Truth & Consequences: Light the Way

Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations.   Netanyahu and his extremist regime is incompetent and corrupt, behaving more like a terrorist organization than leaders of a free and fair democratic nation.  

For far too long, both sides above have waged war on each other, killing innocent Jewish and Arab residents of Israel and surrounding nations.  The world deserves better.  

USA will work directly and with allies to protect innocents and hold accountable any and all who threaten peace, even in the name of defense.  

We will resist, not support, any person or government, who stands against our reasonable efforts for peace and justice.  “Enough.  Enough.  Enough.”  No more talk.  Action now.

Set out above is what USA should declare and enforce NOW. Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Iran, Lebanon have lost the right to use armed force against anyone directly or indirectly.

USA and its allies should use armed force against any of the above persons, groups or nations, who violate this No Fight Zone. This action involves risk. Inaction is a greater risk.

USA cannot make everyone happy in this dispute. We must do everything we reasonable can to ensure the right people are unhappy.

Trump has a Reverse Midas Touch.  He diminishes everyone and everything around him. His friends, enemies, associates, supporters, the nation that elected him president, the world … all are diminished, lessened.  

It is his superpower.

Like a Greek tragedy, his flawed character is his downfall.  Sic semper tyrannis is the wise motto of the state of Virginia.  All tyrants are inevitably overthrown.

When will we learn?  The lyrics of a poem by TS Eliot are made more poignant by singer/song writer/poet laureate Bob Dylan, paraphrased here, “How many times will politicians lie, before they’re forever banned? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.”

The poem and song are about the evil of war, and also applies to the evil of corrupt politicians.  The truth is all around us.  Look for real truth… not wishful thinking.  Be wise as servants, harmless as doves.  Trump, and his supporters, are good examples of what one should NOT be.  

Learn your lessons well.  Don’t be fooled again.  Listen to the music of the spheres.

The US Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade decision wrongly imposed federal law on states. The US Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization wrongly over-ruled Roe. Do two wrongs make a right? Nope. They just make two wrongs.

My Constitutional Law professor drove me nuts. He said over and over and over that the issue in every case was, “Who decides?” I was so tired of hearing that! After law school, when I went out into the Real World, I realized… he was right.

Roe vs Wade was wrongly decided. Nine unelected men, who do not live, work or vote in Texas, have no right to decide who can get an abortion in Texas. It’s Not… Their… Call. Only the State of Texas can decide whether/how a pregnant woman can get an abortion in the state of Texas. Not the US Supreme Court. Not Congress. Not the President. Not any other state.

We’re a Republic. That means the states decide some things; the federal government decides other things. As a Republic, under the US Constitution, the states decide everything that is not expressly delegated to the federal government. Said differently: UNLESS a power has been expressly delegated by the states to the federal government, then that power is NOT delegated to the federal government; it is retained by the states. The US Constitution makes that crystal clear.*

Nowhere in the Constitution is the power delegated to the federal government to decide whether to allow or restrict abortions. So, who decides? The state decides, not the feds. A plain reading of the US Constitution reveals that. No signor of the Constitution would have signed the document, if they knew the document would give the federal government the power to say every state must allow abortion.

The Roe case is not all wrong; it is half right and half wrong. Roe correctly holds that the only person, who can decide whether a pregnant woman can get an abortion, is the pregnant woman. She can consult with others, her doctor, her God, her neighbor, her hairdresser… It’s her call. Roe got that right.

However, the question of whether Roe could get that abortion in Texas is not her decision. Only the State of Texas decides that.

If the Supreme Court wrongly decided Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court must have correctly decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, right? Wrong! Once the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means, then that’s what it means. This is the principle called stare decisis, a Latin term meaning, “already decided.” As much as possible, we want to Supreme Court to be above partisan politics, so Supreme Court opinions don’t change when the judges change. Otherwise the Supreme Court goes back and forth depending on the prevailing politics. That’s very bad for the integrity of the Constitution and Supreme Court review of the Constitution.

That’s what wrong with the Dobbs case. The judges changed, so the law changed. That demeans the Supreme Court. To hold differently mean the Dobbs case is only the law until a new majority overturns Dobbs and re-instates Roe. That’s not the way the Supreme Court was designed to operate for very good reasons.

What should happen when the Supreme Court makes a mistake, like it did in Roe v Wade? Do we live with the mistake forever? Not necessarily. The Constitution can be amended by the people. It’s an involved process, as it should be, but there’s a process. It can happen quickly or slowly. It took more than a century to enact the 27th amendment. The 26th amendment took about four months start to finish.

Perhaps the worst Supreme Court decision in the history of Supreme Court decisions was Dred Scott v. Sandford, where the Justices unanimously decided that no black person, slave or free, could EVER be a citizen of the United States. We The People collectively said, “If that’s what the Constitution says, then we’ll change the Constitution.” And, we did. That’s the way it’s supposed to work.

So, who decides? Pregnant woman decides whether to have an abortion. Each state decides whether/how she can have an abortion in their state. Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means now. We the People decide what is means next.

Each state sorts out their own laws, and we the people of the USA sort out whether the Constitution should be amended. I pray that we can recognize that good people can have strong, passionate, and differing opinions about what the laws in a state should be. Everything works like it should under the Constitution when we follow the laws. Nothing works like it should when we don’t.

No violence or intimidation. No improper redistricting or gerrymandering. No voter suppression. Just good clean political “process” where both sides accept the political decision. If you don’t like it, work within the laws and political process to change it… or move to a state with laws you like.

Our national motto is E Pluribus Unum. “Out of many, One.” Out of many diverse states, comes one nation – The Republic of the United States of America. We don’t have to all have the same opinion. We don’t require uniformity, but we are united. It is why “the consent of the governed” works… for us… for everyone.

* “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” says the Tenth amendment, in the original Bill of Rights to the original US Constitution.

Putin could end it, as quickly as he started it, by giving the order.

World democracies have been tripping over themselves trying to convince Putin to do just that.  Clearly, stopping the invasion would be the right thing to do.

However, if Putin has shown us anything over the last two decades, it’s this:  he doesn’t care.  

He doesn’t care about doing the right thing, killing innocent men, women, children and babies, destroying entire cultures and nations, or committing unimaginable war crimes.  He doesn’t care about any of that. 

Putin cares only about one thing… POWER.

If he cannot control Ukraine for power, he will destroy it… for power.  Having failed to obtain Ukraine’s surrender, he will destroy it, making Ukraine, and every other nation, fear Putin and his power to destroy.

How do you negotiate with Putin?  You can’t.  He won’t.  At least he won’t until he’s finished destroying Ukraine.  Then, he will agree to cease fire and withdraw… mission accomplished for Putin.  

And, we should be happy with that?  I don’t think so.

The quickest, best, and maybe the only, way to end the war is for Ukraine and its allies to immediately stop trying to negotiate with Putin or his representatives.  Instead, tell Russia what we are going to do:  

We going to continue to help Ukraine defend itself and maintain economic sanctions against Russia, unless and until Russia does both of the following (words and promises don’t count):

• Cease hostilities and withdraw from all of Ukraine, and
• Surrender Putin and his wealth to Ukraine, to be held accountable for his war crimes.
  

You need the second condition to make the first meaningful.

Putin will never agree, of course.  But, that’s OK because we are not negotiating with Putin, remember?  We tell the Russian military, oligarchs, businesses and people, what we will do.  Now, they decide what they will do.

Sen. Graham said, “The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out.”  He should not say that.  It’s wrong for any US government official to say that.  

Instead, we say clearly and consistently that we’re not going to stop defending Ukraine and imposing sanctions until Putin is turned over.  Putin is not going to turn himself over.  Russians will figure out what they need to do.  They will know, Putin’s gotta go.  Don’t take him out; turn him over.

As long as Ukraine and its allies continue to talk with Putin or his representatives, they help Putin stay in power. As long as Putin remains in power, the Russian people will fear retaliation from him, and they will fear opposing him. 

By telling the Russian people what we are going to do, we give them an off-ramp… an exit strategy.  Turn him over. Be rid of Putin and his war.  The Russian people want peace.  This is Putin’s war, not theirs.

House of Representatives is the other half of Congress, larger than the Senate. The House is designed to be more “responsive” to its constituents, and the Senate more “deliberative.”

The entire House membership is up for election every two years. Senators serve staggered six-year terms so that approximately one-third of the Senate is up for election every two years.

Two Senators are elected at large from each state, regardless of population. Representatives are elected and serve a smaller district within a state, with the number of Representatives dependent upon the population.

The problem for Representatives is two-fold. The entire House membership is over-concerned with running for re-election each term, and the number of Representatives has grown too large for cohesive operations. The House started out with 65 members but has grown over the years to 435 members.

A constitutional amendment can reduce the number of Representatives to a more manageable 300 members. Election turmoil can be reduced by changing from 2-yr terms to 4-yr terms so that only half the membership is up for election, instead of every member, always running for election every term.

Reasonable term limits, in conjunction with Senate term limits, helps prevent members from becoming stale or overly concerned with lifetime re-election. The amendment can be made effective over the years so that no current member is unfairly removed from office. See text below.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding election and number of House of Representatives.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of each House concurring therein,

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

AMENDMENT. Revising the number and terms of members of the House of Representatives.

SECTION 1. The term of office for members of the House of Representatives shall be four years.  No Representative may serve more than three 4-year terms in office, whether said terms are consecutive or non-consecutive.  In no event may a Representative serve more than Twenty-Two (22) years combined service as a Representative and Senator.

SECTION 2. The election of Representatives shall occur on even-numbered years so that approximately half of the Representatives for each state shall be elected at each election.

SECTION 3. This amendment shall have prospective effect with regard to maximum years of service permitted.  Any Representative already serving, at the time this Amendment becomes effective, may continue to serve successive terms without limit.

SECTION 4. The number of Representatives shall be reduced from 435 to 300.  The process of apportioning the Representatives shall occur during an election year for the House of Representatives until the number of Representatives apportioned to the states is reduced to 300. 

SECTION 5. The process of apportioning the reduced Representatives shall be similar to the manner in which Representatives have been added.

SECTION 6. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The US Senate is a relatively exclusive and deliberative body, with the sole power to approve peace treaties and presidential appointments, including all federal judges and Supreme Court Justices. The Senate also has the sole power to try any federal officer who is impeached, including the President. Law passed by Congress must be approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate.

There are 100 Senators, two from each state, elected at large to represent the entire state. Since Senators have such important positions, it’s important that they represent a reasonable cross-section of the population.

The way the election process means the same heavily populated regions have great sway over the election of both senators, leaving less populated and rural areas with less influence over electing Senators for each state.

This can be fixed by a Constitutional amendment that requires one Senator from each state to be elected by residents of the most populous cities. The other Senator is elected by residents of the less populated areas and cities. Both Senators represent the entire state, but they are elected by separate urban and more rural areas. This would tend to make each state more balanced in the representation in the Senate.

Senators serve six-year terms without term limits. By increasing to eight-year terms, the election cycle can be less jarring to the body of the Senate, by putting up only 25% of the senators up for election.

By placing a maximum term limit of 22 years of combined service in House and Senate, the Senators will tend to be more responsive to current circumstances and less responsive to a desire to hold office for a lifetime. A proposed amendment is below.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment revising the electorate and terms of members of the Senate.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of each House concurring therein,

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

ARTICLE I

SECTION 1. The term of office for members of the Senate shall be eight years.  No Senator may serve more than two 8-year terms in office, whether said terms are consecutive or non-consecutive.  In no event may a Senator serve more than Twenty-Two (22) years combined service as a Representative and Senator.

SECTION 2. This amendment shall have prospective effect with regard to maximum years of service permitted.  Any Senator already serving, at the time this Amendment becomes effective, may continue to serve successive terms without limit.

SECTION 3. The election of Senators shall occur on even-numbered years.  As much as is reasonably practicable, approximately 25% of the Senate shall be elected in an election year, and only one Senator from a State shall be elected in an election year.

SECTION 4. In each state, one Senator shall be elected by residents of the most populous cities with a combined combination, which does not exceed one-half the population of that state.  The other Senator shall be elected by the remaining residents of cities, towns, and unincorporated or rural areas.  Both Senators shall represent the entire state.

SECTION 5. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Citizenship of the United States is a big deal.  At the founding of our nation, we had no history, no process for becoming a citizen.  It made sense to define citizenship broadly to include people born in the USA. 

The Supreme Court, in the worst decision in US history, held that no black person, born slave or free in the US, could ever be a US citizen.  See Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).  This egregious holding was a substantial factor for the civil war in 1861.  The decision was overturned by “we the people,” making a more perfect union, by adopting the 14th amendment, guaranteeing citizenship to all persons born in the US, without regard to race.

This birthright citizenship provision in the Constitution is no longer needed, a century and a half later, to protect from racial discrimination.  Many generations of birthright citizenship, has accomplished its intended purpose. Now, it has become inconsistent with the important status of citizenship itself.  A child born in the USA, even from parents who are illegal alien terrorists, is automatically a US citizen, without exception or argument to the contrary.

Birthright citizenship now has no merit and makes no sense.  Foreigners fly pregnant spouses to be temporarily in the US during childbirth, which automatically provides citizenship to the child, which then makes it extremely awkward for the parents to remain non-citizens.  Illegal aliens have the same motivation to unlawfully give birth in US, and then force the law to either grant citizenship to the parents, or at least take care of the illegal aliens’ child, who is now a US citizen, subject to all the rights, privileges and immunities that come with US citizenship.

Without regard to the issue of one’s approach to immigration, the issue of citizenship should be more intentionally decided.  The location of the mother at the instant of birth is of little or no consequence to the question of citizenship. All children born of US citizens should automatically be citizens, without regard to where they were born.  Aliens who go through the process of lawful naturalization should be citizens.  Children of non-citizens, without regard to where they were born, should be required to go through the same naturalization procedures as the parents.

Consistent with the examination of what it means to be a US citizen, there should also be a process that recognizes that citizenship comes with responsibilities.  There should be a procedure that takes away citizenship from a person who fails to meet these responsibilities.

This process should be limited and carefully controlled to avoid abuse and to provide equal protections essential to our founding principles.  To say a person retains status and protection of US citizenship, no matter how badly they abuse that right, is neither necessary nor appropriate.

The following amendment removes birthright citizenship and establishes a thoughtful and restricted process for taking citizenship away from persons who do not respect or deserve that continued special status.  Even those born in the US should be subject to this process in appropriate circumstances.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding presidential pardons.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of each House concurring therein,

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

ARTICLE I

SECTION 1. The 14th Amendment, Section 1, Clause 1, is amended to read:  “All persons born of citizens or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

SECTION 2. Any citizen of the United States shall no longer be citizens upon recommendation by the Governor and Attorney General of any state, the approval of the President of the United States, and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.

SECTION 3. The number of persons, of any race, religion or national origin, recommended for loss of citizenship in any state shall not exceed the proportional number of any members of the race, religion, or national origin of the population in the state.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Supreme Court decided in 2019, in a pair of cases before it, that partisan “gerrymandering” (drawing voting districts in a way that influences which party will win an election) is a political question “beyond the reach of the federal courts,” according to Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in a tight 5-4 opinion.

The problem with the holding is that gerrymandering prevents any fair political resolution to the problem. Courts will not fix the problem, leaving it to politics. Politics cannot fix the problem because gerrymandering prevents politics from operating in a fair manner.

The decision severely reduces an important 1962 decision in Baker vs Carr, which held that “one person, one vote” was so important, that courts should intervene when necessary to protect that principle. “Voters should choose their politicians, instead of politicians choosing their voters,” goes the argument.

We the People need to amend the Constitution to prevent improper gerrymandering, by establishing bipartisan Commissions to fairly draw legislative districts.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding Congressional districts.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of each House concurring therein,

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

ARTICLE 1. Each state shall establish districts, represented by members of Congress, by a nine-member Commission, composed of members chosen as follows:

1. Three members appointed by the political party with the highest percentage of registered voters
2. Three members appointed by the political party with the second-highest percentage of registered voters,
3. One member appointed by the political party with the third-highest percentage of registered voters,
4. One non-partisan member appointed by the Governor,
5. One non-partisan member appointed by the Presiding Judge of the state’s highest appellate court.
6. Within six years prior to their appointment, all members of the Commission shall not have been: (A) Candidates or elected officials to partisan state, federal, or local office. (B) Officers or members of the governing body of a national, state, or local political party. (C) Close family, registered lobbyist, or paid consultants or employees of a federal, state, or local elected official or political candidate, of a federal, state, or local political candidate’s campaign or political action committee.

ARTICLE 2. The Commission shall establish reasonable boundaries that are:

1. Compact and composed of contiguous territory,
2. Located on natural, political, or historical boundaries, or demographic changes,
3. Designed to include residents in a manner that appropriately considers and balances political party affiliations and other constituencies of the state,
4. Consistent with demographics and calculations to provide appropriate correlation to the principle that each person has an equal vote.

ARTICLE 3. The districts established by the Commission shall be certified by each Secretary of State, unless and until overturned by a federal court of competent jurisdiction on any material procedural error, or a substantive error that finds the decision to be so unfair as to be an abuse of discretion by the Commission.

ARTICLE 4. Each state shall have the power to establish rules and procedures for their Commission.

SECTION 5.  Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court holds that no state may restrict or ban abortions, according to a newly discovered right to privacy, implied in the US Constitution. The decision of whether to obtain an abortion is between a pregnant person and their doctor, and the state may not “interfere” with that decision by unreasonable restriction or ban of abortion.

The problem with the holding is that the Constitution makes no mention of any right of the federal government to make that decision. According to the Tenth Amendment, any power of the federal government must be expressly stated in the Constitution, or the power remains with the state or the people, not the federal government.

No signer of the Constitution would have signed the original Constitution and first Ten Amendments if there were an express provision giving the federal government the power to prohibit states from restricting or banning abortions. Therefore, the power of the federal government to restrict or ban abortions is neither express or implied in the US Constitution. The decision in Roe vs Wade is legally and intellectually without merit.

It might be argued that the decision of whether to seek an abortion is between the pregnant person and their doctor. Nevertheless, the question, of whether and how an abortion can occur within a state, can only be decided by the state and the people of that state. Neither the Supreme Court, Congress, the President or the people in another state, can restrict or ban the state’s right to regulate or ban abortion activity within that state.

An amendment correcting the holding in Roe vs Wade is proposed below:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding abortions and over-turning the holding in US Supreme Court case of Roe vs Wade, and any other court case, law or administrative rule that is inconsistent with this amendment.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of each House concurring therein,

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

ARTICLE I

SECTION 1. The power to limit, restrict or regulate whether and how abortions may be performed within a state, is reserved to the States respectively.

SECTION 2. The federal government may not expend federal funds from taxed imposed upon states, to perform or support abortions in any state, unless and until abortions are permitted in all states, and only as consistent with the laws in all states.

SECTION 3. A State may not regulate or restrict a person’s ability to obtain an abortion outside the state.

SECTION 4. No federal, state or local government shall enact or enforce any law inconsistent with this article.  Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 

In Citizens United vs FEC, the Supreme Court protects free speech rights. But, the decision guts our ability to track and control money in politics: (1) dark money in politics has exploded, and (2) the rich/powerful control elections like never before in the history of our country.

The reasoning of the court was that laws restricting political contributions run afoul of free speech protections.

We need a constitutional amendment that balances the importance of free and fair elections with the importance of free speech.

The text of the proposed amendment below provides that balance, restricting contributions to persons, not corporations or labor unions or other entities. The text also prevents out of state contributions. Finally, the amendment sets some reasonable limits on the amount that an individual can contribute, so that no one person exercises excessive influence over any candidate or campaign.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding political contributions.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of each House concurring therein,

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

ARTICLE I

SECTION 1. Free, fair and representative elections and governing processes are essential to the proper functioning of our nation.  Free speech protections under the First Amendment, and any other federal or state constitutional or statutory provisions, shall not bar reasonable laws or regulations that are intended to protect the governing process of federal, state and local governments and to ensure the government of the people, by the people, for the people.

SECTION 2. Congress, states and local governments shall provide reasonable laws and protections to maintain the integrity of the election and governing process to ensure that individual persons elect representatives who are appropriately responsive to all the people. 

SECTION 3. Only individual persons may provide financial or in-kind contributions to election campaigns of candidates and issues.  A corporation is not a person allowed to contribute to election campaigns or candidates.  No corporation, union, or other association or entity may provide financial or in-kind contributions in support of political campaigns for candidates or issues.

SECTION 4.  In federal, state or local elections, only individual persons, residing within that state, congressional district, or local jurisdiction, may contribute to campaigns or candidates in that state, congressional district or local jurisdiction.

SECTION 5.  Candidates for elected or appointed federal office may not solicit funds, in person or by any form of direct or indirect communication, for their campaigns for election.

SECTION 6. Contributions to a candidate or campaign may not exceed $10,000 per person for any statewide national candidate or campaign, $5,000 for any congressional candidate or campaign, and $2,500 for any local candidate or issue.  In determining the amount contributed by a person, the amount shall be the accumulated sums since the last general election and prior to the general election for the campaign for which the contribution is made.  No person may contribute through, or on behalf of another person. 

SECTION 7. The contribution restrictions herein apply to direct, indirect or in-kind financial contributions or services, including but not limited to, any advertising or publication of any kind or nature, whether print, broadcast, books, telecommunications or media campaigns reasonably and objectively determined to be campaign activity.

SECTION 8. This article shall apply to independent or third-party expenditures for communications relating to candidates or campaigns reasonably and objectively intended to promote or oppose any candidate or issue. 

SECTION 9. The essential right to free and ethical elections shall not inappropriately intrude upon the rights to free expression and assembly described in the first amendment herein and other related provisions in this Constitution or federal or state laws.

SECTION 10. The right to free expression, equal protection, freedom of assembly, or any other right expressed or implied in this Constitution, shall not inappropriately intrude upon the essential right to free and fair elections of appropriately responsive candidates, set forth herein.

A. Nothing in this article shall prevent persons, corporations or other associations from exercising their right of free speech, through books, movies, videos, websites, or any other medium where persons choose to see or hear the communication, so long as those rights to not inappropriately intrude upon the essential rights described in this section. 

B. Whether a communication above is appropriately protected speech or appropriately restricted campaign communication or activity is a judgment to be made by the courts of competent jurisdiction, looking at the intent of the restrictions and reasonably and objectively understood results of the publication or activity, without regard to the subjective intent of the persons involved in the publication or activity. 

C. Any person, corporation or other association, which communicates or publishes for communication for purposes described above, shall reasonably and appropriately disclose the identities of all corporations, unions and associations involved in producing the communication, their role(s) in production, the financial and in-kind expenditures made in the production, and all of the persons, corporations or other associations, who own or have any interests in any corporation or association.  All persons, including shareholders, partners, limited partners or other entities or structures, shall be disclosed so that the identities of all persons involved in the production is disclosed.

SECTION 11. No state or local government may enact or enforce any law inconsistent with this article.  Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation, including, but not limited to, barring a candidate from assuming office, or removing a candidate from office after an election.  Nothing in this article shall prohibit public funding for campaigns of elected officials.