That is fairly analogous to how representatives were chosen for the people. A small number of people for a town would receive notice they were to run for a position. They would each be given some time to talk to the people and answer questions. This time would typically start with a meal, and continue until the next meal when the next candidate would begin. It was always wise to choose your meal wisely, and very unwise to attempt to skirt your duty. Even though no one really wanted to be a representative, it was also honorable to perform your duties to the best of your ability.

There were benefits, of course. Whatever function you performed in the town, someone was there to take your place until you returned. If you were a farmer, the other farmers would tend your land before tending their own. Most came back to a better life, some just came back with the same life.

And there was another, some would say bigger, benefit. Your ability to be chosen again was greatly diminished after serving. After your term in office, you were able to move your name to the bottom of the population list held in each town hall, meaning you'd be the last person that could be chosen as a representative.

How does this help you, the reader? Maybe it gives you some ideas. You probably can’t change the behemoth governments you have, but you certainly can limit your preference for career politicians. Who knows, if enough people follow that example, term limits may become de facto.

Taxes

There are things less popular than taxes, but it’d be strain to name more than a couple. And those would be arguable. Some would argue taxes don’t kill you. Are you sure about that?

The US Constitution is really a short document. About the length of a short story. Maybe less. Tax code? I don’t know if it’s smaller than an encyclopedia set, but it should be shorter than a short story.

You may ask how it could be shortened. Replaced would be more appropriate. Taxing income is not an easy task, which is why the tax code needs to be so long. How many stories have you read about tax evasion, people not paying their fair share, and other such nonsense? Let’s start with all three and billionaires.

One thing about billionaires that many people get wrong is that they really don’t have that much in liquid assets. Cash. Most have money tied up in investments such as stock, or invested in ownership of private companies. If you read far enough, you’ll learn that many will take out a loan from a bank to live their lifestyle, or buy a small house. Banks are more than happy to write loans for these people with large amounts of solid assets. Your nine to five paycheck isn’t a very good asset in their eyes. Probably less of an asset than many think as well.

But, a billionaire, and many millionaires, can live this life and still claim an income that hovers around zero or maybe around the average household income. Even when spending several million dollars in a year. This is where income tax really benefits the rich, and taxes the not-so-rich. In more than one way, punfully.

What’s better? Get rid of money all together. But, I don’t expect anyone on Earth to take that step anytime soon. They should, but those that could implement such a plan have too much money and power to give away half of that.

The next step really would be switching to a consumption tax. It is exactly how it sounds. The only time you have to pay taxes is when you spend money. Want to buy a new car? Taxed. The more you spend, the more you pay in taxes. People with lower incomes will pay less in taxes just because they don’t have the means to spend as much money.

Now, of course, there has to be an amount that would remain untaxed to account for necessities, like food, medicine, utilities, et cetera. This could easily be planned in, and there would be more than one way to implement that relief.

One easy way to simply not tax certain necessities. Many states already don’t have a tax on food, so this would be a very easy thing to implement. Now repeat for utilities. The trick here is what to do for incidentals and how to keep people spending above the necessity level. This really ties into the other method.

The other method, and one that’s actually being proposed if anyone in the US Congress would listen, would provide everyone a tax prebate on a monthly basis that would cover the expected spending levels for an individual. This would tax all necessities, but you would already be receiving money to offset that additional cost.

There may be some other methods, but you can easily see how either of these would place the tax burden more on people that earn a higher income, and wouldn’t allow an easy way out of paying taxes for the extremely wealthy. It’s highly unlikely most billionaires would stop their lavish lifestyles and return to eating cheap macaroni at home while watching whatever television program is free. No, they’ll still go to their favorite restaurant and spend several hundred dollars for an appetizer. And pay the tax that’s now more than they paid for income tax just a few years ago.

Collection of Genes

Two different accidents today. Both with casualties. Both with motorcycles. Both on a six lane interstate. Both at seventy five miles an hour. Speed limit, anyway. Both also involved a semi truck.

I did see one person cooking on the pavement, it was right at a hundred degrees today. I'm sure the other scene would've shown the same. Of course, three of those lanes were shut down, diverting traffic onto those connecting two-lane roads. The same ones that are getting four-way stop signs. Where's the next multi-lane highway that could ease that burden? Ten miles either way. Both only reachable on two-lane roads and highways. The nearest perpendicular multi-lane road? Fifteen miles the opposite direction these people were heading, or somewhere in Wyoming. I think. Maybe one closer, but still not close enough to ease the congestion.

Intelligence. Planning. These things go together. Should a highway department plan for such contingencies? Maybe, maybe not. Should they plan for good traffic flow in all directions? This one isn't a maybe.

Just some quick math. The statistics I found say that about five thousand motorcyclists die each year. I couldn't find the number of motorcycle riders, but the number of motorcycles is about eight and half million. For a fatality rate of fifty-eight per hundred thousand. Or, zero point zero six percent.

There's a saying when you buy a helmet for riding a motorcycle. It isn't to save your life, but to make sure your head is identifiable. Just a saying, helmets are a saving grace in lower speed accidents. But, if you slam into the back of a semi that's going a few miles an hour under the speed limit while you're testing the limits of your machine, the helmet is pretty much optional. Now, I don't know if the accident I saw was this case, but the type of bike certainly fit that profile. It's also likely the semi didn't see the motorcycle when switching lanes. The fingers still point both ways. If you have no safety in an accident, do everything you can to avoid one.

If I hear the cause of either accident, I'll make an update. But, I'm going to presume that speed played a part in both. The first one with the multiple casualties was first, and at a location where the six-lane interstate becomes a four-lane interstate. It really should be eight lanes. Maybe ten for a little future-proofing.

To be fair, I really don't care if someone wants to ride something as unsafe as a motorcycle. Or wishes to jump out of an airplane with a piece of cloth and some string that is supposed to slow their fall. Or to jump off the side of a cliff with similar equipment. Your life, your choice. Do as you wish as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others to do as they wish.

There are some that may argue that a person's passing does harm those that live. And, there isn't an argument against that. Really. But, those that live will continue doing so even if only a memory of a parent/sibling/child/spouse survives. There is some selfishness to put yourself in harm's way unnecessarily. But, that's likely part of that personality.

What does this have to do with gene collecting? Go back to the helmet comment. That was from a bygone era that didn't have DNA testing readily available. They really did need your head to identify you. At least your teeth. Assuming you went to the dentist. But now, DNA testing is fairly routine and could be used to identify remains. Even if there isn't much left.

With everyone worrying about everyone else, shouldn't we have a DNA repository to identify remains easier? Sounds good on the outside, but, this is the government section. I would say that idea is one percent good. And that may be pushing the numbers. This part does sound good. The bad is what agencies do with information they gather. You could argue that corporate or government is better for such data, but both would sell the highest bidder.

How about one country selling the genetic sequencing to another in an effort to better medicinal effectiveness. Or, more likely, a better virus that is more specific about the genetic traits it will attack. After all, the receiver in this transaction is responsible for the past four or five possible pandemics. I won't say they act alone, there are few governments that can truly claim to not be corrupt.

Now, there are good things such a database can achieve. But, at what cost? And, which population will truly benefit? It is good to know your genetic sequence, that is something easy to argue. But, where does your sequence wind up? Only for that company that you paid a hundred bucks? No, that isn't how they're making money. Follow the dollars, they always tell you a story.

But, just as people forty years ago said they'd never let the government track their every move, the future is as abrupt as the back of a semi at a hundred miles an hour. If you're curious, that cell phone in your pocket was better than anything George Orwell dreamt up for his book.

Update

And an update on those accidents.

Only one involved a motorcycle and there were actually two semis that he hit. The semis were in the center and right lanes and the motorcycle, after switching lanes a few times, bounced off the semi in the right lane then into the center lane semi. The right lane semi apparently didn't notice he'd been hit and kept driving. The other semi stayed after rolling over the motorcycle, which was now without its rider.

So, just as I had presumed, the motorcycle was driving excessively fast. And bouncing between lanes. He was thirty, and hopefully childless.

The other accident was actually more gruesome. If you remember, this highway goes from three lanes to two, which has been snarling traffic for decades. Well, traffic was stopped, but a semi didn't stop. In time anyway. The first car he hit contained five passengers, and it sounded like three generations. A couple near fifty years old, a couple around twenty years old. And, you guessed it, a three month old baby. Two cars in front of that car were also damaged, likely severely.

Here's the interesting part of the news story. The police are saying speed was not an issue for this second accident. I partly agree. It's also easy to blame the semi driver for driving too close in order to safely stop. He does get some blame, but the highway department deserves the majority of the blame. As I've said, this interstate should really be ten lanes, eight at the least. And this accident was in the vicinity of a bottle neck created by going from three lanes to two. Which is likely why the cars were stopped on the interstate. Even just after lunch, this section of interstate is stupidly congested.

Another interesting sight this morning. That four-way stop that causes so many issues? This morning, the local police were there as traffic cops directing the traffic through the intersection with no stopping. Maybe at least they realize the problem being caused.

It may be likened to a fleck of light in the background of empty space, but at least there was a fleck. Let's see if that continues.

Constitution

All men are created equal. If you're in the United States, which is likely, you have one of two thoughts. Either that's sexist, or it's the wrong quote. It is the wrong quote, even paraphrased. All Men are created equal. That one is correct. What's the difference?

To start, you have to delve into the meaning of the only word that changed. Men. It is a plural, of course. But, I'm almost surprised the definition in question still exists on the internet. The definition is basically the human race, when it isn't referring to a adult male human. In proper grammar, man is typically used when the gender of a human isn't known, in which the definition shifts to human kind. If you don't like the word human, try nhan loai or ihmisen.

But, in the second quote, it's capitalized. That is important to distinguish that it is indeed the human race definition. But, what about the word human. What is its etymology? Well, quite simply, it simply means belonging to man. Even older, it referred to the earthly being. Which was in contrast to the gods, which were not earthly beings.

But, this isn't about taking apart words that people may not like. It has more to do with that first phrase. It's been said the men who founded the United States were racists and sexists. But, there is nothing of note in the constitution that the United States currently operates under to state any woman or minority could not vote. It's quite easy to read, and those contexts do not exist in the original document.

Now, you may question if I was around Earth at this time. Probably. Was I paying attention? A little. Or, very little. Aushlin was around as well. He may have paid more attention. But, I have my doubts.

Who was the first president of the United States of America? I expect most would not be correct. It wasn't the guy the capital city was named after. Sorry, but that was several years after the United States came to be, albeit under a different government. They really didn't write the constitution in use on their first try. It took some failure before they got it more right. Maybe some help as well. Maybe some other time I'll look, again, at the Articles of Confederation. The name should give some idea.

Some of the words are also foreshadowing. Such as the creation of a more perfect union. They knew what they were creating wasn't perfect, but it was certainly better. It also has in its text ways to make it even more perfect, which has been abused quite a bit, and some would like it to be more abused. I've heard it said that laws are ways to enforce common morals for the uncommon. Not everyone will agree on what the common morals are without some guidance.

And, although I've stated this before, this is the difference between a democracy and a republic. A democracy will change on the whim of its citizenry to whatever fad is occurring, which can discriminate against a minority. A republic is much more likely to respect the rights of the minority. If you haven't noticed, minority doesn't necessarily mean fewer in population. Sometimes, it's just the quieter in thought.

The first articles are pretty self-explanatory. Congress makes laws, the executive (President) enforces them, and the judicial protects the minority from laws contrary to the constitution. This has been forgotten lately, but we'll get there later.

The amendments are more interesting. I'm not going to regurgitate the entire passages, they are still easy enough to find. But, be sure to have your paper copy.

The first establishes freedoms for speech, religion, press, and assembly. Peaceful assembly. The kind without fires and damaged buildings. This is one that many would like to see censored. The cautionary one here is that Congress shall make no law. Other forms of censorship weren't detailed, although likely implied just by the existence, and placement, of this amendment. This one is worth defending, even if it allows speech or religion or press that you disagree with.

And how to defend the first? With the second, naturally. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms. Arms is capitalized. That's important. As is the word bear. It simply means that any Arms you are carrying may be displayed in plain sight. There are two things that are a danger to governments. An educated people, and an armed people. Both are being eroded.

The third really doesn't play in modern times. But, there are laws that require a person to house a soldier that asks for accommodation. That was also a time that people would answer their doors when someone knocked on it.

The fourth prevents unlawful search and seizure. Basically, a government must secure a warrant with cause in order to enter your dwelling or other effects. This would have included a person's horse or buggy, and a car today. Why is this important? Although most people don't have anything to hide, it does help prevent a party in power from terrorizing those who disagree.

The fifth is about due process of law and the government compensating someone if it uses their property. This goes along with the fourth quite well, and protects the first two.

The sixth expands on this and requires a speedy and public trial. It was meant to prevent some colluding to target certain persons of interest and the planting of evidence. Or just clear discrimination. Unfortunately, since law has seen a windfall of money, this one doesn't provide the protections you would expect. Unless you're extremely wealthy.

The seventh is more continuation with the trial by jury. I find it interesting that there is a certain dollar amount called out in this amendment. Twenty dollars. No one has argued since a jury of peers is so easily procured to lean a certain direction.

The eighth prevents bail from being too high or to impose cruel and unusual punishment. This one has been greatly eroded. One persons cruel is another persons luxury. Perspective.

The ninth just states that they probably forgot a few rights, and those are protected here. This is part of the more perfect part.

The tenth is the one that people get confused. Especially lately. Simply put, any power not created by the constitution for the United States would be reserved for the states or its people. If the constitution doesn't state the federal government has authority, they the states have the authority. This was included to limit the power of the central government, preventing what the founding fathers had declared independence from just a few years before.

There are more amendments of course, but those are the originals. I'm only providing brief summaries, but everyone should read the entirety, and really take another look at what they see in the world.

There may be another reason Aushlin is just hanging out in space. And for me to be here.

Constitution, Part II

By now you're realizing I'm only summarizing the constitution of the United States, and not giving a lot of opinion. Yet.

So, let's continue.

The eleventh amendment pulls back some of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It was a fix.

The twelfth modifies, or better details, the roles of the electorate in presidential, and vice presidential, elections. It should be noted that how vice presidents were to be chosen is much different than today. Both were elected separately, and could be from two different political parties. I'm sure this was changed to reduce the risk of assassination, or it would reduce the risk in the current arena.

The thirteenth abolishes slavery, along with the fourteenth, which is much more wordy. The latter states that States may not pass laws removing the rights of Men, including life, liberty, and property. Of course, criminals are exempted directly. Again, more people should read this document. This is also the first amendment that gives voting rights only to males, aged twenty-one or older. And, they were the only ones counted. This amendment was not written by the Founding Fathers.

I'm going to go back a little, as I may have missed something important. Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government. There is more about protecting states from both foreign invasion and domestic violence. But, this statement should be compared to what you see in the news.

After the rather lengthy fourteenth, the fifteenth is back to normal. This amendment from the Civil War Era guarantees the right to vote regardless of race or color. No mention of sex.

The sixteenth is roughly forty years later and is the income tax amendment. I have a hard time believing people would vote for such a thing. But, you're stuck now.

The seventeenth amendment changes how senators are chosen. The Founding Fathers intended the state legislatures to select their senators, as they are seen as state representatives. This amendment changes that to have the senators elected by the voters directly. You may guess, but this probably wasn't the best idea, but it is from the same era that brought you the income tax amendment, and the next one.

The eighteenth is prohibition. Again, who would vote for this? The early nineteen hundreds seems to have some issues.

The nineteenth amendment finally explicitly states women may vote, and in turn, run for office. Again, gender was only mentioned in the constitution after the Civil War. The nineteenth was ratified in nineteen twenty.

The twentieth adds some dates for the terms of the President and representatives, and gives some verbiage for succession of power. Using many words.

The twenty first repeals the idiocy of the eighteenth, after a paltry fourteen years.

The twenty second was ratified just after World War II, or after treaties were signed ending major battles, whichever you agree with. This amendment limits the number of terms for a President. Interestingly, term limits for representatives were missing. Something about fish.

The twenty third allows the nation's capital to have electorates for presidential elections. Seems fitting, but also makes you wonder if the Founding Fathers had intended for the nation's capital to have full-time residents.

The twenty fourth prevented the removal of the right to vote by those who didn't pay taxes. This was specifically against polling taxes which were being implemented to either pay for elections or to prevent the poor from voting. You choose.

The twenty fifth deals more with succession of power and modifies Article II.

The twenty sixth lowers the voting age to eighteen.

The twenty seventh actually was written in seventeen eighty nine, but not ratified until nineteen ninety two. It states that the representatives that vote themselves a pay raise, don't receive that raise as it won't become affective until after the next election. Why it took so long is such a mystery.

Obviously, there are still mistakes in the constitution, and some things are missing. Those are topics for another day.